From the *Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hamot, Erie; †University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh; and ‡Basic Science Research, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hamot, Erie, Pennsylvania.
J Patient Saf. 2015 Mar;11(1):1-8. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000165.
Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) documents are active medical orders to be followed with intention to bridge treatment across health care systems. We hypothesized that these forms can be confusing and jeopardize patient safety.
The aim of this study was to determine whether POLST documents are confusing in the emergency department setting and how confusion impacts the provision or withholding of lifesaving interventions.
Members of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians were surveyed between September and October 2013. Respondents were to determine code status and treatment decisions in scenarios of critically ill patients with POLST documents who emergently arrest. Combinations of resuscitations (do not resuscitate [DNR], cardiopulmonary resuscitation) and levels of treatment (full, limited, comfort measures) were represented. Responses were summarized as percentages and analyzed by subgroup using the Fisher exact test. P = 0.05 was considered significant. We defined confusion in response as absence of consensus (supermajority of 95%).
Our response rate was 26% (223/855). For scenarios specifying DNR and either full or limited treatment, most chose DNR (59%-84%) and 25% to 75% chose resuscitation. When the POLST specified DNR with comfort measures, 90% selected DNR and withheld resuscitation. When cardiopulmonary resuscitation/full treatment was presented, 95% selected "full code" and resuscitation. Physician age and experience significantly affected response rates; prior POLST education had no impact. In most scenarios depicted, responses reflected confusion over its interpretation.
Significant confusion exists among members of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians regarding the use of POLST in critically ill patients. This confusion poses risk to patient safety. Additional training and/or safeguards are needed to allow patient choice as well as protect their safety.
医师签署的延续生命治疗医嘱(POLST)是具有法律效力的医疗医嘱,目的是确保患者在不同医疗系统间得到连贯一致的治疗。我们假设此类医嘱可能会令人困惑,并危及患者安全。
本研究旨在确定 POLST 医嘱在急诊科环境中是否令人困惑,以及困惑如何影响拯救生命干预措施的提供或拒绝。
2013 年 9 月至 10 月,对宾夕法尼亚州美国急诊医师学院分会的成员进行了调查。在出现有 POLST 医嘱的危重症患者紧急心跳骤停的场景中,要求受访者判断患者的复苏意愿和治疗决策。复苏方式(不复苏[DNR]、心肺复苏)和治疗级别(全力、有限、舒适护理)组合。根据亚组使用 Fisher 精确检验,对回答进行汇总和分析。P = 0.05 被认为有统计学意义。我们将回答不一致定义为缺乏共识(95%的绝大多数)。
我们的回复率为 26%(223/855)。对于指定 DNR 且治疗级别为全力或有限的场景,大多数人选择 DNR(59%-84%),25%-75%选择复苏。当 POLST 指定 DNR 加舒适护理时,90%的人选择 DNR 并拒绝复苏。当心肺复苏/全力治疗时,95%的人选择“全力复苏”并进行复苏。医生的年龄和经验显著影响回复率;之前接受过 POLST 教育没有影响。在大多数描述的场景中,回答反映了对其解释的困惑。
宾夕法尼亚州美国急诊医师学院分会的成员对危重症患者使用 POLST 存在明显困惑。这种困惑对患者安全构成风险。需要额外的培训和/或保障措施,以允许患者做出选择,并保护他们的安全。