AMBIENTUM BIOETHICA BIOLOGIA CHEMIA DIGITALIA DRAMATICA EDUCATIO ARTIS GYMNAST. ENGINEERING EPHEMERIDES EUROPAEA GEOGRAPHIA GEOLOGIA HISTORIA HISTORIA ARTIUM INFORMATICA IURISPRUDENTIA MATHEMATICA MUSICA NEGOTIA OECONOMICA PHILOLOGIA PHILOSOPHIA PHYSICA POLITICA PSYCHOLOGIA-PAEDAGOGIA SOCIOLOGIA THEOLOGIA CATHOLICA THEOLOGIA CATHOLICA LATIN THEOLOGIA GR.-CATH. VARAD THEOLOGIA ORTHODOXA THEOLOGIA REF. TRANSYLVAN
Rezumat articol ediţie STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI
În partea de jos este prezentat rezumatul articolului selectat. Pentru revenire la cuprinsul ediţiei din care face parte acest articol, se accesează linkul din titlu. Pentru vizualizarea tuturor articolelor din arhivă la care este autor/coautor unul din autorii de mai jos, se accesează linkul din numele autorului.
Autori: HARLEEN JOHAL.
DOI: 10.24193/subbbioethica.2021.spiss.63
Published Online: 2021-06-30
Published Print: 2021-06-30
pp.99-100
FULL PDF
ABSTRACT: Parallel Session I, Room 3 Background: Conflict is unfortunately well-documented in the adult intensive care unit (AICU). In the context of end-of-life (EOL) decision-making (i.e. the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment), conflict commonly occurs when a consensus cannot be reached between the healthcare team and the patient’s family on the “best interests” of the critically ill, incapacitated patient, as per England’s Mental Capacity Act 2005. Whilst existing literature has identified potential routes for conflict resolution, it is less clear how these approaches are perceived and utilised by stakeholders in the EOL decision-making process. Aim: We aim to explore this by systematically reviewing and synthesising the published evidence, which addresses the following research question: what does existing qualitative research reveal about physician approaches to addressing conflict arising in EOL decisions in the AICU? Methods: Peer-reviewed qualitative studies (retrieved from MEDLINE, Project Muse, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS) examining conflict and dispute resolution in the context of EOL decisions in the AICU setting will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen for eligibility and extract data from either all or 10% of the included studies, with a third reviewer independently screening studies of uncertain eligibility. The ‘thematic synthesis’ approach will be utilised to analyse the resulting data (Thomas & Harden, 2008). The systematic review is currently underway, laying the foundations for a larger empirical study, undertaken for a PhD, funded by the Wellcome Trust BABEL (Balancing Best Interests in Healthcare, Ethics, and Law) Collaborative Award. The results will be presented at the conference.
