Suppr超能文献

这个患者是否具有医疗决策能力?

Does this patient have medical decision-making capacity?

机构信息

Section of General Internal Medicine, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 6900 Georgia Ave NW, Washington, DC 20307, USA.

出版信息

JAMA. 2011 Jul 27;306(4):420-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1023.

Abstract

CONTEXT

Evaluation of the capacity of a patient to make medical decisions should occur in the context of specific medical decisions when incapacity is considered.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of incapacity and assessment accuracy in adult medicine patients without severe mental illnesses.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and EMBASE (from their inception through April 2011) and bibliographies of retrieved articles.

STUDY SELECTION

We included high-quality prospective studies (n = 43) of instruments that evaluated medical decision-making capacity for treatment decisions.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently appraised study quality, extracted relevant data, and resolved disagreements by consensus.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Incapacity was uncommon in healthy elderly control participants (2.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7%-3.9%) compared with medicine inpatients (26%; 95% CI, 18%-35%). Clinicians accurately diagnosed incapacity (positive likelihood ratio [LR+] of 7.9; 95% CI, 2.7-13), although they recognized it in only 42% (95% CI, 30%-53%) of affected patients. Although not designed to assess incapacity, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores less than 20 increased the likelihood of incapacity (LR, 6.3; 95% CI, 3.7-11), scores of 20 to 24 had no effect (LR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.53-1.2), and scores greater than 24 significantly lowered the likelihood of incapacity (LR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.06-0.34). Of 9 instruments compared with a gold standard, only 3 are easily performed and have useful test characteristics: the Aid to Capacity Evaluation (ACE) (LR+, 8.5; 95% CI, 3.9-19; negative LR [LR-], 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11-0.41), the Hopkins Competency Assessment Test (LR+, 54; 95% CI, 3.5-846; LR-, 0; 95% CI, 0.0-0.52), and the Understanding Treatment Disclosure (LR+, 6.0; 95% CI, 2.1-17; LR-, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.41). The ACE was validated in the largest study; it is freely available online and includes a training module.

CONCLUSIONS

Incapacity is common and often not recognized. The MMSE is useful only at extreme scores. The ACE is the best available instrument to assist physicians in making assessments of medical decision-making capacity.

摘要

背景

当考虑到无能力状态时,应该在具体医疗决策的背景下评估患者做出医疗决策的能力。

目的

确定无严重精神疾病的成年内科患者无能力状态的发生率和评估准确性。

资料来源

MEDLINE 和 EMBASE(从其创立至 2011 年 4 月)和检索文章的参考文献。

研究选择

我们纳入了评估治疗决策中医疗决策能力的仪器的高质量前瞻性研究(n=43)。

数据提取

两名作者独立评估研究质量、提取相关数据,并通过共识解决分歧。

数据综合

与内科住院患者(26%;95%置信区间,18%-35%)相比,健康老年对照组参与者(2.8%;95%置信区间,1.7%-3.9%)中无能力状态不常见。临床医生准确地诊断出无能力状态(阳性似然比[LR+]为 7.9;95%置信区间,2.7-13),但他们仅在 42%(95%置信区间,30%-53%)的受影响患者中识别出无能力状态。虽然简易精神状态检查(MMSE)评分<20 不适合评估无能力状态,但增加了无能力状态的可能性(LR,6.3;95%置信区间,3.7-11),评分 20-24 没有影响(LR,0.87;95%置信区间,0.53-1.2),评分>24 显著降低了无能力状态的可能性(LR,0.14;95%置信区间,0.06-0.34)。在与金标准比较的 9 种仪器中,只有 3 种易于操作且具有有用的检测特征:能力评估辅助工具(ACE)(LR+,8.5;95%置信区间,3.9-19;LR-,0.21;95%置信区间,0.11-0.41)、霍普金斯能力评估测试(LR+,54;95%置信区间,3.5-846;LR-,0;95%置信区间,0.0-0.52)和理解治疗披露(LR+,6.0;95%置信区间,2.1-17;LR-,0.16;95%置信区间,0.06-0.41)。ACE 在最大的研究中得到了验证;它可免费在线获取,并包含一个培训模块。

结论

无能力状态很常见,且通常未被识别。MMSE 仅在极端分数时有用。ACE 是协助医生评估医疗决策能力的最佳工具。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验