liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Priority setting in cardiac surgery: A survey of decision making and ethical issues
Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Centre for Medical Imaging, Department of Biomedical Engineering in Östergötland. Linköping University, The Institute of Technology.
Linköping University, Department of Religion and Culture, Center for Applied Ethics. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Heart Centre.
Linköping University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Medical Informatics. Linköping University, The Institute of Technology.
2003 (English)In: Journal of Medical Ethics, ISSN 0306-6800, E-ISSN 1473-4257, Vol. 29, no 6, p. 353-358Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine priority setting for coronary artery bypass surgery, and to provide an overview of decisions and rationales used in clinical practice.

Method: Questionnaires were sent to all permanently employed cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, and anaesthesiologists at nine Swedish hospitals performing adult cardiothoracic surgery.

Results: A total of 208 physicians responded (a 44% return rate). There was considerable agreement concerning the criteria that should be used to set priorities for coronary artery bypass interventions (clusters of factors in synthesis). However, there was a lack of accord regarding the use of national guidelines for priority setting and risk indexes.

Conclusions: Basic training and the strong support of ethical principles in priority setting are lacking. The respondents indicated a need for clearer guidelines and an open dialogue or discussion. The lack of generally acknowledged plans and guidelines for priority setting may result in unequal, conditional, and unfair treatment.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BMJ Journals , 2003. Vol. 29, no 6, p. 353-358
National Category
Engineering and Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-46393DOI: 10.1136/jme.29.6.353OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-46393DiVA, id: diva2:267289
Available from: 2009-10-11 Created: 2009-10-11 Last updated: 2018-05-22

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Collste, GöranÅhlfeldt, Hans

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Collste, GöranÅhlfeldt, Hans
By organisation
Department of Biomedical Engineering in ÖstergötlandThe Institute of TechnologyCenter for Applied EthicsFaculty of Arts and SciencesHeart CentreMedical Informatics
In the same journal
Journal of Medical Ethics
Engineering and Technology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 478 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf