Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Feb;57(2):251-259. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.10.507. Epub 2018 Nov 1.
Goals-of-care discussions are associated with improved end-of-life care for patients and therefore may be used as a process measure in quality improvement, research, and reimbursement programs.
To examine three methods to assess occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion-patient report, clinician report, and documentation in the electronic health record (EHR)-at a clinic visit for seriously ill patients and determine whether each method is associated with patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care.
We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter cluster-randomized trial, with 494 patients and 124 clinicians caring for them. Self-reported surveys collected from patients and clinicians two weeks after a clinic visit assessed occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion. Documentation of a goals-of-care discussion was abstracted from the EHR. Patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care was assessed by survey two weeks after the visit.
Fifty-two percent of patients reported occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion at the clinic visit; clinicians reported occurrence of a discussion at 66% of visits. EHR documentation occurred in 42% of visits (P < 0.001 for each compared with other two). Patients who reported occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion at the visit were more likely to report receipt of goal-concordant care than patients who reported no discussion (β 0.441, 95% CI 0.190-0.692; P = 0.001). Neither occurrence of a discussion by clinician report nor by EHR documentation was associated with goal-concordant care.
Different approaches to assess goals-of-care discussions give differing results, yet each may have advantages. Patient report is most likely to correlate with patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care.
目标关怀讨论与改善患者的临终关怀相关,因此可作为质量改进、研究和报销计划中的过程衡量标准。
在一家诊所对重病患者进行就诊时,通过三种方法评估目标关怀讨论的发生情况,即患者报告、临床医生报告和电子健康记录(EHR)中的记录,并确定每种方法是否与患者报告的接受目标一致的护理相关。
我们对一项多中心集群随机试验进行了二次分析,共纳入 494 名患者和 124 名照顾他们的临床医生。在就诊后两周,通过自我报告调查从患者和临床医生那里收集信息,以评估目标关怀讨论的发生情况。从 EHR 中提取目标关怀讨论的记录。通过就诊后两周的调查评估患者报告的接受目标一致的护理情况。
52%的患者报告在就诊时发生了目标关怀讨论;临床医生报告在 66%的就诊时发生了讨论。EHR 记录在 42%的就诊中发生(与其他两种方法相比,每种方法的 P 值均<0.001)。在就诊时报告发生目标关怀讨论的患者更有可能报告接受目标一致的护理,而报告没有讨论的患者则不太可能(β 0.441,95%CI 0.190-0.692;P=0.001)。临床医生报告或 EHR 记录发生讨论均与目标一致的护理无关。
评估目标关怀讨论的不同方法会产生不同的结果,但每种方法都可能有其优势。患者报告最有可能与患者报告的接受目标一致的护理相关。