Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35166875›Full record

ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2022

[Dealing with coercion in intensive care medicine : Recommendations from the Ethics Section of the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) in collaboration with the Ethics Section of the German Society for Internal Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DGIIN)].

Susanne Jöbges, Anna-Henrikje Seidlein, Iris Barndt, Hilmar Buchardi, Gunnar Duttge, Jochen Dutzmann, Steffen Grautoff, Peter Gretenkort, Christiane Hartog, Kathrin Knochel and 7 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Susanne JöbgesKlinik für Anästhesiologie, operative Intensivmedizin und postoperative Schmerztherapie, Klinikum Dortmund, Dortmund, Deutschland.
Anna-Henrikje SeidleinInstitut für Ethik und Geschichte der Medizin, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald, Deutschland.
Iris BarndtKlinik für Kardiologie und Internistische Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Johannes Wesling, Ruhr Universität Bochum, Minden, Deutschland.
Hilmar Buchardi, Bovenden, Deutschland.
Gunnar DuttgeAbteilung für strafrechtliches Medizin- und Biorecht, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland.
Jochen DutzmannUniversitätsklinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin III, Universitätsklinikum Halle (Saale), Halle (Saale), Deutschland.
Steffen GrautoffKlinikum Herford, Herford, Deutschland.
Peter GretenkortSimulations- und Notfallakademie, Helios Klinikum Krefeld, Krefeld, Deutschland.
Christiane HartogKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland.
Kathrin KnochelKinderklinik und Kinderpoliklinik im Dr. von Haunerschen Kinderspital Kinderpalliativzentrum, Klinikum der Universität München, München, Deutschland.
Andrej MichalsenKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Intensivmedizin, Notfallmedizin und Schmerztherapie, Klinikum Konstanz, Konstanz, Deutschland.
Friedemann NauckKlinik für Palliativmedizin, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland.
Gerald NeitzkeInstitut für Ethik, Philosophie und Geschichte der Medizin, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Deutschland.
Fred Salomon, Lemgo, Deutschland.
Herwig Stopfkuchen, Mainz, Deutschland.
Annette RoggeGeschäftsbereich Medizinethik, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Deutschland.
Uwe JanssensKlinik für Innere Medizin und Internistische Intensivmedizin, St.-Antonius-Hospital Eschweiler, Dechant-Deckers-Str. 8, 52249, Eschweiler, Deutschland. uwe.janssens@sah-eschweiler.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The treatment situation in intensive care is characterised by a specific asymmetry in the relationship between patients and the team: Patients are particularly dependent on their environment and often show impaired consciousness and capacity to consent. This facilitates the use of coercion or enables and/or provokes it. The aim of this recommendation is to show ways to recognise patients with their wishes and needs and to integrate them into treatment concepts in the intensive care unit in order to reduce and avoid coercion whenever possible. The recommendation shows the variety of possible forms of coercion and discusses the moral standards to be considered in the ethical weighing process as well as legal conditions for justifying its use. It becomes obvious that treatment measures which may involve the use of coercion always require a careful and self-critical review of the measures in relation to the indication and the therapeutic goal. The recommendation's intention therefore is not to disapprove the use of coercion by interprofessional teams. Instead, it aims to contribute to a sensitive perception of coercion and to a critical and caring approach to formal and especially informal (indirect) coercion.

Indexed as

CoercionEmergency MedicineCritical CareHumansIntensive Care UnitsCoercionDecision-makingEthical dilemmaPatient autonomyPhysical restraint

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.