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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical medicine (London, England) England), 2003-11, Vol.3 (6), p.556-559
Hauptverfasser: Perrin, Felicity, Renshaw, Mark, Turton, Charles
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&amp;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