Manu Erika R, Mody Lona, McNamara Sara E, Vitale Caroline A
1 Division of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2017 Mar;34(2):105-110. doi: 10.1177/1049909115611875. Epub 2016 Jul 11.
Research shows variable success as to whether care provided aligns with individual patient preferences as reflected in their advance directives (AD).
We aimed to study AD status and subsequent care received in older nursing home (NH) residents deemed at risk for infections and care transitions: those with a urinary catheter (UC), feeding tube (FT), or both. Design/participants/measurements: A subgroup analysis of a prospective cohort of 90 residents with a UC and/or FT from 15 NHs in southeast Michigan. Outcomes assessed at enrollment and at 30-day intervals were hospitalizations and antibiotic use. The ADs were divided as follows: (1) comfort oriented: comfort measures only, no hospital transfer; (2) palliative oriented: comfort focused, allowing hospital transfer (except intensive care unit), antibiotic use, but no cardiopulmonary resuscitation; (3) usual care: full code, no limitations to care. We calculated incidences for these outcomes.
Seventy-eight (87%) residents had ADs: 18 (23%) comfort oriented, 32 (41%) palliative oriented, and 28 (36%) usual care. The groups did not differ regarding demographics, comorbidity, function, device presence, or time in study. Using the usual care group as comparison, the comfort-oriented group was hospitalized at a similar rate (Incidence rate [IR] = 15.6/1000 follow-up days vs IR = 8.8/1000 follow-up days, Incident rate ratio [IRR] 0.6 [95% confidence interval, CI, 0.3 -1.1], P value .09) but received fewer antibiotics (IR = 18.9/1000 follow-up days vs IR = 7.5/1000 follow-up days, IRR 0.4 [95% CI, 0.2-0.8], P value .005).
Nursing home residents with comfort-oriented ADs were hospitalized at a rate similar to those with usual-care ADs but received fewer antibiotics, although the small sample size of this analysis suggests these findings deserve further study.
研究表明,所提供的护理是否符合患者在其预先医疗指示(AD)中反映的个人偏好,其成功率各不相同。
我们旨在研究被认为有感染和护理过渡风险的老年疗养院(NH)居民的AD状态及随后接受的护理情况,这些居民包括有导尿管(UC)、饲管(FT)或两者皆有的居民。设计/参与者/测量方法:对密歇根州东南部15家NH的90名有UC和/或FT的居民的前瞻性队列进行亚组分析。在入组时和每隔30天评估的结果为住院情况和抗生素使用情况。AD被分为以下几类:(1)以舒适为导向:仅采取舒适措施,不进行医院转诊;(2)以姑息治疗为导向:以舒适为重点,允许医院转诊(重症监护病房除外),使用抗生素,但不进行心肺复苏;(3)常规护理:全力抢救,护理无限制。我们计算了这些结果的发生率。
78名(87%)居民有AD:18名(23%)以舒适为导向,32名(41%)以姑息治疗为导向,28名(36%)为常规护理。这些组在人口统计学、合并症、功能、器械使用情况或研究时间方面没有差异。以常规护理组作为对照,以舒适为导向的组住院率相似(发病率[IR]=15.6/1000随访日,而IR=8.8/1000随访日,发病率比[IRR]0.6[95%置信区间,CI,0.3-1.1],P值.09),但使用的抗生素较少(IR=18.9/1000随访日,而IR=7.5/1000随访日,IRR 0.4[95%CI,0.2-0.8],P值.005)。
以舒适为导向的AD的疗养院居民住院率与常规护理AD的居民相似,但使用的抗生素较少,尽管该分析样本量较小,表明这些发现值得进一步研究。