Mirarchi Ferdinando, Cammarata Christopher, Cooney Timothy E, Juhasz Kristin, Terman Stanley A
From the Department of Emergency Medicine, UPMC Hamot, Erie, Pennsylvania.
Caring Advocates, Carlsbad, California.
J Patient Saf. 2021 Sep 1;17(6):458-466. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000387.
The present study sought to assess the clarity of Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) or Living Will (LW) documents alone or in combination with a video message/testimonial (VM).
Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel responded to survey questions about the meaning of stand-alone POLST and LW documents and those used in conjunction with emergent care scenarios. Personnel were randomized to receive documents only or documents with VM. Questions sought a code status for each scenario and a resuscitation decision. Code status responses were analyzed for consensus (95% response rate), resuscitation responses for correct treatment decisions.
The survey response rate was 85%. Approximately half of emergency medical technician (EMT) respondents were EMT basic, and half EMT respondents were paramedic, with an average age of 42 years. Less than half had previous POLST/LW training averaging 2 hours. Consensus failed to be reached for stand-alone documents. For clinical scenarios, responses to POLST documents specifying do not resuscitate/comfort measures only or cardiopulmonary resuscitation/full treatment exceeded 80% for code status designation and correct resuscitation decisions. Other POLST resuscitation/treatment combinations showed more disparate responses, and most benefited from VM with changes in responses of 20% or more (P ≤ 0.025). Code status responses to LW-based scenarios evidenced a nonconsensus majority (79%-83%) that was significantly affected with VMs (≥12%, P ≤ 0.004); half evidenced large changes in resuscitation decisions (49%, P < 0.001).
Document clarity, judged by consensus response, was rarely evidenced. video message/testimonial seems to be a helpful aid to both POLST and LWs. Standardized education and training reveal opportunities to improve patient safety to ensure patient wishes.
本研究旨在评估单独的维持生命治疗医嘱(POLST)或生前预嘱(LW)文件,以及与视频信息/推荐意见(VM)结合使用时的清晰度。
紧急医疗服务(EMS)人员回答了关于单独的POLST和LW文件以及与紧急护理场景结合使用的文件含义的调查问题。人员被随机分为仅接收文件组或接收带有VM的文件组。问题询问了每个场景的代码状态和复苏决定。对代码状态回复进行一致性分析(回复率95%),对复苏回复进行正确治疗决定分析。
调查回复率为85%。大约一半的急救医疗技术员(EMT)受访者是初级EMT,另一半是护理人员,平均年龄为42岁。不到一半的人以前接受过平均时长为2小时的POLST/LW培训。单独的文件未能达成共识。对于临床场景,指定不进行复苏/仅采取舒适措施或心肺复苏/全面治疗的POLST文件,其代码状态指定和正确复苏决定的回复率超过80%。其他POLST复苏/治疗组合的回复差异更大,大多数受益于VM,回复变化达20%或更多(P≤0.025)。基于LW的场景的代码状态回复显示出多数人未达成共识(79%-83%),且受VM显著影响(≥12%,P≤0.004);一半的回复显示复苏决定有很大变化(49%,P<0.001)。
通过共识回复判断,文件清晰度很少得到证实。视频信息/推荐意见似乎对POLST和LW都有帮助。标准化教育和培训揭示了改善患者安全以确保患者意愿的机会。