ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
The interpretation of code status concept among pediatric health care workers, a multicenter cross sectional study across Lebanon.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) use with no considerations given to patient selection or therapeutic aim resulted in extension of the agony, pain and dying process for terminally ill patients. Four Resuscitation-limiting Codes other than Full Code exist. In a conservative country like Lebanon, several factors can influence such decisions, namely the ethical, legal, religious perspectives, pediatric population, and more importantly the lack of protocol, healthcare workers (HCWs) knowledge, understanding and readiness to discuss terminal care with the parents. The objectives of the study are to evaluate the knowledge, behavior and comfort level of Lebanese pediatric HCWs in code status discussions, and to determine major obstacles encountered. Methods: This is a cross-sectional observational study. An anonymous questionnaire has been sent electronically for 400 pediatric HCWs from different hospitals across Lebanon, over a period of 3 months. Results: Of the 400 pediatric HCWs recruited, 235 completed the survey. 39.9% of medical doctors (MDs), and 62% of registered nurses (RNs) did not know about code status subtypes. Most of the MDs are using the paternalistic approach. There were significant differences between MDs and RNs regarding their point of view toward code status, but both thought that it was not defined in the Lebanese law (86.7% of MDs vs. 87% of RNs), and are not comfortable in such discussions (79% for MDs vs. 84.8% for RNs). The decisions taken by MDs regarding life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) in different resuscitation-limiting codes showed clearly the knowledge gap. Moreover, attendings and trainees differed significantly in their decisions, where the latter seemed more conservative. Pediatric HCWs in Lebanon are facing major obstacles when it comes to code status decisions. Conclusion: Code status in Lebanon is an immature concept, and pediatric HCWs are challenged with conflicting decisions and obligations when it comes to code status discussions and LSTs. A multidisciplinary approach, with good communication between different members of the medical team would be the best. Addressing the obstacles encountered, and set a clear protocol will not only unify and solidify the HCWs decisions, but will have positive impact and repercussions on the patient care as well.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.