Hasselaar Jeroen G J, Reuzel Rob P B, Verhagen Stans C A H H V M, de Graeff Alexander, Vissers Kris C P, Crul Ben J P
Department of Anesthesiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Arch Intern Med. 2007 Jun 11;167(11):1166-71. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.11.1166.
Two guidelines addressing palliative sedation have been published in the Netherlands in 2002 and 2003. The objective of the present study is to determine adherence to the guidelines for palliative sedation with regard to prescription. The study is restricted to the practice of continuous deep palliative sedation.
A structured retrospective questionnaire was administered to 1464 physicians concerning their last case of deep sedation during the past 12 months. Physicians included Dutch hospital specialists, general practitioners, and nursing home physicians.
The response rate was 36%. A total of 43% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37%-49%) of the responding physicians did not adhere to the guidelines. Sources of deviation were the use of basic medication other than a benzodiazepine (30%), which mostly involved morphine, and omissions in adjuvant medication (13%). Nonsignificant positive association was found for consultation of a palliative care expert (odds ratio [OR], 3.86; 95% CI, 0.92-8.87). Significant positive association was found for the physician being a palliative care expert himself or herself (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 1.42-13.75) and the use of guidelines (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.02-2.98). Treatment of pain symptoms (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.28-3.82), anxiety (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.33-4.06), vomiting (OR, 6.52; 95% CI, 1.08-39.50), and loss of dignity (OR, 3.93; 95% CI, 1.80-8.58) also correlated positively. Treatment of delirium correlated negatively with adherence to the guidelines (OR, 0.22; 95% CI,0.11-0.44).
The rate of 43% noncompliance to the guidelines was mostly owing to the omission of continued antipsychotic treatment for delirium and the use of morphine as the single therapy for the purpose of deep sedation. Future efforts, like better use and knowledge of the guidelines and a larger involvement of consultation teams, should increase adherence to the guidelines.
荷兰于2002年和2003年发布了两份关于姑息性镇静的指南。本研究的目的是确定在处方方面对姑息性镇静指南的遵循情况。该研究仅限于持续深度姑息性镇静的实践。
对1464名医生进行了结构化回顾性问卷调查,询问他们在过去12个月中最后一例深度镇静的情况。参与的医生包括荷兰医院专科医生、全科医生和疗养院医生。
回复率为36%。共有43%(95%置信区间[CI],37%-49%)的回复医生未遵循指南。偏差来源包括使用苯二氮䓬类以外的基础药物(30%),主要涉及吗啡,以及辅助药物的遗漏(13%)。姑息治疗专家的会诊存在不显著的正相关(优势比[OR],3.86;95%CI,0.92-8.87)。医生自身为姑息治疗专家(OR,4.42;95%CI,1.42-13.75)以及使用指南(OR,1.74;95%CI,1.02-2.98)存在显著正相关。疼痛症状的治疗(OR,2.21;95%CI,1.28-3.82)、焦虑(OR,2.32;95%CI,1.33-4.06)、呕吐(OR,6.52;95%CI,1.08-39.50)和尊严丧失(OR,3.93;95%CI,1.80-8.58)也呈正相关。谵妄的治疗与指南遵循情况呈负相关(OR,0.22;95%CI,0.11-0.44)。
43%的不遵循指南率主要归因于对谵妄持续抗精神病治疗的遗漏以及将吗啡作为深度镇静的单一疗法。未来的努力,如更好地使用和了解指南以及会诊团队更多地参与,应能提高对指南的遵循程度。