Karel Michele J, Powell Jean, Cantor Michael D
VA Boston Healthcare System and Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, VA Medical Center 3-5-C, 940 Belmont Street, Brockton, MA 02301, USA.
Patient Educ Couns. 2004 Oct;55(1):22-31. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00246-5.
The utility of values clarification tools for advance care planning needs further study. This descriptive, qualitative study aimed to describe patients' and surrogates' experiences using a Values Discussion Guide (VDG), both with and without a professional facilitator. Ten male Veterans Health Administration outpatients over age 50 and their health care agents completed audio-taped discussions, both without and with a facilitator, and responded to structured feedback interviews. Most participants found a discussion using the VDG to be helpful and reassuring. Discussions varied in quantity and quality, and participants varied in preferring self-guided versus professionally facilitated discussions. The best interchanges were elicited by questions about prior experience with medical decisions, for oneself or others, and trusted versus non-trusted others to help with decision-making. A VDG appears a useful tool in a repertoire of advance care planning tools, which need to be geared towards the needs and abilities of particular patients and families.
用于预先护理计划的价值观澄清工具的效用需要进一步研究。这项描述性的定性研究旨在描述患者及其代理人使用价值观讨论指南(VDG)的经历,无论是否有专业主持人参与。十名年龄超过50岁的男性退伍军人健康管理局门诊患者及其医疗代理人完成了有无主持人参与的录音讨论,并对结构化反馈访谈做出回应。大多数参与者发现使用VDG进行讨论很有帮助且令人安心。讨论在数量和质量上各不相同,参与者在更喜欢自我引导讨论还是专业主持的讨论方面也存在差异。关于自己或他人先前医疗决策经验以及在决策时信任与不信任的他人的问题引发了最佳交流。VDG似乎是预先护理计划工具库中的一个有用工具,这些工具需要针对特定患者和家庭的需求及能力进行调整。