Hui David, Mori Masanori, Meng Yee-Choon, Watanabe Sharon M, Caraceni Augusto, Strasser Florian, Saarto Tiina, Cherny Nathan, Glare Paul, Kaasa Stein, Bruera Eduardo
Department of Palliative Care, Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine, Unit 1414, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Palliative Care Team, Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, Japan.
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Jan;26(1):175-180. doi: 10.1007/s00520-017-3830-5. Epub 2017 Jul 19.
Palliative care referral is primarily based on clinician judgment, contributing to highly variable access. Standardized criteria to trigger automatic referral have been proposed, but it remains unclear how best to apply them in practice. We conducted a Delphi study of international experts to identify a consensus for the use of standardized criteria to trigger automatic referral.
Sixty international experts stated their level of agreement for 14 statements regarding the use of clinician-based referral and automatic referral over two Delphi rounds. A consensus was defined as an agreement of ≥70% a priori.
The response rate was 59/60 (98%) for the first round and 56/60 (93%) for the second round. Twenty-six (43%), 19 (32%), and 11 (18%) respondents were from North America, Asia/Australia, and Europe, respectively. The panel reached consensus that outpatient palliative care referral should be based on both automatic referral and clinician-based referral (agreement = 86%). Only 18% felt that referral should be clinician-based alone, and only 7% agreed that referral should be based on automatic referral only. There was consensus that automatic referral criteria may increase the number of referrals (agreement = 98%), facilitate earlier palliative care access, and help administrators to set benchmarks for quality improvement (agreement = 86%).
Our panelists favored the combination of automatic referral to augment clinician-based referral. This integrated referral framework may inform policy and program development.
姑息治疗转诊主要基于临床医生的判断,这导致了获取机会的高度差异。已提出触发自动转诊的标准化标准,但在实践中如何最佳应用这些标准仍不明确。我们对国际专家进行了一项德尔菲研究,以确定使用标准化标准触发自动转诊的共识。
60名国际专家在两轮德尔菲研究中就14条关于基于临床医生的转诊和自动转诊使用的陈述表明了他们的同意程度。共识被定义为事先达成≥70%的同意率。
第一轮的回复率为59/60(98%),第二轮为56/60(93%)。分别有26名(43%)、19名(32%)和11名(18%)受访者来自北美、亚洲/澳大利亚和欧洲。专家小组达成共识,门诊姑息治疗转诊应基于自动转诊和基于临床医生的转诊(同意率 = 86%)。只有18%的人认为转诊应仅基于临床医生,只有7%的人同意转诊应仅基于自动转诊。达成共识的是,自动转诊标准可能会增加转诊数量(同意率 = 98%),促进更早获得姑息治疗,并帮助管理人员设定质量改进的基准(同意率 = 86%)。
我们的小组成员赞成结合自动转诊以增强基于临床医生的转诊。这种综合转诊框架可能为政策和项目制定提供参考。