Cohen Harvey Jay, Feussner John R, Weinberger Morris, Carnes Molly, Hamdy Ronald C, Hsieh Frank, Phibbs Ciaran, Courtney Donald, Lyles Kenneth W, May Conrad, McMurtry Cynthia, Pennypacker Leslye, Smith David M, Ainslie Nina, Hornick Thomas, Brodkin Kayla, Lavori Philip
Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705, USA.
N Engl J Med. 2002 Mar 21;346(12):905-12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa010285.
Over the past 20 years, both inpatient units and outpatient clinics have developed programs for geriatric evaluation and management. However, the effects of these interventions on survival and functional status remain uncertain.
We conducted a randomized trial involving frail patients 65 years of age or older who were hospitalized at 11 Veterans Affairs medical centers. After their condition had been stabilized, patients were randomly assigned, according to a two-by-two factorial design, to receive either care in an inpatient geriatric unit or usual inpatient care, followed by either care at an outpatient geriatric clinic or usual outpatient care. The interventions involved teams that provided geriatric assessment and management according to Veterans Affairs standards and published guidelines. The primary outcomes were survival and health-related quality of life, measured with the use of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36), one year after randomization. Secondary outcomes were the ability to perform activities of daily living, physical performance, utilization of health services, and costs.
A total of 1388 patients were enrolled and followed. Neither the inpatient nor the outpatient intervention had a significant effect on mortality (21 percent at one year overall), nor were there any synergistic effects between the two interventions. At discharge, patients assigned to the inpatient geriatric units had significantly greater improvements in the scores for four of the eight SF-36 subscales, activities of daily living, and physical performance than did those assigned to usual inpatient care. At one year, patients assigned to the outpatient geriatric clinics had better scores on the SF-36 mental health subscale, even after adjustment for the score at discharge, than those assigned to usual outpatient care. Total costs at one year were similar for the intervention and usual-care groups.
In this controlled trial, care provided in inpatient geriatric units and outpatient geriatric clinics had no significant effects on survival. There were significant reductions in functional decline with inpatient geriatric evaluation and management and improvements in mental health with outpatient geriatric evaluation and management, with no increase in costs.
在过去20年中,住院部和门诊诊所都开展了老年评估与管理项目。然而,这些干预措施对生存率和功能状态的影响仍不确定。
我们进行了一项随机试验,纳入了11家退伍军人事务医疗中心65岁及以上的体弱住院患者。病情稳定后,患者根据二乘二析因设计被随机分配,接受住院老年科护理或常规住院护理,随后接受门诊老年科护理或常规门诊护理。干预措施由按照退伍军人事务标准和已发表指南提供老年评估与管理的团队实施。主要结局为随机分组一年后的生存率和健康相关生活质量,采用医学结局研究简明健康调查问卷(SF-36)进行测量。次要结局为日常生活活动能力、身体机能、医疗服务利用情况和费用。
共纳入1388例患者并进行随访。住院和门诊干预对死亡率均无显著影响(总体一年死亡率为21%),两种干预之间也没有协同效应。出院时,分配到住院老年科的患者在SF-36八个分量表中的四个、日常生活活动和身体机能方面的得分改善程度显著高于分配到常规住院护理的患者。一年时,分配到门诊老年科的患者在SF-36心理健康分量表上的得分,即使在调整出院时得分后,仍高于分配到常规门诊护理的患者。干预组和常规护理组一年的总费用相似。
在这项对照试验中,住院老年科和门诊老年科提供的护理对生存率无显著影响。住院老年评估与管理可显著减少功能衰退,门诊老年评估与管理可改善心理健康,且费用未增加。