End-of-life care in the pediatric intensive care unit: Attitudes and practices of pediatric critical care physicians and nurses
Abstract
Objective To determine the attitudes and practices of pediatric critical care attending physicians and pediatric critical care nurses on end-of-life care. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting A random sample of clinicians at 31 pediatric hospitals in the United States. Measurements and main results The survey was completed by 110/130 (85%) physicians and 92/130 (71%) nurses. The statement that withholding and withdrawing life support is unethical was not endorsed by any of the physicians or nurses. More physicians (78%) than nurses (57%) agreed or strongly agreed that withholding and withdrawing are ethically the same (p Conclusions Nearly two-thirds of pediatric critical care physicians and nurses express views on end-of-life care in strong agreement with consensus positions on these issues adopted by national professional organizations. Clinicians with fewer years of pediatric critical care practice are less likely to agree with this consensus. Compared with physicians, nurses are significantly less likely to agree that families are well informed and ethical issues are well discussed when assessing actual practice in their intensive care unit. More collaborative education and regular case review on bioethical issues are needed as part of standard practice in the intensive care unit.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Nurses’ knowledge of advance directives
Crego, P., & Lipp, E. (1998) · American Journal of Critical Care · doi:10.4037/ajcc1998.7.3.218 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Everyday ethics: ethical issues and stress in nursing practice
Ulrich, C. M., Taylor, C., Soeken, K., O’Donnell, P., Farrar, A., Danis, M., & Grady, C. (2010) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05425.x · Cited by 305 · see citing works
“…2007; Epstein, 2008); initiating, withholding, and withdrawing treatment and advance directives in acute and long-term care (Crego & Lipp 1998; Burns et al. 2001; Redman & Fry 2003); conflict resolution in parent-childprovider relationships in pediatric care (Butz et al. 1998); and physician…”
BackgroundInfluential
- Authors
- Burns, J. P., Mitchell, C., Griffith, J. L., & Truog, R. D.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Tufts University (US)
- Venue
- Critical Care Medicine
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 658-664
- ISSN
- 0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2047807447
- Cited by
- 144
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 7.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
- Keywords
- end-of-life care, pediatric intensive care, clinician attitudes, physician-nurse differences, bioethics, family communication, ethical decision-making, professional consensus
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Death, Child, Child Advocacy, Critical Care, Cross-Sectional Studies, Decision Making, Ethics, Medical, Ethics, Nursing, Hospitals, Pediatric, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Medical Staff, Hospital, Middle Aged, Nursing Staff, Hospital, Pediatrics, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Surveys and Questionnaires, Terminal Care, United States, Intensive Care Units, Pediatric, Multivariate Analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review