ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2025
Comparing approaches to code status conversations between Thai and American emergency clinicians: a survey study.
Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEmergency clinicians conduct code status conversations as part of shared decision-making regarding the management of patients with serious life-limiting illnesses. Given that varying sociocultural norms and healthcare systems affect communication, we hypothesised that American and Thai emergency clinicians report different approaches to code status conversations.
methodsA cross-sectional survey study was conducted in one US hospital and four Thai hospitals from December 2021 to November 2022. Using a 5-point Likert Scale, the survey questions focused on clinical practice for procedure-based and value-based components of code status conversations. We developed the survey from a medical communication expert team and then reviewed, refined and validated the questions. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to compare the asking in code status conversation among American and Thai emergency clinicians and controlled for potential confounding variables.
resultsWe received responses from 84 American and 81 Thai emergency clinicians (74% and 70%, respectively). Most of the participants had 6-10 years of clinical experience (n=71, 43%), had code status conversations more than twice each month (n=63, 38%), and had prior palliative care training (n=141, 86%). Over 50% of all emergency clinicians responded 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to incorporate all six procedure-based components but only one of the six value-based components. Compared with Thai emergency clinicians, American emergency clinicians were significantly more likely to ask one procedure-based component (restarting the patient's heart, adjusted OR (aOR) =9.3 (95% CI 3.2 to 26.8)), while less likely to ask another procedure-based component (the patient's preference for vasopressors, aOR=0.3 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.7)), and two value-based components (providing a recommendation, aOR=0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.5), assessing the patient's baseline activity, aOR=0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.4)).
conclusionIn the approaches to code status conversations, American and Thai emergency clinicians collectively report asking about procedures rather than personal values, while specific distinctions exist and potentially reflect different cultural approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.