Scholarlink

Background <p>Treatment goal limitations, such as “do not resuscitate”, “do not escalate” and “comfort terminal care” are frequent in acute hospital care for patients with advanced illness, multimorbidity or impending death. Their ethical defensibility depends on transparent documentation of medical indications, proportionality and, where relevant, patient will.</p> Objective <p>To examine whether documentation made medical rationale, patient will, advance directives, relatives’ involvement or ethics consultation visible.</p> Methods <p>We retrospectively analyzed documentation in an Austrian internal medicine department with intensive care over 12&#xa0;months. Documents were identified in the hospital information system and descriptively analyzed. Deceased patients with documented limitations underwent manual review.</p> <p>Data were anonymized and analyzed using Microsoft Excel for Microsoft 365 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and IBM SPSS Statistics, version 29 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).</p> Results <p>Across 3998 inpatient stays involving 1829 patients, 277 patients had a&#xa0;documented treatment goal limitation (15.1%). Among 174 deceased patients, 111 had a&#xa0;documented limitation at death (63.8%). The most frequent order was combined do not resuscitate/do not escalate (75/111; 67.6%), followed by isolated do not resuscitate (23/111; 20.7%). Complete records were available for 101 cases; in&#xa0;10 the rationale was not clearly traceable. Among the 101 manually reviewed cases, an explicit or presumed patient will was documented in 7&#xa0;cases (6.9%), involvement of relatives in 13&#xa0;cases (12.9%) and ethics consultation in 1&#xa0;case (1.0%); medical rationale or physician decision was documented in 90&#xa0;of 91&#xa0;cases with traceable rationale (98.9%).</p> Conclusion <p>Treatment goal limitations were common and usually medically justified in the records. The findings do not imply inappropriate decisions or lack of communication but show limited reconstruction of patient-centered reasoning. Documentation should make clearer how benefit, care, respect for autonomy and justice informed treatment limitation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Treatment goal limitations in acute hospital care

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月29日

查看全文
  • Thomas Fuchs,
  • Thomas Gremsl

摘要

Background

Treatment goal limitations, such as “do not resuscitate”, “do not escalate” and “comfort terminal care” are frequent in acute hospital care for patients with advanced illness, multimorbidity or impending death. Their ethical defensibility depends on transparent documentation of medical indications, proportionality and, where relevant, patient will.

Objective

To examine whether documentation made medical rationale, patient will, advance directives, relatives’ involvement or ethics consultation visible.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed documentation in an Austrian internal medicine department with intensive care over 12 months. Documents were identified in the hospital information system and descriptively analyzed. Deceased patients with documented limitations underwent manual review.

Data were anonymized and analyzed using Microsoft Excel for Microsoft 365 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and IBM SPSS Statistics, version 29 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Across 3998 inpatient stays involving 1829 patients, 277 patients had a documented treatment goal limitation (15.1%). Among 174 deceased patients, 111 had a documented limitation at death (63.8%). The most frequent order was combined do not resuscitate/do not escalate (75/111; 67.6%), followed by isolated do not resuscitate (23/111; 20.7%). Complete records were available for 101 cases; in 10 the rationale was not clearly traceable. Among the 101 manually reviewed cases, an explicit or presumed patient will was documented in 7 cases (6.9%), involvement of relatives in 13 cases (12.9%) and ethics consultation in 1 case (1.0%); medical rationale or physician decision was documented in 90 of 91 cases with traceable rationale (98.9%).

Conclusion

Treatment goal limitations were common and usually medically justified in the records. The findings do not imply inappropriate decisions or lack of communication but show limited reconstruction of patient-centered reasoning. Documentation should make clearer how benefit, care, respect for autonomy and justice informed treatment limitation.