Whitehall Surgery, Leeds, UK
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2021 Jun;11(2):146-148. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-001897. Epub 2019 Aug 16.
First, to assess if Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems (EPaCCS) was used by different organisations as a tool to share information; second, to assess whether there was a measurable benefit with patients dying at their preferred place of death.
A retrospective analysis of the 65 decedents from last 12 months in the registered list of a single practice in Leeds was conducted.
EPaCCS was present in 24 patients (36.9%). It was used by more than one organisation in 17 cases (70.9%). It facilitated death at the preferred place in 19 of the 20 cases (95%) were preferences were recorded.
EPaCCS within the organisation was not used as widely as it could have been presumed. Having a patient with an EPaCCS in the electronic medical records did not imply there was sharing of information among the different organisations involved. Although there was a clear impact on individuals dying at their preferred place of death, preferences were not necessarily recorded in EPaCCS.
首先，评估电子姑息治疗协调系统（EPaCCS）是否被不同组织用作信息共享工具；其次，评估患者在其首选死亡地点死亡是否有可衡量的益处。
对利兹市一家诊所注册名单中过去 12 个月的 65 名死者进行回顾性分析。
24 名患者（36.9%）使用了 EPaCCS。在 17 例（70.9%）中，它被多个组织使用。在记录了首选地点的 20 例中，有 19 例（95%）患者在首选地点死亡。
组织内的 EPaCCS 并没有被广泛使用。在电子病历中有 EPaCCS 的患者并不意味着参与的不同组织之间有信息共享。尽管在个人在其首选的死亡地点死亡方面有明显的影响，但这些偏好并不一定在 EPaCCS 中记录。
