OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which older or seriously ill inpatients would prefer to have their family and physician make resuscitation decisions for them rather than having their own stated preferences followed if they were unable to decide themselves. DESIGN: Analysis of existing data from the Hospitalized Elderly Longitudinal Project (HELP) and the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment (SUPPORT). SETTING: Five teaching hospitals in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 2203 seriously ill adult inpatients (SUP-PORT) and 1226 older inpatients (HELP) who expressed preferences about resuscitation and about advance decisionmaking. MEASURES: We used a logistic regression model to determine which factors predicted preferences for family and physician decision-making. RESULTS: Of the 513 HELP patients in this analysis, 363 (70.8%) would prefer to have their family and physician make resuscitation decisions for them whereas 29.2% would prefer to have their own stated preferences followed if they were to lose decision-making capacity. Of the 646 SUPPORT patients, 504 (78.0%) would prefer to have their family and physician decide and 22.0% would prefer to have their advance preferences followed. Independent predictors of preference for family and physician decision-making included not wanting to be resuscitated and having a surrogate decision-maker. CONCLUSIONS: Most inpatients who are older or have serious illnesses would not want their stated resuscitation preferences followed if they were to lose decision-making capacity. Most patients in both groups would prefer that their family and physician make resuscitation decisions for Suite 820, Washington, DC 20037. them. These results underscore the need to understand resuscitation preferences within a broader context of patient values. J Am Geriatr SOC 48:S84-S90,2000. atients in this country have a well established right to ___
Context Accuracy of locating various lumbopelvic landmarks for novice athletic trainers has not been examined. Objective To examine reliability of novice athletic trainers for identification of the L4 spinous process and right and left posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS). Design Cross-sectional reliability. Setting Laboratory. Patients or Other Participants Sixteen physically active volunteers participated (age = 22.56 ± 2.67 years, height = 172.0 ± 9.38 cm, mass = 67.39 ± 9.73 kg, body mass index = 22.8 ± 1.97). Four novice athletic trainers (certified < 2 years) served as the testers of interest. Intervention(s) Subjects were placed prone and 2 expert athletic trainers (certified > 12 years) agreed upon each bony landmark and transferred the palpation markings to contact paper. Each novice athletic trainer palpated the landmarks twice within the same test session and used the same method as the experts for transfer and recording. Novice athletic trainers rotated between subjects after 1 marking trial. Expert marks were transposed over the tester marks to assess distance and agreement. Main Outcome Measure(s) Independent variables were novice athletic trainer (AT1, AT2, AT3, AT4) and time (Trial 1, Trial 2); dependent variables included distance from the expert marking in millimeters for L4 and PSIS palpations, and agreement within or outside of a designated area for the L4 spinous process. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC [2,1]), standard error of measurement, and percent agreement were calculated. Results Intratester reliability for L4 ranged from 0.370 to 0.833, right PSIS (RPSIS) ranged from 0.371 to 0.771, and left PSIS (LPSIS) ranged from −0.173 to 0.760. Intertester ICC (2,1) for Trial 1 and Trial 2 were, respectively, 0.319 and 0.466 (L4), 0.213 and 0.002 (RPSIS), and 0.96 and 0.073 (LPSIS). Percent agreement between expert and testers ranged from 18.75%–81.3% for L4 spinous process. Conclusions Our results indicate novice athletic trainers are generally poor at reliably locating lumbopelvic anatomical landmarks, and this should be addressed within educational programming.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.