Wissow Lawrence S, Belote Amy, Kramer Wade, Compton-Phillips Amy, Kritzler Robert, Weiner Jonathan P
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Md., USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Sep;19(9):944-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30117.x.
To determine efficient ways of promoting advance directives among heterogeneous populations of elderly ambulatory patients.
One-year quasi-experimental trial.
Five suburban and urban health centers in one region of a large managed care organization. One additional suburban center served as a control site.
Individuals ages 65 and older (N= 2,120) who were continuously enrolled and had a health maintenance visit with their primary care provider during the study year.
Physician education (oral and written) and physician and patient prompts to discuss advance directives.
Sixty-six (7.8%) of patients at the intervention centers completed new advance directives, versus 9 of 1,277 (<1%) at the comparison center (P <.001). Patients 75 and older were twice as likely (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% confidence limits [CL], 1.2 to 3.3) as those 65 to 74 to file a new advance directive, and the odds were twice as great (OR, 2.6; 95% CL, 1.4 to 4.6) at centers serving communities with median household income over the state median. Gender, recent hospitalization, emergency room visits, and number of chronic conditions were not related to making new directives nor was predominant ethnicity of the center community (African-American versus white). Adjusted for these factors, the intervention resulted in a 20-fold increase (95% CL, 10.4 to 47.8) in the odds of creating a new advance directive. Doctors reported barriers of time and unwillingness to press discussions with patients.
A replicable intervention largely targeting doctors achieved a modest increase in advance directives among elderly ambulatory patients. Future interventions may need to target lower-income patients, "younger" elderly, and more specifically address doctors' attitudes and comfort discussing advance directives.
确定在不同类型的老年门诊患者群体中推广预立医疗指示的有效方法。
为期一年的准实验性试验。
一个大型管理式医疗组织某一地区的五家郊区和城区健康中心。另一家郊区中心作为对照点。
年龄在65岁及以上(N = 2120)的个体,他们在研究年度内持续参保并与初级保健提供者进行了健康维护就诊。
医生教育(口头和书面)以及医生和患者关于讨论预立医疗指示的提示。
干预中心有66名(7.8%)患者完成了新的预立医疗指示,而对照中心1277名患者中有9名(<1%)完成了新的预立医疗指示(P <.001)。75岁及以上的患者提交新预立医疗指示的可能性是65至74岁患者的两倍(优势比[OR],2.0;95%置信区间[CL],1.2至3.3),在服务于家庭收入中位数高于该州中位数社区的中心,这一可能性是其他中心的两倍(OR,2.6;95% CL,1.4至4.6)。性别、近期住院情况、急诊室就诊次数和慢性病数量与制定新指示无关,中心社区的主要种族(非裔美国人与白人)也无关。在对这些因素进行调整后,干预使制定新预立医疗指示的可能性增加了20倍(95% CL,10.4至47.8)。医生报告了时间障碍以及不愿与患者深入讨论的问题。
一项主要针对医生的可重复干预措施使老年门诊患者的预立医疗指示略有增加。未来的干预措施可能需要针对低收入患者、“较年轻”的老年人,并更具体地解决医生在讨论预立医疗指示时的态度和舒适度问题。