Menon Shailaja, McCullough Laurence B, Beyth Rebecca J, Ford Marvella E, Espadas Donna, Braun Ursula K
VA Health Services Research and Development Center for Innovations in Quality,Effectiveness and Safety,Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center,Houston,Texas.
Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy,Baylor College of Medicine,Houston,Texas.
Palliat Support Care. 2016 Aug;14(4):330-40. doi: 10.1017/S1478951515001091. Epub 2015 Oct 13.
We examined the utility of a brief values inventory as a discussion aid to elicit patients' values and goals for end-of-life (EoL) care during audiotaped outpatient physician-patient encounters.
Participants were seriously ill male outpatients (n = 120) at a large urban Veterans Affairs medical center. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial, randomizing 60 patients to either the intervention (with the values inventory) or usual care. We used descriptive statistics and qualitative methods to analyze the data. We coded any EoL discussions and recorded the length of such discussions.
A total of 8 patients (13%) in the control group and 13 (23%) in the intervention group had EoL discussions with a physician (p = 0.77). All EoL discussions in the control group were initiated by the physician, compared with only five (38%) in the intervention group. Because most EoL discussions took place toward the end of the encounter, discussions were usually brief.
The outpatient setting has been promoted as a better place for discussing EoL care than a hospital during an acute hospitalization for a chronic serious illness. However, the low effectiveness of our intervention calls into question the feasibility of discussing EoL care during a single outpatient visit. Allowing extra time or an extra visit for EoL discussions might increase the efficacy of advance care planning.
我们研究了一份简短的价值观量表作为一种讨论辅助工具的效用,以在门诊医生与患者的录音问诊过程中引出患者对于临终(EoL)护理的价值观和目标。
参与者为一家大型城市退伍军人事务医疗中心的重症男性门诊患者(n = 120)。我们进行了一项试点随机对照试验,将60名患者随机分为干预组(使用价值观量表)或常规护理组。我们使用描述性统计和定性方法来分析数据。我们对所有临终讨论进行编码并记录此类讨论的时长。
对照组共有8名患者(13%)与医生进行了临终讨论,干预组有13名患者(23%)进行了临终讨论(p = 0.77)。对照组中所有临终讨论均由医生发起,而干预组中只有5次(38%)是由医生发起。由于大多数临终讨论发生在问诊接近尾声时,所以讨论通常很简短。
门诊环境被认为是比慢性重症急性住院期间的医院更适合讨论临终护理的场所。然而,我们干预措施的低效性让人质疑在单次门诊就诊期间讨论临终护理的可行性。留出额外时间或安排额外就诊来进行临终讨论可能会提高预先护理计划的效果。