Clinical decision-making and mechanical ventilation in patients with respiratory failure due to an exacerbation of COPD
This paper reports a study undertaken to determine whether differences exist in practice between respiratory physicians, general physicians and intensivists or between individual clinicians in initiating mechanical ventilation in respiratory failure due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical medicine (London, England) England), 2003-11, Vol.3 (6), p.556-559 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 559 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 556 |
container_title | Clinical medicine (London, England) |
container_volume | 3 |
creator | Perrin, Felicity Renshaw, Mark Turton, Charles |
description | This paper reports a study undertaken to determine whether differences exist in practice between respiratory physicians, general physicians and intensivists or between individual clinicians in initiating mechanical ventilation in respiratory failure due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the factors influencing decisionmaking and their relation to the evidence base. Of 725 questionnaires sent to clinicians, 350 (48%) were completed and analysed. Twenty-five variables were included which clinicians scored 0–3 according to their perceived relevance in the decision. The sum of all the responses was calculated for each clinician: respiratory 15–68, general 12–65, intensivists 16–64. The most important variables in withholding ventilation were lung cancer inoperable due to COPD, and nursing home resident. The least important variables were treated depression and osteoporosis. No significant differences existed in practice between specialties but there were great differences between individuals’ practices. Clinicians were influenced by similar factors, but these did not reflect documented poor outcome predictors. Guidelines are needed. |
doi_str_mv | 10.7861/clinmedicine.3-6-556 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4952584</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1470211824028859</els_id><sourcerecordid>71504894</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c489t-9c2fa02acba96d1d0441ce4f0fc77afce9a42db62034f01ea48676adbd0d1e093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UU1vFDEMjRCIlsI_QCgXuE1JJpmvCxJayodUqT2Uc-RJPN3ATLIkM9v23-NlV2y5cLJlPz8_-zH2Worzpq3lezv6MKHz1gc8V0VdVFX9hJ1K3ahCt516-icXRSlle8Je5PxDCFnprn7OTnYNJVR7yu5WROMtjNyh9dnHUEzw04dbDsHxCe0a9u0thtmPMBOC-8A3lFEl8zs_r3nCvPEJ5pge-AB-XBJytyCfI9FwvAeLqd_PxoGvrq4_vWTPBhgzvjrEM_b988XN6mtxefXl2-rjZWHphrnobDmAKMH20NVOOqG1tKgHMdimgcFiB7p0fV0KRUWJoNu6qcH1TjiJolNn7MOed7P09C1LmhOMZpP8BOnBRPDm307wa3Mbt0Z3VVm1mgjeHQhS_LVgns3ks8VxhIBxyaaRlSCpO6DeA22KOScc_i6RwuwcM48dM8rUhhyjsTePBR6HDhYR4O0BAJmMGBIEMuqIq5TqSMLxUqR3bj0mky1ZZGlhQjsbF_3_lfwG2Xi9Xg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71504894</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical decision-making and mechanical ventilation in patients with respiratory failure due to an exacerbation of COPD</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Perrin, Felicity ; Renshaw, Mark ; Turton, Charles</creator><creatorcontrib>Perrin, Felicity ; Renshaw, Mark ; Turton, Charles</creatorcontrib><description>This paper reports a study undertaken to determine whether differences exist in practice between respiratory physicians, general physicians and intensivists or between individual clinicians in initiating mechanical ventilation in respiratory failure due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the factors influencing decisionmaking and their relation to the evidence base. Of 725 questionnaires sent to clinicians, 350 (48%) were completed and analysed. Twenty-five variables were included which clinicians scored 0–3 according to their perceived relevance in the decision. The sum of all the responses was calculated for each clinician: respiratory 15–68, general 12–65, intensivists 16–64. The most important variables in withholding ventilation were lung cancer inoperable due to COPD, and nursing home resident. The least important variables were treated depression and osteoporosis. No significant differences existed in practice between specialties but there were great differences between individuals’ practices. Clinicians were influenced by similar factors, but these did not reflect documented poor outcome predictors. Guidelines are needed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1470-2118</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1473-4893</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.3-6-556</identifier><identifier>PMID: 14703038</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel ; Biology ; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) ; Critical Care ; Decision Making ; Diseases ; Diverse therapeutics ; Family Practice ; Health Care Surveys ; History of science and technology ; Humans ; intensive care ; Life sciences ; Medicine; surgery; pharmacy ; Original Papers ; Pathology ; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive - complications ; Pulmonary Medicine ; Respiration, Artificial ; Respiratory Insufficiency - etiology ; Respiratory Insufficiency - therapy ; Therapeutics ; ventilation</subject><ispartof>Clinical medicine (London, England), 2003-11, Vol.3 (6), p.556-559</ispartof><rights>2003 © 2003 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier Limited on behalf of the Royal College of Physicians.</rights><rights>2004 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>2003 Royal College of Physicians 2003</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c489t-9c2fa02acba96d1d0441ce4f0fc77afce9a42db62034f01ea48676adbd0d1e093</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4952584/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4952584/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=15339504$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14703038$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Perrin, Felicity</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Renshaw, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turton, Charles</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical decision-making and mechanical ventilation in patients with respiratory failure due to an exacerbation of COPD</title><title>Clinical medicine (London, England)</title><addtitle>Clin Med (Lond)</addtitle><description>This paper reports a study undertaken to determine whether differences exist in practice between respiratory physicians, general physicians and intensivists or between individual clinicians in initiating mechanical ventilation in respiratory failure due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the factors influencing decisionmaking and their relation to the evidence base. Of 725 questionnaires sent to clinicians, 350 (48%) were completed and analysed. Twenty-five variables were included which clinicians scored 0–3 according to their perceived relevance in the decision. The sum of all the responses was calculated for each clinician: respiratory 15–68, general 12–65, intensivists 16–64. The most important variables in withholding ventilation were lung cancer inoperable due to COPD, and nursing home resident. The least important variables were treated depression and osteoporosis. No significant differences existed in practice between specialties but there were great differences between individuals’ practices. Clinicians were influenced by similar factors, but these did not reflect documented poor outcome predictors. Guidelines are needed.</description><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Biology</subject><subject>chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)</subject><subject>Critical Care</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Diseases</subject><subject>Diverse therapeutics</subject><subject>Family Practice</subject><subject>Health Care Surveys</subject><subject>History of science and technology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>intensive care</subject><subject>Life sciences</subject><subject>Medicine; surgery; pharmacy</subject><subject>Original Papers</subject><subject>Pathology</subject><subject>Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive - complications</subject><subject>Pulmonary Medicine</subject><subject>Respiration, Artificial</subject><subject>Respiratory Insufficiency - etiology</subject><subject>Respiratory Insufficiency - therapy</subject><subject>Therapeutics</subject><subject>ventilation</subject><issn>1470-2118</issn><issn>1473-4893</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UU1vFDEMjRCIlsI_QCgXuE1JJpmvCxJayodUqT2Uc-RJPN3ATLIkM9v23-NlV2y5cLJlPz8_-zH2Worzpq3lezv6MKHz1gc8V0VdVFX9hJ1K3ahCt516-icXRSlle8Je5PxDCFnprn7OTnYNJVR7yu5WROMtjNyh9dnHUEzw04dbDsHxCe0a9u0thtmPMBOC-8A3lFEl8zs_r3nCvPEJ5pge-AB-XBJytyCfI9FwvAeLqd_PxoGvrq4_vWTPBhgzvjrEM_b988XN6mtxefXl2-rjZWHphrnobDmAKMH20NVOOqG1tKgHMdimgcFiB7p0fV0KRUWJoNu6qcH1TjiJolNn7MOed7P09C1LmhOMZpP8BOnBRPDm307wa3Mbt0Z3VVm1mgjeHQhS_LVgns3ks8VxhIBxyaaRlSCpO6DeA22KOScc_i6RwuwcM48dM8rUhhyjsTePBR6HDhYR4O0BAJmMGBIEMuqIq5TqSMLxUqR3bj0mky1ZZGlhQjsbF_3_lfwG2Xi9Xg</recordid><startdate>20031101</startdate><enddate>20031101</enddate><creator>Perrin, Felicity</creator><creator>Renshaw, Mark</creator><creator>Turton, Charles</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Royal College of Physicians</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20031101</creationdate><title>Clinical decision-making and mechanical ventilation in patients with respiratory failure due to an exacerbation of COPD</title><author>Perrin, Felicity ; Renshaw, Mark ; Turton, Charles</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c489t-9c2fa02acba96d1d0441ce4f0fc77afce9a42db62034f01ea48676adbd0d1e093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Biology</topic><topic>chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)</topic><topic>Critical Care</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Diseases</topic><topic>Diverse therapeutics</topic><topic>Family Practice</topic><topic>Health Care Surveys</topic><topic>History of science and technology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>intensive care</topic><topic>Life sciences</topic><topic>Medicine; surgery; pharmacy</topic><topic>Original Papers</topic><topic>Pathology</topic><topic>Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive - complications</topic><topic>Pulmonary Medicine</topic><topic>Respiration, Artificial</topic><topic>Respiratory Insufficiency - etiology</topic><topic>Respiratory Insufficiency - therapy</topic><topic>Therapeutics</topic><topic>ventilation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Perrin, Felicity</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Renshaw, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turton, Charles</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Clinical medicine (London, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Perrin, Felicity</au><au>Renshaw, Mark</au><au>Turton, Charles</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical decision-making and mechanical ventilation in patients with respiratory failure due to an exacerbation of COPD</atitle><jtitle>Clinical medicine (London, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Med (Lond)</addtitle><date>2003-11-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>3</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>556</spage><epage>559</epage><pages>556-559</pages><issn>1470-2118</issn><eissn>1473-4893</eissn><abstract>This paper reports a study undertaken to determine whether differences exist in practice between respiratory physicians, general physicians and intensivists or between individual clinicians in initiating mechanical ventilation in respiratory failure due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the factors influencing decisionmaking and their relation to the evidence base. Of 725 questionnaires sent to clinicians, 350 (48%) were completed and analysed. Twenty-five variables were included which clinicians scored 0–3 according to their perceived relevance in the decision. The sum of all the responses was calculated for each clinician: respiratory 15–68, general 12–65, intensivists 16–64. The most important variables in withholding ventilation were lung cancer inoperable due to COPD, and nursing home resident. The least important variables were treated depression and osteoporosis. No significant differences existed in practice between specialties but there were great differences between individuals’ practices. Clinicians were influenced by similar factors, but these did not reflect documented poor outcome predictors. Guidelines are needed.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>14703038</pmid><doi>10.7861/clinmedicine.3-6-556</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1470-2118 |
ispartof | Clinical medicine (London, England), 2003-11, Vol.3 (6), p.556-559 |
issn | 1470-2118 1473-4893 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4952584 |
source | MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Attitude of Health Personnel Biology chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Critical Care Decision Making Diseases Diverse therapeutics Family Practice Health Care Surveys History of science and technology Humans intensive care Life sciences Medicine surgery pharmacy Original Papers Pathology Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive - complications Pulmonary Medicine Respiration, Artificial Respiratory Insufficiency - etiology Respiratory Insufficiency - therapy Therapeutics ventilation |
title | Clinical decision-making and mechanical ventilation in patients with respiratory failure due to an exacerbation of COPD |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T13%3A42%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20decision-making%20and%20mechanical%20ventilation%20in%20patients%20with%20respiratory%20failure%20due%20to%20an%20exacerbation%20of%20COPD&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20medicine%20(London,%20England)&rft.au=Perrin,%20Felicity&rft.date=2003-11-01&rft.volume=3&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=556&rft.epage=559&rft.pages=556-559&rft.issn=1470-2118&rft.eissn=1473-4893&rft_id=info:doi/10.7861/clinmedicine.3-6-556&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E71504894%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=71504894&rft_id=info:pmid/14703038&rft_els_id=S1470211824028859&rfr_iscdi=true |