Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41772569›Full record

Observational studyBMC medical ethics2026

The use of bioethical decision-making framework in the ICU of a public Brazilian hospital: a retrospective observational case series.

Daniel Mendonça Dantas, Fabrício Ferreira Lipi, Sofia Carolina Cantuario de Oliveira, Matheus Parra Barcelos de Mendonça, Juliana Blassioli Suyama, Gabriel Lehvy Cantarin Gonçalves, Bernardo Ramos De Godoy, Vivian Meloni Bagini, Victor Moitinho Mariano, Ludhmila Abrahão Hajjar and 1 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Daniel Mendonça DantasFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Fabrício Ferreira LipiFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Sofia Carolina Cantuario de OliveiraFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Matheus Parra Barcelos de MendonçaFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Juliana Blassioli SuyamaFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Gabriel Lehvy Cantarin GonçalvesFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Bernardo Ramos De GodoyFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Vivian Meloni BaginiFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Victor Moitinho MarianoFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ludhmila Abrahão HajjarDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Daniel Neves ForteDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. daniel.forte@hc.fm.usp.br.ORCID 0000-0003-1996-7193

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnd-of-life decisions in critically ill patients lacking decisional capacity are ethically challenging. Addressing patient values-such as autonomy, dignity, and comfort-provides a person-centered basis for care, yet systematic value assessment remains inconsistent. Structured family conferences guided by a bioethical framework may help align treatment with patient preferences. This study describes how often life-sustaining treatment (LST) modifications in a Brazilian ICU were aligned with documented patient values.

methodsThis retrospective observational case series reviewed electronic medical records of neurologically incapacitated adults admitted to a tertiary public ICU in São Paulo, Brazil (February 2022-August 2023). Eligible patients met predefined palliative care triggers. Data were extracted using standardized forms, focusing on demographics, clinical features, family conferences, decisions, and outcomes. Family conferences followed a structured bioethical framework and a communication model based on neurobiology to elicit patient values, which were categorized into predefined domains. Descriptive analyses were performed. The study followed STROBE guidelines, was ethics-approved with consent waiver, and did not influence clinical care.

resultsOf 179 consecutive intensive care unit admissions screened, 40 patients met eligibility criteria. Most were male (65%) with a mean age of 63.5 years. Palliative care triggers included advanced age with severe comorbidities or multi-organ failure (32.5%) and cerebral ischemia (32.5%). Family conferences occurred in 57.5% of patients, typically within three days, involving sons or spouses. Patient values were documented in 50% of the cases. Of the total sample (n = 40), the most frequently reported values were autonomy (37.5%) and avoidance of suffering (12.5%). Overall, 55% had LST modified-withholding (50%), withdrawal (7.5%)-and 42.5% of modifications were documented value-based, representing 73.9% of patients with family conferences. Outcomes included death with LST (25%), natural death after withholding/withdrawal (25%), discharge home (25%), hospice (20%), and ward transfer (5%).

conclusionsStructured family conferences supported by a bioethical and communication frameworks were associated with a high frequency of treatment decisions explicitly aligned with patient values. These findings demonstrate that systematic value-based decision-making is feasible in resource-limited public hospitals. Prospective multicenter studies are needed to confirm these results and evaluate their impact on quality of care and clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Decision MakingIntensive Care UnitsLife Support CareTerminal CareAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrazilCritical IllnessFemaleHospitals, PublicHumansMaleMiddle AgedPalliative CarePatient PreferenceEnd-of-life decision-makingIntensive care unitPatient-centered careShared decision makingValues-based decisionWithholding and withdrawal of treatment

Identifiers

PMID41772569
PMCPMC13059424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.