ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2026
Treatment goal limitations in acute hospital care : A retrospective empirical ethics study of documentation and recorded reasoning.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment goal limitations, such as "do not resuscitate", "do not escalate" and "comfort terminal care" are frequent in acute hospital care for patients with advanced illness, multimorbidity or impending death. Their ethical defensibility depends on transparent documentation of medical indications, proportionality and, where relevant, patient will.
objectiveTo examine whether documentation made medical rationale, patient will, advance directives, relatives' involvement or ethics consultation visible.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed documentation in an Austrian internal medicine department with intensive care over 12 months. Documents were identified in the hospital information system and descriptively analyzed. Deceased patients with documented limitations underwent manual review. Data were anonymized and analyzed using Microsoft Excel for Microsoft 365 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and IBM SPSS Statistics, version 29 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
resultsAcross 3998 inpatient stays involving 1829 patients, 277 patients had a documented treatment goal limitation (15.1%). Among 174 deceased patients, 111 had a documented limitation at death (63.8%). The most frequent order was combined do not resuscitate/do not escalate (75/111; 67.6%), followed by isolated do not resuscitate (23/111; 20.7%). Complete records were available for 101 cases; in 10 the rationale was not clearly traceable. Among the 101 manually reviewed cases, an explicit or presumed patient will was documented in 7 cases (6.9%), involvement of relatives in 13 cases (12.9%) and ethics consultation in 1 case (1.0%); medical rationale or physician decision was documented in 90 of 91 cases with traceable rationale (98.9%).
conclusionTreatment goal limitations were common and usually medically justified in the records. The findings do not imply inappropriate decisions or lack of communication but show limited reconstruction of patient-centered reasoning. Documentation should make clearer how benefit, care, respect for autonomy and justice informed treatment limitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42525299What 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.