针对有行为问题的痴呆症患者的特殊护理单元。

Special care units for dementia individuals with behavioural problems.

作者信息

Lai Claudia Ky, Yeung Jonas Hm, Mok Vincent, Chi Iris

机构信息

School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 7(4):CD006470. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006470.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The behavioural problems of people with dementia are often considered as one of the most challenging issues in caring. Special Care Units (SCUs) have flourished since the 1980s with the aim of taking care of dementia patients, usually those with Alzheimer's disease, and in particular for those with behavioural problems. Although lacking a standard definition, SCUs are usually situated within nursing homes and commonly include the features of trained staffing, special programming, a modified physical environment, and family involvement. The costs of SCUs are commonly higher than for 'standard' nursing home care. However, evaluat ions of the outcomes of SCUs have yielded conflicting results. A systematic review of this evidence is therefore warranted .

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of SCUs on behavioural problems, mood, use of restraints and psychotropic medication in patients with dementia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The trials were identified from a search of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG), The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL on 6 September 2007 using the search terms: Special Care Units or SCUs. The CDCIG Specialized Register contains records from major healthcare databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and LILACS as well as many ongoing trial databases and grey literature sources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which the outcomes of SCUs were compared against traditional nursing units (nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewing authors independently read the full reports of the potentially eligible studies and selected those that met the inclusion criteria. Discrepancies were resolved by discussions among the two reviewing authors. Final consensus was reached with input from a third member of the team when necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs meeting the selection criteria were identified. Since it is unlikely, for ethical and practical reasons that an RCT of SCUs will be conducted, a systematic review of non-RCTs using the same protocol and criteria was conducted. There were eight non-RCTs that fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. Only four studies had data which could be extracted for pooling in meta-analysis. Differences between comparator groups in these nonRCTs ? for example in severity of dementia - w ere not adequately adjusted for and were common in the trial which accounted for almost all of the positive outcomes of SCUs (Nobili, 2006)All of the results of the outcomes came only from single studies except for "physical restraint use" at 6 months, which included data from two studies. A small improvement in total Neuropsychiatric Inventory scores, favouring SCU was noted in one study at 6, 12 and 18 months. The use of physical restraints was less common in SCUs at 6 and 12 months (OR= 0.46 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.80), p=0.006; and OR=0.49 (0.27 to 0.88), p=0.02 respectively). Patients in SCUs were less depressed at 3 months than those in traditional nursing home (WMD -6.30 (-7.88 to -4.72) Cornell points, p<0.00001). There was only one observation that favoured the control group: a small but significant effect favouring traditional nursing home care was observed at 6 months in the mean number of psychotropic medications used (WMD 0.20, CI 0.00 to 0.40, z=1.96, P=0.05).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no identified RCTs investigating the effects of SCUs on behavioural symptoms in dementia, and no strong evidence of benefit from the available non-RCTs. It is probably more important to implement best practice than to provide a specialized care environment. The routine collection of data on behaviour, restraint and psychotropic drug use across multiple nursing home settings offers the best modality for formal evaluation of the benefit or otherwise of SCUs.

摘要

背景

痴呆症患者的行为问题通常被认为是护理中最具挑战性的问题之一。自20世纪80年代以来,特殊护理单元(SCUs)蓬勃发展,旨在照顾痴呆症患者,通常是阿尔茨海默病患者,尤其是那些有行为问题的患者。尽管缺乏标准定义,但SCUs通常位于养老院中,通常具备训练有素的工作人员、特殊规划、改良的物理环境以及家庭参与等特征。SCUs的成本通常高于“标准”养老院护理。然而,对SCUs结果的评估产生了相互矛盾的结果。因此,有必要对这一证据进行系统评价。

目的

评估SCUs对痴呆症患者行为问题、情绪、约束措施使用及精神药物使用的影响。

检索策略

通过2007年9月6日对Cochrane痴呆与认知改善小组(CDCIG)专业注册库、Cochrane图书馆、MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycINFO和CINAHL进行检索来确定试验,检索词为:特殊护理单元或SCUs。CDCIG专业注册库包含来自主要医疗保健数据库的记录,包括MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、PsycINFO、CENTRAL和LILACS,以及许多正在进行的试验数据库和灰色文献来源。

入选标准

纳入所有将SCUs结果与传统护理单元(养老院、专业护理机构)进行比较的随机对照试验(RCTs)。

数据收集与分析

两位综述作者独立阅读潜在合格研究的完整报告,并选择符合纳入标准的研究。分歧通过两位综述作者之间的讨论解决。必要时,团队的第三位成员提供意见以达成最终共识。

主要结果

未识别出符合入选标准的RCTs。由于出于伦理和实际原因,不太可能进行SCUs的RCT,因此对使用相同方案和标准的非RCTs进行了系统评价。有八项非RCTs符合纳入标准。只有四项研究有可提取的数据用于荟萃分析。这些非RCTs中比较组之间的差异,例如痴呆症严重程度,未得到充分调整,并且在几乎占SCUs所有阳性结果的试验中很常见(Nobili,2006)。除6个月时“身体约束使用”的结果来自两项研究外,所有结果均仅来自单一研究。一项研究在6、12和18个月时发现,总神经精神科量表得分略有改善,支持SCU。在6个月和12个月时,SCUs中身体约束的使用较少见(OR分别为0.46(95%CI 0.27至0.80),p = 0.006;以及OR为0.49(0.27至0.88),p = 0.02)。在3个月时,SCUs中的患者比传统养老院中的患者抑郁程度更低(加权均数差 -6.30(-7.88至 -4.72)康奈尔评分,p < 0.00001)。只有一项观察结果支持对照组:在6个月时,观察到使用精神药物的平均数量有一个小但显著的有利于传统养老院护理的效果(加权均数差0.20,CI 0.00至0.40,z = 1.96,P = 0.05)。

作者结论

未发现有RCTs研究SCUs对痴呆症行为症状的影响,现有非RCTs也没有有力证据证明其有益。实施最佳实践可能比提供专门的护理环境更重要。在多个养老院环境中常规收集行为、约束措施和精神药物使用数据,为正式评估SCUs的益处与否提供了最佳方式。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索