Trauma Death: Views of the Public and Trauma Professionals on Death and Dying From Injuries | End of Life | JAMA Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Murray  THJennings  B The quest to reform end of life care: rethinking assumptions and setting new directions.  Hastings Cent Rep 2005;35 (6) S52- S57PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
SUPPORT Principal Investigators, A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients: the study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatment (SUPPORT).  JAMA 1995;274 (20) 1591- 1598PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Last Acts, Means to a better end: a report on dying in America today. Accessed August 11, 2006
Field  MJCassel  CK Approaching Death: Improving Care at the End of Life. Washington, DC National Academy Press1997;
Jacobs  LMJacobs  BBBurns  KJ A plan to improve end-of-life care for trauma victims and their families.  J Trauma Nurs 2005;12 (3) 73- 76PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
American Association for Public Opinion Research, Standard definitions: final dispositions of cases codes and outcome rates for surveys. Accessed December 4, 2006
American Trauma Society, End-of-Life Issues: Quality, Availability, and Ethics. Washington, DC American Trauma Society2003;
National Center for Health Statistics, Advance report of final mortality statistics, 1987.  Mon Vital Stat Rep 1989;38 (5) ((suppl)) 1- 48Google Scholar
National Center for Health Statistics, Advance report of final mortality statistics, 1988.  Mon Vital Stat Rep 1990;39 (7) ((suppl)) 1- 48Google Scholar
National Center for Health Statistics, Advance report of final mortality statistics, 1989.  Mon Vital Stat Rep 1992;40 (8) ((suppl 2)) 1- 52Google Scholar
National Center for Health Statistics, Advance report of final mortality statistics, 1990.  Mon Vital Stat Rep 1993;41 (7) ((suppl)) 1- 52Google Scholar
National Center for Health Statistics, Advance report of final mortality statistics, 1991.  Mon Vital Stat Rep 1993;42 (2) ((suppl)) 1- 64Google Scholar
Kochanek  KDHudson  BL Advance report of final mortality statistics, 1992.  Mon Vital Stat Rep 1995;43 (6) ((suppl)) 1- 76Google Scholar
Gardner  PHudson  BL Advance report of final mortality statistics, 1993.  Mon Vital Stat Rep 1996;44 (7) ((suppl)) 1- 84Google Scholar
Singh  GKKochanek  KDMacDorman  MF Advance report of final mortality statistics, 1994.  Mon Vital Stat Rep 1996;45 (3) ((suppl)) 1- 80Google Scholar
Anderson  RNKochanek  KDMurphy  SL Report of final mortality statistics, 1995.  Mon Vital Stat Rep 1997;45 (11) ((suppl 2)) 1- 80Google Scholar
Peters  KDKochanek  KDMurphy  SL Deaths: final data for 1996.  Natl Vital Stat Rep 1998;47 (9) 1- 100PubMedGoogle Scholar
Hoyert  DLKochanek  KDMurphy  SL Deaths: final data for 1997.  Natl Vital Stat Rep 1999;47 (19) 1- 104PubMedGoogle Scholar
Murphy  SL Deaths: final data for 1998.  Natl Vital Stat Rep 2000;48 (11) 1- 105PubMedGoogle Scholar
Hoyert  DLArias  ESmith  BLMurphy  SLKochanek  KD Deaths: final data for 1999.  Natl Vital Stat Rep 2001;49 (8) 1- 113PubMedGoogle Scholar
Miniño  AMArias  EKochanek  KDMurphy  SLSmith  BL Deaths: final data for 2000.  Natl Vital Stat Rep 2002;50 (15) 1- 119PubMedGoogle Scholar
Anderson  RNMiniño  AMFingerhut  LAWarner  MHeinen  MA Deaths: injuries, 2001.  Natl Vital Stat Rep 2004;52 (21) 1- 86PubMedGoogle Scholar
Kochanek  KDMurphy  SLAnderson  RNScott  C Deaths: final data for 2002.  Natl Vital Stat Rep 2004;53 (5) 1- 115PubMedGoogle Scholar
Miniño  AMAnderson  RNFingerhut  LABoudreault  MAWarner  M Deaths: injuries, 2002.  Natl Vital Stat Rep 2006;54 (10) 1- 124PubMedGoogle Scholar
Hoyert  DLHeron  MPMurphy  SLKung  HC Deaths: final data for 2003.  Natl Vital Stat Rep 2006;54 (13) 1- 120PubMedGoogle Scholar
Miniño  AMHeron  MPSmith  BL Deaths: preliminary data for 2004.  Natl Vital Stat Rep 2006;54 (19) 1- 49PubMedGoogle Scholar
Committee on the Future of Emergency Care in the United States Health System; Board on Health Care Services, Hospital-Based Emergency Care: At the Breaking Point. Washington, DC National Academies Press2006;
Henderson  DPKnapp  JF Report of the national consensus conference on family presence during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation and procedures.  J Emerg Nurs 2006;32 (1) 23- 29PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Pellegrino  ED Futility in medical decisions: the word and the concept.  HEC Forum 2005;17 (4) 308- 318PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Taylor  C Medical futility and nursing.  Image J Nurs Sch 1995;27 (4) 301- 306PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Clark  PA To be or not to be a donor: a person's right of informed consent.  Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2003;8 (4) 334- 340Google ScholarCrossref
Original Article
August 18, 2008

Trauma Death: Views of the Public and Trauma Professionals on Death and Dying From Injuries

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Traumatology and Emergency Medicine (Dr Jacobs), Trauma Program (Dr Burns), and Clinical Ethics Consultation Services (Dr Bennett Jacobs), Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut; Department of Traumatology and Emergency Medicine, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington (Drs Jacobs and Burns); University of Connecticut School of Nursing, Storrs (Dr Bennett Jacobs); and Center for Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC (Dr Bennett Jacobs).

Arch Surg. 2008;143(8):730-735. doi:10.1001/archsurg.143.8.730

Objectives  To determine the values and preferences of the general public and trauma professionals regarding end-of-life care due to injury so as to inform practice guidelines.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Surveys of the general public sampled by random-digit dialing between June 6, 2005, and July 5, 2005, and of a convenience sample of trauma professionals during fall 2005 in the United States were conducted regarding preferences for care in the prehospital, emergency, and critical care settings.

Main Outcome Measures  Responses to the survey questions.

Results  Most of the public and trauma professionals would prefer palliative care when doctors determine that aggressive critical care would not be beneficial in saving their lives. During resuscitation of an injured loved one, 51.9% of the public and 62.7% of the professionals would prefer to be in the emergency department treatment room. Most of the public believes that patients should have the right to demand care not recommended by their physicians. Most of both groups trust a doctor's decision to withdraw treatment when futility is determined. More of the public (57.4%) than the professionals (19.5%) believe that divine intervention could save a person when physicians believe treatment is futile. Other findings suggest further important insights.

Conclusions  The results pose challenges that will require societal discourse to determine the best practice. Resolutions will need to be included in educational curricula and incorporated into practice to ensure that dying trauma victims and their families receive quality end-of-life care.