Heyland Daren K, Dodek Peter, You John J, Sinuff Tasnim, Hiebert Tim, Tayler Carolyn, Jiang Xuran, Simon Jessica, Downar James
Department of Critical Care Medicine (Heyland), Kingston General Hospital; Department of Public Health Sciences (Heyland), Queen's University; Clinical Evaluation Research Unit (Heyland, Jiang), Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ont.; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences and Division of Critical Care Medicine (Dodek), St. Paul's Hospital and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Departments of Medicine, and Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (You), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Hospital and Sunnybrook Research Institute; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine and Department of Medicine, University of Toronto (Sinuff), Toronto, Ont.; Winnipeg Regional Health Authority Palliative Care Program (Hiebert), Winnipeg, Man.; Fraser Health Authority (Tayler), Surrey, BC; Division of Palliative Medicine (Simon), Department of Oncology, Department of Community Health Sciences and Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alta.; Divisions of Critical Care and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine (Downar), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
CMAJ. 2017 Jul 31;189(30):E980-E989. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.160515.
The lack of validated quality indicators is a major barrier to improving end-of-life communication and decision-making. We sought to show the feasibility of and provide initial validation for a set of quality indicators related to end-of-life communication and decision-making.
We administered a questionnaire to patients and their family members in 12 hospitals and asked them about advance care planning and goals-of-care discussions. Responses were used to calculate a quality indicator score. To validate this score, we determined its correlation with the concordance between the patients' expressed wishes and the medical order for life-sustaining treatments recorded in the hospital chart. We compared the correlation with concordance for the advance care planning component score with that for the goal-of-care discussion scores.
We enrolled 297 patients and 209 family members. At all sites, both overall quality indicators and individual domain scores were low and there was wide variability around the point estimates. The highest-ranking institution had an overall quality indicator score (95% confidence interval) of 40% (36%-44%) and the lowest had a score of 18% (11%-25%). There was a strong correlation between the overall quality indicator score and the concordance measure ( = 0.72, = 0.008); the estimated correlation between the advance care planning score and the concordance measure ( = 0.35) was weaker than that between the goal-of-care discussion scores and the concordance measure ( = 0.53).
Quality of end-of-life communication and decision-making appears low overall, with considerable variability across hospitals. The proposed quality indicator measure shows feasibility and partial validity. ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01362855.
缺乏经过验证的质量指标是改善临终沟通与决策的主要障碍。我们试图证明一组与临终沟通和决策相关的质量指标的可行性,并提供初步验证。
我们对12家医院的患者及其家属进行了问卷调查,询问他们有关预先医疗计划和医疗照护目标的讨论情况。将回答用于计算质量指标得分。为验证该得分,我们确定其与患者表达的意愿和医院病历中记录的维持生命治疗医嘱之间的一致性的相关性。我们比较了预先医疗计划组成部分得分与医疗照护目标讨论得分与一致性的相关性。
我们纳入了297名患者和209名家属。在所有研究地点,总体质量指标和各个领域得分均较低,点估计值周围存在很大差异。排名最高的机构总体质量指标得分为40%(95%置信区间为36%-44%),最低的为18%(11%-25%)。总体质量指标得分与一致性测量之间存在很强的相关性(r = 0.72,P = 0.008);预先医疗计划得分与一致性测量之间估计的相关性(r = 0.35)弱于医疗照护目标讨论得分与一致性测量之间的相关性(r = 0.53)。
总体而言,临终沟通与决策的质量似乎较低,各医院之间存在很大差异。所提出的质量指标测量方法显示出可行性和部分有效性。ClinicalTrials.gov,编号NCT01362855。