• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

以死亡住院癌症患者的不良事件作为衡量终末期癌症关怀质量和安全的指标。

Adverse events in deceased hospitalised cancer patients as a measure of quality and safety in end-of-life cancer care.

机构信息

Department of Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Nordland Hospital Trust, PO Box 1480, 8092, Bodø, Norway.

Institute of Community Medicine, The Arctic University of Norway, PO Box 6, 9038, Tromsø, Norway.

出版信息

BMC Palliat Care. 2020 Jun 1;19(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s12904-020-00579-0.

DOI:10.1186/s12904-020-00579-0
PMID:32482172
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7265218/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Anticancer treatment exposes patients to negative consequences such as increased toxicity and decreased quality of life, and there are clear guidelines recommending limiting use of aggressive anticancer treatments for patients near end of life. The aim of this study is to investigate the association between anticancer treatment given during the last 30 days of life and adverse events contributing to death and elucidate how adverse events can be used as a measure of quality and safety in end-of-life cancer care.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of 247 deceased hospitalised cancer patients at three hospitals in Norway in 2012 and 2013. The Global Trigger Tool method were used to identify adverse events. We used Poisson regression and binary logistic regression to compare adverse events and association with use of anticancer treatment given during the last 30 days of life.

RESULTS

30% of deceased hospitalised cancer patients received some kind of anticancer treatment during the last 30 days of life, mainly systemic anticancer treatment. These patients had 62% more adverse events compared to patients not being treated last 30 days, 39 vs. 24 adverse events per 1000 patient days (p < 0.001, OR 1.62 (1.23-2.15). They also had twice the odds of an adverse event contributing to death compared to patients without such treatment, 33 vs. 18% (p = 0.045, OR 1.85 (1.01-3.36)). Receiving follow up by specialist palliative care reduced the rate of AEs per 1000 patient days in both groups by 29% (p = 0.02, IRR 0.71, CI 95% 0.53-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Anticancer treatment given during the last 30 days of life is associated with a significantly increased rate of adverse events and related mortality. Patients receiving specialist palliative care had significantly fewer adverse events, supporting recommendations of early integration of palliative care in a patient safety perspective.

摘要

背景

抗癌治疗会使患者面临毒性增加和生活质量下降等负面后果,因此有明确的指南建议限制在生命末期使用积极的抗癌治疗。本研究旨在探讨生命最后 30 天内接受的抗癌治疗与导致死亡的不良事件之间的关联,并阐明如何将不良事件作为生命末期癌症护理质量和安全性的衡量标准。

方法

这是一项在挪威的 3 家医院于 2012 年至 2013 年期间进行的 247 名死亡住院癌症患者的回顾性队列研究。使用全球触发工具方法来识别不良事件。我们使用泊松回归和二项逻辑回归来比较不良事件与生命最后 30 天内接受的抗癌治疗之间的关联。

结果

30%的死亡住院癌症患者在生命最后 30 天内接受了某种抗癌治疗,主要是系统抗癌治疗。与未接受生命最后 30 天治疗的患者相比,这些患者发生不良事件的比例增加了 62%,每 1000 个患者日发生 39 次与 24 次不良事件(p<0.001,OR 1.62(1.23-2.15))。与未接受此类治疗的患者相比,他们发生导致死亡的不良事件的可能性也增加了一倍,分别为 33%和 18%(p=0.045,OR 1.85(1.01-3.36))。接受专科姑息治疗随访可使两组的不良事件发生率分别降低 29%(p=0.02,IRR 0.71,95%CI 0.53-0.96)。

结论

生命最后 30 天内接受的抗癌治疗与不良事件发生率和相关死亡率显著增加相关。接受专科姑息治疗的患者不良事件明显减少,这支持了从患者安全角度出发,尽早将姑息治疗纳入的建议。

相似文献

1
Adverse events in deceased hospitalised cancer patients as a measure of quality and safety in end-of-life cancer care.以死亡住院癌症患者的不良事件作为衡量终末期癌症关怀质量和安全的指标。
BMC Palliat Care. 2020 Jun 1;19(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s12904-020-00579-0.
2
Cancer patients hospitalised in the last week of life risk insufficient care quality - a population-based study from the Swedish Register of Palliative Care.在生命的最后一周住院的癌症患者面临着不足的护理质量风险 - 来自瑞典姑息治疗注册中心的一项基于人群的研究。
Acta Oncol. 2019 Apr;58(4):432-438. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2018.1556802. Epub 2019 Jan 11.
3
Adverse events at the end of life of hospital patients with or without a condition relevant for palliative care: a nationwide retrospective record review study in the Netherlands.荷兰全国范围内回顾性病历审查研究:有无姑息治疗相关条件的住院患者生命终末期不良事件。
BMC Palliat Care. 2024 Jun 10;23(1):145. doi: 10.1186/s12904-024-01461-z.
4
Quality indicators for the evaluation of end-of-life care in Germany - a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of statutory health insurance data.德国评估终末期护理质量的指标 - 法定健康保险数据的回顾性横断面分析。
BMC Palliat Care. 2020 Dec 8;19(1):187. doi: 10.1186/s12904-020-00679-x.
5
Contribution of adverse events to death of hospitalised patients.不良事件对住院患者死亡的影响。
BMJ Open Qual. 2019 Feb 13;8(1):e000377. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000377. eCollection 2019.
6
Prevalence of systemic anticancer therapy for patients within the last 30 days of life: experience in a private hospital oncology group.生命最后30天内患者接受全身抗癌治疗的患病率:一家私立医院肿瘤学团队的经验
Intern Med J. 2017 Mar;47(3):280-283. doi: 10.1111/imj.13260.
7
Family Perspectives on Aggressive Cancer Care Near the End of Life.家庭对临终前积极癌症治疗的看法。
JAMA. 2016 Jan 19;315(3):284-92. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.18604.
8
Multicentre analysis of intensity of care at the end-of-life in patients with advanced cancer, combining health administrative data with hospital records: variations in practice call for routine quality evaluation.多中心分析晚期癌症患者临终关怀强度,结合卫生行政数据和医院记录:实践中的差异需要常规质量评估。
BMC Palliat Care. 2019 Apr 5;18(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12904-019-0419-4.
9
The impact of community-based palliative care on acute hospital use in the last year of life is modified by time to death, age and underlying cause of death. A population-based retrospective cohort study.基于社区的姑息治疗对生命最后一年急性医院使用情况的影响会因死亡时间、年龄和潜在死因而有所不同。一项基于人群的回顾性队列研究。
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 21;12(9):e0185275. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185275. eCollection 2017.
10
End-of-life care in a population-based cohort of cancer patients: clinical trial participation versus standard of care.基于人群的癌症患者队列中的临终关怀:临床试验参与情况与标准治疗的对比。
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2013 Jun;3(2):181-7. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2012-000295. Epub 2013 Mar 9.

引用本文的文献

1
Systemic anticancer therapy during end of life in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients. A retrospective single center study.头颈部鳞状细胞癌患者临终时的全身抗癌治疗。一项回顾性单中心研究。
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2025 Aug 29;151(8):240. doi: 10.1007/s00432-025-06297-5.
2
Invisible harm in patient safety: a framework and definition for preventable psychological harm in cancer care.患者安全中的无形伤害:癌症护理中可预防心理伤害的框架与定义
BMJ Open Qual. 2025 Aug 26;14(3):e003466. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2025-003466.
3
Evaluation of 30-day mortality rate following intravenous systemic anticancer therapy: a retrospective analysis.

本文引用的文献

1
Integration of oncology and palliative care: a Lancet Oncology Commission.肿瘤学与姑息治疗的整合:柳叶刀肿瘤学委员会报告
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Nov;19(11):e588-e653. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30415-7. Epub 2018 Oct 18.
2
Is specialized palliative cancer care associated with use of antineoplastic treatment at the end of life? A population-based cohort study.癌症专科姑息治疗是否与生命末期抗肿瘤治疗的应用相关?一项基于人群的队列研究。
Palliat Med. 2018 Oct;32(9):1509-1517. doi: 10.1177/0269216318786393. Epub 2018 Jul 13.
3
Is palliative care support associated with better quality end-of-life care indicators for patients with advanced cancer? A retrospective cohort study.
静脉全身抗癌治疗后30天死亡率评估:一项回顾性分析。
BMC Cancer. 2025 Jul 1;25(1):1111. doi: 10.1186/s12885-025-14513-1.
4
The Economic Cost of Nursing Care of Palliative Patients in the Emergency Department.急诊科姑息治疗患者护理的经济成本
Healthcare (Basel). 2025 Feb 15;13(4):421. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13040421.
5
Prevalence of aggressive care among patients with cancer near the end of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis.癌症晚期患者积极治疗的患病率:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
EClinicalMedicine. 2024 Mar 21;71:102561. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102561. eCollection 2024 May.
6
Days at home in the last three months of life: patterns-of-care analysis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.生命最后三个月的居家天数:非小细胞肺癌患者的护理模式分析
Contemp Oncol (Pozn). 2023;27(1):41-46. doi: 10.5114/wo.2023.127192. Epub 2023 Apr 27.
7
How Safe Do Dying People Feel at Home? Patients' Perception of Safety While Receiving Specialist Community Palliative Care.临终者在家中感到多安全?接受专科社区姑息治疗的患者对安全的感知。
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2023 Aug;40(8):829-836. doi: 10.1177/10499091221140075. Epub 2022 Nov 17.
8
Palliative oncology and palliative care.姑息肿瘤学和姑息治疗。
Mol Oncol. 2022 Oct;16(19):3399-3409. doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.13278. Epub 2022 Aug 12.
9
Duration of palliative care involvement and immunotherapy treatment near the end of life among patients with cancer who died in-hospital.癌症患者在医院死亡时临终关怀介入的持续时间以及临终时的免疫治疗情况。
Support Care Cancer. 2022 Jun;30(6):4997-5006. doi: 10.1007/s00520-022-06901-1. Epub 2022 Feb 22.
姑息治疗支持是否与晚期癌症患者更好的临终关怀质量指标相关?一项回顾性队列研究。
BMJ Open. 2018 Jan 31;8(1):e018284. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018284.
4
European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) position paper on supportive and palliative care.欧洲肿瘤内科学会(ESMO)关于支持和姑息治疗的立场文件。
Ann Oncol. 2018 Jan 1;29(1):36-43. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx757.
5
Adverse events in hospitalised cancer patients: a comparison to a general hospital population.住院癌症患者的不良事件:与综合医院人群的比较。
Acta Oncol. 2017 Sep;56(9):1218-1223. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1309063. Epub 2017 Apr 5.
6
End-of-Life Care Matters: Palliative Cancer Care Results in Better Care and Lower Costs.生命末期关怀至关重要:姑息治疗癌症可改善护理并降低成本。
Oncologist. 2017 Apr;22(4):361-368. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0277. Epub 2017 Mar 17.
7
Treatment targeted at underlying disease versus palliative care in terminally ill patients: a systematic review.针对晚期患者潜在疾病的治疗与姑息治疗:一项系统评价。
BMJ Open. 2017 Jan 6;7(1):e014661. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014661.
8
Use of chemotherapy near the end of life: what factors matter?生命末期化疗的应用:哪些因素重要?
Ann Oncol. 2017 Apr 1;28(4):809-817. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdw654.
9
Non-beneficial treatments in hospital at the end of life: a systematic review on extent of the problem.临终时医院中的无益治疗:关于该问题严重程度的系统综述
Int J Qual Health Care. 2016 Sep;28(4):456-69. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzw060. Epub 2016 Jun 27.
10
Is inter-rater reliability of Global Trigger Tool results altered when members of the review team are replaced?当审查团队成员被替换时,全球触发工具结果的评分者间信度会改变吗?
Int J Qual Health Care. 2016 Sep;28(4):492-6. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzw054. Epub 2016 Jun 9.