Fritz Zoë, Fuld Jonathan P
Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Feb;21(1):109-17. doi: 10.1111/jep.12256. Epub 2014 Nov 13.
Problems exist with Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) orders: they are often misinterpreted by clinicians to mean that other treatments should be withheld; resuscitation decision discussions are difficult; patients remain inappropriately for resuscitation. We developed an alternative approach.
An adapted Delphi method was used. Senior clinicians were interviewed about the strengths and weakness of current practice. Teams who had initiated alternative approaches internationally were contacted. Focus groups were conducted with doctors, nurses and patients to further understand problems with DNACPR orders and establish essential aspects of a new approach. A behavioral economist and management consultant contributed advice. The resulting form was recirculated and further refined. It was: snowballed out to others with specialist expertise (palliative care physicians, intensivists, etc) for further feedback; assessed in simulated clinical encounters before being piloted; further adjusted once in clinical practice. In parallel, a patient information leaflet was developed along with education materials.
Consensus was achieved that the new approach should: be universal; have discussions and clinical conditions documented first; clarify goals of overall treatment (active treatment or optimal supportive care); contextualize the resuscitation decision among other treatment decisions; have a free text box for 'opting out' of invasive treatments, rather than tick boxes; be green; be limited to one page.
The Universal Form of Treatment Options was developed iteratively with patients, doctors and nurses as an alternative approach to resuscitation decisions. This paper illustrates a cross-disciplinary approach to developing practical alternatives in health care.
理论依据、目的和目标:“不要尝试进行心肺复苏”(DNACPR)医嘱存在一些问题:临床医生常常误解其含义,认为其他治疗也应停止;复苏决策讨论困难;患者仍接受不适当的复苏治疗。我们开发了一种替代方法。
采用了改良的德尔菲法。就当前实践的优缺点对资深临床医生进行了访谈。联系了在国际上采用替代方法的团队。与医生、护士和患者进行了焦点小组讨论,以进一步了解DNACPR医嘱的问题,并确定新方法的关键方面。一位行为经济学家和管理顾问提供了建议。最终形成的表格进行了再次分发并进一步完善。具体做法是:向其他具有专业知识的人员(姑息治疗医生、重症监护医生等)进行“滚雪球”式分发以获取更多反馈;在进行试点之前在模拟临床场景中进行评估;在临床实践中使用后进一步调整。同时,还编写了一份患者信息手册以及教育材料。
就新方法应具备的特点达成了共识:具有通用性;首先记录讨论内容和临床情况;明确总体治疗目标(积极治疗或最佳支持治疗);将复苏决策置于其他治疗决策的背景下进行考量;设有一个自由文本框用于“选择不接受”侵入性治疗,而非打勾选项;采用绿色;篇幅限制在一页。
“通用治疗选项表”是与患者、医生和护士反复沟通后开发出来的,作为复苏决策的一种替代方法。本文阐述了一种跨学科方法,用于在医疗保健领域开发切实可行的替代方案。