Wiese C H R, Duttge G, Taghavi M, Lassen C L, Meyer N, Andreesen R, Graf B M, Pfirstinger J
Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Klinikum der Universität Regensburg.
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2011 Nov;136(45):2302-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1292043. Epub 2011 Nov 2.
General out-patient palliative care (GOPC) must be integrated into the care of patients with life-limiting diseases. Aim of the study was to evaluate experiences of general practitioners concerning advance directives and palliative emergency sheets.
A self-provided survey was mailed to all general practitioners in Regensburg (cross-sectional study). Main outcome measures included responses regarding a palliative emergency sheet (PES) and a palliative emergency plan (PEP). The investigation period was four months. The analysis was performed using defined criteria (e. g. professional experience concerning palliative care patients, patients treated in nursing homes, patients with dementia).
Sixty-nine questionnaires from 259 were analysed (response rate 27 %). 86 % of respondents named practical experience in the care of palliative patients, 46 % named theoretical knowledge in this field. 41 % and 40 % consider creating an advance directive for their practical work as important/very important (p = 0.004 concerning the treatment of more than five palliative care patients per three months). 52 % and 49 % regard a PES or a PEP to be relevant (PES median: 6.5, SD ± 2.7; PEP median: 6.5 SD ± 2.9; inter-group analysis p < 0.05). 94 % of respondents name the general practitioner to be suitable for creating an advance directive.
In Germany, GOPC in end-of-life care is very important. This study shows that advance directives were declared as an important instrument for patients? autonomy. The sense of PES and PEP to ensure patients? autonomy, especially for acute emergency medical palliative care, must be better recognized. However, the increase in acceptance in the GOPC for such instruments must be disclosed. Further studies to investigate this problem are necessary.
普通门诊姑息治疗(GOPC)必须纳入到对患有危及生命疾病患者的护理中。本研究的目的是评估全科医生在预立医嘱和姑息急救单方面的经验。
向雷根斯堡的所有全科医生邮寄了一份自行设计的调查问卷(横断面研究)。主要结局指标包括对姑息急救单(PES)和姑息急救计划(PEP)的反馈。调查期为四个月。使用既定标准(例如,关于姑息治疗患者的专业经验、在养老院接受治疗的患者、患有痴呆症的患者)进行分析。
对259份问卷中的69份进行了分析(回复率27%)。86%的受访者表示在姑息患者护理方面有实践经验,46%的受访者表示在该领域有理论知识。41%和40%的受访者认为为其实践工作制定预立医嘱很重要/非常重要(对于每三个月治疗超过五名姑息治疗患者的情况,p = 0.004)。52%和49%的受访者认为PES或PEP相关(PES中位数:6.5,标准差±2.7;PEP中位数:6.5,标准差±2.9;组间分析p < 0.05)。94%的受访者认为全科医生适合制定预立医嘱。
在德国,临终关怀中的GOPC非常重要。本研究表明,预立医嘱被视为保障患者自主权的重要工具。必须更好地认识到PES和PEP对于确保患者自主权的意义,特别是对于急性紧急医疗姑息治疗。然而,必须揭示GOPC对此类工具接受度的提高情况。有必要进行进一步的研究来调查这个问题。