Participation of French general practitioners in end-of-life decisions for their hospitalised patients
Background and objective: Assuming the hypothesis that the general practitioner (GP) can and should be a key player in making end-of-life decisions for hospitalised patients, perceptions of GPs’ role assigned to them by hospital doctors in making withdrawal decisions for such patients were surveyed....
| Authors: | ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
BMJ Publ.
2006
|
| In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2006, Volume: 32, Issue: 12, Pages: 683-687 |
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Background and objective: Assuming the hypothesis that the general practitioner (GP) can and should be a key player in making end-of-life decisions for hospitalised patients, perceptions of GPs’ role assigned to them by hospital doctors in making withdrawal decisions for such patients were surveyed. Design: Questionnaire survey. Setting: Urban (districts located near Paris) and rural (southern France) areas. Participants: GPs. Results: The response rate was 32.2% (161/500), and it was observed that 70.8% of respondents believed that their participation in withdrawal decisions for their hospitalised patients was essential, whereas 42.1% believed that the hospital doctors were sufficiently skilled to make withdrawal decisions without input from the GPs. Most respondents were found to believe that they had the necessary skills (91.9%) and enough time (87.6%) to participate in withdrawal decisions. The last case of treatment withdrawal in hospital for one of their patients was described by 40% (65/161) of respondents, of whom only 40.0% (26/65) believed that they had participated actively in the decision process. The major factors in the multivariate analysis were the GP’s strong belief that his or her participation was essential (p = 0.01), information on admission of the patient given to the GP by the hospital department (p = 0.007), rural practice (p = 0.03), visit to the patient dying in hospital (p = 0.02) and a request by the family to be kept informed about the patient (p = 0.003). Conclusion: Strong interest was evinced among GPs regarding end-of-life issues, as well as considerable experience of patients dying at home. As GPs are more closely corrected to patients’ families, they may be a good choice for third-party intervention in making end-of-life decisions for hospitalised patients. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1473-4257 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.014084 |