Hyppää sisältöön
    • Suomeksi
    • In English
Trepo
  • Suomeksi
  • In English
  • Kirjaudu
Näytä viite 
  •   Etusivu
  • Trepo
  • TUNICRIS-julkaisut
  • Näytä viite
  •   Etusivu
  • Trepo
  • TUNICRIS-julkaisut
  • Näytä viite
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Advising and limiting medical treatment during phone consultation: a prospective multicentre study in HEMS settings

Kangasniemi, Heidi; Setälä, Piritta; Huhtala, Heini; Olkinuora, Anna; Kämäräinen, Antti; Virkkunen, Ilkka; Tirkkonen, Joonas; Yli-Hankala, Arvi; Jämsen, Esa; Hoppu, Sanna (2022-03)

 
Avaa tiedosto
s13049_022_01002_8.pdf (1.186Mt)
Lataukset: 



Kangasniemi, Heidi
Setälä, Piritta
Huhtala, Heini
Olkinuora, Anna
Kämäräinen, Antti
Virkkunen, Ilkka
Tirkkonen, Joonas
Yli-Hankala, Arvi
Jämsen, Esa
Hoppu, Sanna
03 / 2022

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
16
doi:10.1186/s13049-022-01002-8
Näytä kaikki kuvailutiedot
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202204113153

Kuvaus

Peer reviewed
Tiivistelmä
<p>Background: We investigated paramedic-initiated consultation calls and advice given via telephone by Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) physicians focusing on limitations of medical treatment (LOMT). Methods: A prospective multicentre study was conducted on four physician-staffed HEMS bases in Finland during a 6-month period. Results: Of all 6115 (mean 8.4/base/day) paramedic-initiated consultation calls, 478 (7.8%) consultation calls involving LOMTs were included: 268 (4.4%) cases with a pre-existing LOMT, 165 (2.7%) cases where the HEMS physician issued a new LOMT and 45 (0.7%) cases where the patient already had an LOMT and the physician further issued another LOMT. The most common new limitation was a do-not-attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) order (n = 122/210, 58%) and/or ‘not eligible for intensive care’ (n = 96/210, 46%). In 49 (23%) calls involving a new LOMT, termination of an initiated resuscitation attempt was the only newly issued LOMT. The most frequent reasons for issuing an LOMT during consultations were futility of the overall situation (71%), poor baseline functional status (56%), multiple/severe comorbidities (56%) and old age (49%). In the majority of cases (65%) in which the HEMS physician issued a new LOMT for a patient without any pre-existing LOMT, the physician felt that the patient should have already had an LOMT. The patient was in a health care facility or a nursing home in half (49%) of the calls that involved issuing a new LOMT. Access to medical records was reported in 29% of the calls in which a new LOMT was issued by an HEMS physician. Conclusion: Consultation calls with HEMS physicians involving patients with LOMT decisions were common. HEMS physicians considered end-of-life questions on the phone and issued a new LOMT in 3.4% of consultations calls. These decisions mainly concerned termination of resuscitation, DNACPR, intubation and initiation of intensive care.</p>
Kokoelmat
  • TUNICRIS-julkaisut [23744]
Kalevantie 5
PL 617
33014 Tampereen yliopisto
oa[@]tuni.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste
 

 

Selaa kokoelmaa

TekijätNimekkeetTiedekunta (2019 -)Tiedekunta (- 2018)Tutkinto-ohjelmat ja opintosuunnatAvainsanatJulkaisuajatKokoelmat

Omat tiedot

Kirjaudu sisäänRekisteröidy
Kalevantie 5
PL 617
33014 Tampereen yliopisto
oa[@]tuni.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste