Haberle Tyler H, Shinkunas Laura A, Erekson Zachary D, Kaldjian Lauris C
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, 500 Newton Road, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2011 Aug;28(5):335-41. doi: 10.1177/1049909110388505. Epub 2010 Nov 21.
Our objective was to validate 6 literature-derived goals of care by analyzing open-ended and closed-ended responses about goals of care from a previous study of hospitalized patients. Eight clinicians categorized patients' open-ended articulations of their goals of care using a literature-derived framework and then compared those categorizations to patients' own closed-ended selections of their most important goal of care. Clinicians successfully categorized patients' open-ended responses using the literature-derived framework 83.5% of the time, and their categorizations matched patients' closed-ended most important goal of care 87.8% of the time. Goals that did not fit within the literature-derived framework all pertained to the goal of understanding a patient's diagnosis or prognosis; this seventh potential goal can be added to the literature-derived framework of 6 goals of care.
我们的目标是通过分析先前一项关于住院患者护理目标的研究中有关护理目标的开放式和封闭式回答,来验证6个源自文献的护理目标。8名临床医生使用一个源自文献的框架对患者护理目标的开放式表述进行分类,然后将这些分类与患者自己对其最重要护理目标的封闭式选择进行比较。临床医生使用源自文献的框架成功对患者开放式回答进行分类的时间占83.5%,并且他们的分类与患者封闭式的最重要护理目标相符的时间占87.8%。不符合源自文献框架的目标均与了解患者诊断或预后的目标相关;这个第七个潜在目标可以添加到源自文献的6个护理目标框架中。