King's College Hospital, London, SE5 9RS, UK.
Ethics Section, European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), Brussels, Belgium.
Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 22;8(1):148. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1064-y.
Even though data suggest that palliative care (PC) improves patient quality of life, caregiver burden, cost, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, integration of PC in the ICU is far from being universally accepted. Poor understanding of what PC provides is one of the barriers to the widespread implementation of their services in ICU. Evidence suggests that the availability of specialist PC is lacking in most European countries and provided differently depending on geographical location. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the numbers and types of PC interventions and gauge their impact on stakeholder outcomes and ICU resource utilisation.
We will undertake a systematic review of the published peer-reviewed journal articles; our search will be carried out MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. The search strategy will include variations in the term 'palliative care' and 'intensive care'. All studies with patient populations undergoing palliative care interventions will be selected. Only full-text articles will be considered, and conference abstracts excluded. There will be no date restrictions on the year of publications or on language. The primary aim of the present study is to compare the numbers and types of PC interventions in ICU and their impact on stakeholder (patient, family, clinician, other) outcomes. Reporting of findings will follow the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
This review will provide insight into the implementation of palliative care in ICU, elucidate differences between countries and health systems, reveal most effective models, and contribute to identifying research priorities to improve outcomes.
International Prospective Register of Systematic reviews PROSPERO ( CRD42018094315 ).
尽管数据表明姑息治疗(PC)可提高患者的生活质量、护理人员的负担、成本和重症监护病房(ICU)的住院时间,但在 ICU 中整合 PC 远未被普遍接受。对 PC 提供的服务缺乏了解是限制其在 ICU 中广泛实施的障碍之一。有证据表明,大多数欧洲国家都缺乏专科 PC 服务,并且根据地理位置的不同而有所不同。本系统评价的目的是比较 PC 干预措施的数量和类型,并评估其对利益相关者结局和 ICU 资源利用的影响。
我们将对已发表的同行评议期刊文章进行系统评价;我们的检索将包括 MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane、CINAHL 和 PsycINFO。检索策略将包括“姑息治疗”和“重症监护”术语的变体。将选择接受姑息治疗干预的患者人群的所有研究。仅考虑全文文章,排除会议摘要。对出版物的年份或语言没有时间限制。本研究的主要目的是比较 ICU 中 PC 干预措施的数量和类型及其对利益相关者(患者、家属、临床医生、其他)结局的影响。研究结果的报告将遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南。
本综述将深入了解 ICU 中姑息治疗的实施情况,阐明国家和卫生系统之间的差异,揭示最有效的模式,并有助于确定改善结局的研究重点。
国际前瞻性系统评价注册库 PROSPERO(CRD42018094315)。