Você pesquisou por y - Critical Care Science (CCS)
You searched for:"Cinara Carneiro Neves"
We found (2) results for your search.
, , , , , Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2024;36:e20240021en
09-03-2024
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240021-en
, , , , , , , , , The issue of withrawing and withholding life-sustaining interventions is an important source of controversy among healthcare professionals caring for patients with serious illnesses. Misguided decisions, both in terms of the introduction/maintenance and the withdrawal/withholding of these measures, represent a source of avoidable suffering for patients, their loved ones, and healthcare professionals. This document represents the position statement of the Bioethics Committee of the Brazilian Palliative Care Academy on this issue and establishes seven principles to guide, from a bioethical perspective, the approach to situations related to this topic in the context of palliative care in Brazil. The position statement establishes the equivalence between the withdrawal and withholding of life-sustaining interventions and the inadequacy related to initiating or maintaining such measures in contexts where they are in disagreement with the values and care goals defined together with patients and their families. Additionally, the position statement distinguishes strictly futile treatments from potentially inappropriate treatments and elucidates their critical implications for the appropriateness of the medical decision-making process in this context. Finally, we address the issue of conscientious objection and its limits, determine that the ethical commitment to the relief of suffering should not be influenced by the decision to employ or not employ life-sustaining interventions and warn against the use of language that causes patients/families to believe that only one of the available options related to the use or nonuse of these interventions will enable the relief of suffering.
Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2024;36:e20240021en
09-03-2024
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240021-en
, , , , , , , , , The issue of withrawing and withholding life-sustaining interventions is an important source of controversy among healthcare professionals caring for patients with serious illnesses. Misguided decisions, both in terms of the introduction/maintenance and the withdrawal/withholding of these measures, represent a source of avoidable suffering for patients, their loved ones, and healthcare professionals. This document represents the position statement of the Bioethics Committee of the Brazilian Palliative Care Academy on this issue and establishes seven principles to guide, from a bioethical perspective, the approach to situations related to this topic in the context of palliative care in Brazil. The position statement establishes the equivalence between the withdrawal and withholding of life-sustaining interventions and the inadequacy related to initiating or maintaining such measures in contexts where they are in disagreement with the values and care goals defined together with patients and their families. Additionally, the position statement distinguishes strictly futile treatments from potentially inappropriate treatments and elucidates their critical implications for the appropriateness of the medical decision-making process in this context. Finally, we address the issue of conscientious objection and its limits, determine that the ethical commitment to the relief of suffering should not be influenced by the decision to employ or not employ life-sustaining interventions and warn against the use of language that causes patients/families to believe that only one of the available options related to the use or nonuse of these interventions will enable the relief of suffering.
, , , , , Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2023;35(1):57-65
06-05-2023
DOI 10.5935/2965-2774.20230350-en
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , To assess Brazilian pediatric intensivists’ general knowledge of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, including evidence for its use, the national funding model, indications, and complications.
This was a multicenter cross-sectional survey including 45 Brazilian pediatric intensive care units. A convenience sample of 654 intensivists was surveyed regarding their knowledge on managing patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, its indications, complications, funding, and literature evidence.
The survey addressed questions regarding the knowledge and experience of pediatric intensivists with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, including two clinical cases and 6 optional questions about the management of patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Of the 45 invited centers, 42 (91%) participated in the study, and 412 of 654 (63%) pediatric intensivists responded to the survey. Most pediatric intensive care units were from the Southeast region of Brazil (59.5%), and private/for-profit hospitals represented 28.6% of the participating centers. The average age of respondents was 41.4 (standard deviation 9.1) years, and the majority (77%) were women. Only 12.4% of respondents had taken an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation course. Only 19% of surveyed hospitals have an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation program, and only 27% of intensivists reported having already managed patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Specific extracorporeal membrane oxygenation management questions were responded to by only 64 physicians (15.5%), who had a fair/good correct response rate (median 63.4%; range 32.8% to 91.9%).
Most Brazilian pediatric intensivists demonstrated limited knowledge regarding extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, including its indications and complications. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is not yet widely available in Brazil, with few intensivists prepared to manage patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and even fewer intensivists recognizing when to refer patients to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation centers.
Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2023;35(1):57-65
06-05-2023
DOI 10.5935/2965-2774.20230350-en
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , To assess Brazilian pediatric intensivists’ general knowledge of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, including evidence for its use, the national funding model, indications, and complications.
This was a multicenter cross-sectional survey including 45 Brazilian pediatric intensive care units. A convenience sample of 654 intensivists was surveyed regarding their knowledge on managing patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, its indications, complications, funding, and literature evidence.
The survey addressed questions regarding the knowledge and experience of pediatric intensivists with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, including two clinical cases and 6 optional questions about the management of patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Of the 45 invited centers, 42 (91%) participated in the study, and 412 of 654 (63%) pediatric intensivists responded to the survey. Most pediatric intensive care units were from the Southeast region of Brazil (59.5%), and private/for-profit hospitals represented 28.6% of the participating centers. The average age of respondents was 41.4 (standard deviation 9.1) years, and the majority (77%) were women. Only 12.4% of respondents had taken an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation course. Only 19% of surveyed hospitals have an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation program, and only 27% of intensivists reported having already managed patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Specific extracorporeal membrane oxygenation management questions were responded to by only 64 physicians (15.5%), who had a fair/good correct response rate (median 63.4%; range 32.8% to 91.9%).
Most Brazilian pediatric intensivists demonstrated limited knowledge regarding extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, including its indications and complications. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is not yet widely available in Brazil, with few intensivists prepared to manage patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and even fewer intensivists recognizing when to refer patients to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation centers.
