Department of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Division of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020 Feb;59(2):372-383.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.09.020. Epub 2019 Oct 3.
There is growing interest in providing palliative care (PC) in the emergency department (ED), but relatively little is known about the efficacy of ED-based PC interventions. A 2016 systematic review on this topic found no evidence that ED-based PC interventions affect patient outcomes or health care utilization, but new research has emerged since the publication of that review.
This systematic review provides a concise summary of current literature addressing the impact of ED-based PC interventions on patient-reported or family reported outcomes, health care utilization, and survival.
We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception until September 1, 2018 and reviewed references. Eligible articles evaluated the effects of PC interventions in the ED on patient-reported or family reported outcomes, health care utilization, or survival.
We screened 3091 abstracts and 98 full-text articles with 13 articles selected for final inclusion. Two articles reported the results of a single randomized controlled trial, whereas the remaining 11 studies were descriptive or quasi-experimental cohort studies. More than half of the included articles were published after the previous systematic review on this topic. Populations studied included older adults, patients with advanced malignancy, and ED patients screening positive for unmet PC needs. Most interventions involved referral to hospice or PC or PC provided directly in the ED. Compared with usual care, ED-PC interventions improved quality of life, although this improvement was not observed when comparing ED-PC to inpatient PC. ED-PC interventions expedited PC consultation; most studies reported a concomitant reduction in hospital length of stay and increase in hospice utilization, but some data were conflicting. Short-term mortality rates were high across all studies, but ED-PC interventions did not decrease survival time compared with usual care.
Existing data support that PC in the ED is feasible, may improve quality of life, and does not appear to affect survival.
在急诊科提供姑息治疗(PC)的兴趣日益浓厚,但对于基于急诊科的 PC 干预措施的疗效知之甚少。2016 年关于该主题的系统评价没有发现基于急诊科的 PC 干预措施影响患者结局或卫生保健利用的证据,但自该评价发表以来,新的研究已经出现。
本系统评价简要总结了当前关于基于急诊科的 PC 干预措施对患者报告或家庭报告结局、卫生保健利用和生存影响的文献。
我们检索了 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、Scopus 和 Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature,从建库起至 2018 年 9 月 1 日,并查阅了参考文献。符合条件的文章评估了急诊科 PC 干预对患者报告或家庭报告结局、卫生保健利用或生存的影响。
我们筛选了 3091 篇摘要和 98 篇全文,最终纳入了 13 篇文章。有 2 篇文章报告了一项随机对照试验的结果,而其余 11 项研究为描述性或准实验队列研究。纳入的文章中有一半以上是在该主题的上一次系统评价之后发表的。研究人群包括老年人、晚期恶性肿瘤患者和急诊科筛查出未满足 PC 需求的患者。大多数干预措施涉及转介到临终关怀或 PC,或在急诊科直接提供 PC。与常规护理相比,急诊科 PC 干预措施改善了生活质量,尽管在比较急诊科 PC 与住院 PC 时并未观察到这种改善。急诊科 PC 干预措施加快了 PC 咨询;大多数研究报告了住院时间缩短和临终关怀利用增加,但有些数据存在矛盾。所有研究的短期死亡率都很高,但与常规护理相比,急诊科 PC 干预措施并未延长生存时间。
现有数据支持急诊科的 PC 是可行的,可能改善生活质量,且似乎不会影响生存。