Nicolasora Nelson, Pannala Rahul, Mountantonakis Stavros, Shanmugam Bala, DeGirolamo Angela, Amoateng-Adjepong Yaw, Manthous Constantine A
Department of Internal Medicine, Bridgeport Hospital and Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
J Hosp Med. 2006 May;1(3):161-7. doi: 10.1002/jhm.78.
No national policy requires health care providers to discuss with hospitalized patients whether the latter would want cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or mechanical ventilation (MV) in the event of cardiopulmonary failure.
To determine whether hospitalized patients are willing to discuss end-of-life issues and choose whether to receive CPR and MV.
Prospective randomized trial.
297 patients admitted to the medicine service of a 350-bed community teaching hospital.
Patients were randomized to receive routine care or a scripted intervention, delivered by research physicians, that included detailed information about CPR, MV, and advance directives.
Number of patients who welcomed the scripted intervention, number who chose to receive or reject CPR/MV, and number of advance directives created during hospitalization.
Of the 297 patients studied, 136 were in the intervention group and 161 were in the control group. Baseline characteristics and severity of illness were similar in the 2 groups. Of the 136 patients in the intervention group, 133 (98%) willingly discussed CPR and mechanical ventilation, and 112 (82%) found the information useful. One hundred and twenty-five (92%) clarified their preferences regarding CPR and MV after receiving the intervention; of the 48 patients who were initially documented as wanting CPR/MV, 3 requested no CPR/MV after the intervention. Of the 87 patients in the intervention group who had no documentation of code status on admission, 5 asked for no CPR/MV. Of the 161 patients in the control group, 55 had documentation of their code status on admission. Of the 106 patients without documentation, 6 were later documented to receive no CPR/MV. Thirteen of the 102 patients who had no advance directive on admission created one after the intervention, whereas only 1 of the 128 patients in the control group did so (P < .001).
Patients are willing to discuss and give informed consent for CPR and mechanical ventilation early in hospitalization. Only a minority drafted advance directives during hospitalization. Larger studies that include patients at other centers are required to determine whether these findings are reproducible and whether this approach is clinically feasible.
没有国家政策要求医疗保健提供者与住院患者讨论后者在心肺功能衰竭时是否希望接受心肺复苏(CPR)或机械通气(MV)。
确定住院患者是否愿意讨论临终问题并选择是否接受CPR和MV。
前瞻性随机试验。
一家拥有350张床位的社区教学医院内科收治的297例患者。
患者被随机分配接受常规护理或由研究医生进行的书面干预,其中包括有关CPR、MV和预先指示的详细信息。
欢迎书面干预的患者数量、选择接受或拒绝CPR/MV的患者数量以及住院期间制定的预先指示数量。
在研究的297例患者中,136例在干预组,161例在对照组。两组的基线特征和疾病严重程度相似。在干预组的136例患者中,133例(98%)愿意讨论CPR和机械通气,112例(82%)认为这些信息有用。125例(92%)在接受干预后明确了他们对CPR和MV的偏好;在最初记录为希望接受CPR/MV的48例患者中,3例在干预后要求不接受CPR/MV。在干预组入院时没有代码状态记录的87例患者中,5例要求不接受CPR/MV。在对照组的161例患者中,55例入院时有代码状态记录。在没有记录的106例患者中,6例后来被记录为不接受CPR/MV。入院时没有预先指示的102例患者中有13例在干预后制定了一份,而对照组的128例患者中只有1例这样做(P < .001)。
患者愿意在住院早期讨论并就CPR和机械通气给予知情同意。只有少数患者在住院期间起草了预先指示。需要纳入其他中心患者的更大规模研究,以确定这些发现是否可重复以及这种方法在临床上是否可行。