Allocation of resources in intensive care: a transatlantic perspective

Molly Osborne, T. W. Evans

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The USA and the UK have differed substantially in approaches to health care and especially in intensive care provision. We have compared the health care systems, clinical justification for intensive care, selection of patients likely to benefit from such care, and the performance of the systems. The differences are lessening. Both countries are moving away from clinical autonomy as the driving force of medical decision-making. There is increasing recognition that not all patients will benefit from intensive care and that the doctor's obligation to the patient can be limited by constraints set by society.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)778-780
Number of pages3
JournalThe Lancet
Volume343
Issue number8900
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 26 1994

Fingerprint

Resource Allocation
Critical Care
Delivery of Health Care
Patient Selection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Allocation of resources in intensive care : a transatlantic perspective. / Osborne, Molly; Evans, T. W.

In: The Lancet, Vol. 343, No. 8900, 26.03.1994, p. 778-780.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Osborne, Molly ; Evans, T. W. / Allocation of resources in intensive care : a transatlantic perspective. In: The Lancet. 1994 ; Vol. 343, No. 8900. pp. 778-780.
@article{8e35acd769f84c899d7d0dd352e6bc5c,
title = "Allocation of resources in intensive care: a transatlantic perspective",
abstract = "The USA and the UK have differed substantially in approaches to health care and especially in intensive care provision. We have compared the health care systems, clinical justification for intensive care, selection of patients likely to benefit from such care, and the performance of the systems. The differences are lessening. Both countries are moving away from clinical autonomy as the driving force of medical decision-making. There is increasing recognition that not all patients will benefit from intensive care and that the doctor's obligation to the patient can be limited by constraints set by society.",
author = "Molly Osborne and Evans, {T. W.}",
year = "1994",
month = "3",
day = "26",
doi = "10.1016/S0140-6736(94)91845-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "343",
pages = "778--780",
journal = "The Lancet",
issn = "0140-6736",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "8900",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Allocation of resources in intensive care

T2 - a transatlantic perspective

AU - Osborne, Molly

AU - Evans, T. W.

PY - 1994/3/26

Y1 - 1994/3/26

N2 - The USA and the UK have differed substantially in approaches to health care and especially in intensive care provision. We have compared the health care systems, clinical justification for intensive care, selection of patients likely to benefit from such care, and the performance of the systems. The differences are lessening. Both countries are moving away from clinical autonomy as the driving force of medical decision-making. There is increasing recognition that not all patients will benefit from intensive care and that the doctor's obligation to the patient can be limited by constraints set by society.

AB - The USA and the UK have differed substantially in approaches to health care and especially in intensive care provision. We have compared the health care systems, clinical justification for intensive care, selection of patients likely to benefit from such care, and the performance of the systems. The differences are lessening. Both countries are moving away from clinical autonomy as the driving force of medical decision-making. There is increasing recognition that not all patients will benefit from intensive care and that the doctor's obligation to the patient can be limited by constraints set by society.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028301649&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028301649&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(94)91845-7

DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(94)91845-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 7907737

AN - SCOPUS:0028301649

VL - 343

SP - 778

EP - 780

JO - The Lancet

JF - The Lancet

SN - 0140-6736

IS - 8900

ER -