Brokmann J C, Grützmann T, Pidun A K, Groß D, Rossaint R, Beckers S K, May A T
Zentrale Notaufnahme, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Deutschland,
Anaesthesist. 2014 Jan;63(1):23-31. doi: 10.1007/s00101-013-2260-0. Epub 2014 Jan 9.
The handling of advance directives (AD) in prehospital emergency treatment in Germany is characterized by instability. In the project "Advance directives in preclinical emergency medical aid" ("Patientenverfügungen in der präklinischen Notfallmedizin") the frequency and quality of ADs in emergency situations was investigated.
The aim of this study was to fill the gaps in research and to collate data on how consideration of the self-determination of patients in emergency situations can be optimized.
Over a period of 12 months from December 2007 to December 2008 a questionnaire was included in the emergency documentation of the medical emergency service in Aachen. Emergency patients were asked by emergency physicians to provide an AD and the quantitative as well as qualitative features of these ADs were examined. Furthermore, the study recorded what kinds of problems occurred with ADs in emergency situations and what measures were needed to correct this deficiency. The reactions of patients were documented on a numeral rating scale with a score of 1 reflecting a negative and 10 reflecting a positive reaction. In the 12-month period emergency doctors recorded 1,321 missions and after application of the exclusion criteria (e.g. missing signature, incomplete documentation and late delivery) 1,047 documented questionnaires were available for the analysis.
A total of 127 out of 1,047 emergency patients provided an AD, 44 had a durable power of attorney and 27 had appointed a legal representative for healthcare. Of the emergency patients 20 had a legal attendant and 43 out of the 127 ADs could be presented to the emergency team during the emergency mission. The emergency team often encountered difficulties regarding the handling of the ADs due to the time factor and unclear wording. The latter included the following problems: misleading formulation (19.1 %), difficulty with the complexity (14.9 %) and contradicting information (4 %). Only 29 (61.7 %) of the durable powers of attorney were signed and legally binding. From the view of the emergency physicians the following information was lacking but would be helpful in emergency situations: emergency plan, hierarchy of those given power of attorney, knowledge of risks regarding ADs and medication requirements.
The results show that for an AD to apply in an emergency situation certain standards are necessary that assure the practicability, especially if a patient does not wish to be resuscitated. Most difficulties with ADs occurred with imprecise formulation, text length and inconsistency of statements. The following instructions were usually missing: hierarchy of those given power of attorney and specification on medication, information about the scope of the ADs, statement about resuscitation, extent and limitations of the desired treatment, especially with patients certified as terminally ill and instructions on who should decide about medical treatment in a conflict situation. A so-called emergency instruction which gives on a single page the patient's statement on resuscitation would have been very helpful in individual cases. The results suggest that patients may need more information and education about AD to guarantee patients rights and self-determination.
在德国,院前急救中预立医疗指示(AD)的处理情况并不稳定。在“临床前急救医疗中的预立医疗指示”项目中,对紧急情况下AD的频率和质量进行了调查。
本研究的目的是填补研究空白,并整理有关如何在紧急情况下优化患者自决权考量的数据。
在2007年12月至2008年12月的12个月期间,一份问卷被纳入亚琛市医疗急救服务的紧急文档中。急救医生要求急诊患者提供一份AD,并对这些AD的定量和定性特征进行检查。此外,该研究记录了紧急情况下AD出现的各类问题以及纠正这些不足所需的措施。患者的反应通过数字评分量表记录,分数1表示负面反应,10表示正面反应。在这12个月期间,急救医生记录了1321次任务,在应用排除标准(如签名缺失、文档不完整和提交延迟)后,有1047份记录在案的问卷可供分析。
在1047名急诊患者中,共有127人提供了AD,44人有持久授权书,27人指定了医疗保健法定代表人。在急诊患者中,20人有法定陪同人员,127份AD中的43份可在紧急任务期间提交给急救团队。由于时间因素和措辞不明确,急救团队在处理AD时经常遇到困难。后者包括以下问题:表述误导(19.1%)、内容复杂难以理解(14.9%)和信息矛盾(4%)。只有29份(61.7%)持久授权书签署且具有法律约束力。从急救医生的角度来看,以下信息缺失但在紧急情况下会有所帮助:应急计划、授权人员层级、AD相关风险知识和用药要求。
结果表明,为使AD在紧急情况下适用,需要某些确保实用性的标准,特别是在患者不希望接受心肺复苏的情况下。AD最常见的困难在于表述不精确、文本长度和陈述不一致。通常缺少以下说明:授权人员层级和用药说明、AD范围信息、关于心肺复苏的声明、期望治疗的范围和限制,尤其是对于被认证为绝症患者,以及在冲突情况下谁应决定医疗治疗的说明。一份在单页上给出患者关于心肺复苏声明的所谓紧急指示在个别情况下会非常有帮助。结果表明,患者可能需要更多关于AD的信息和教育,以保障患者权利和自决权。