Primary Care Center Dr. Salvador Caballero García Andalusian, Health Service, Government of Andalusia, 18012 Granada, Andalusia, Spain.
Geroinnova Nursing-Home, Fuente Vaqueros, 18340 Granada, Andalusia, Spain.
Medicina (Kaunas). 2021 Jan 14;57(1):70. doi: 10.3390/medicina57010070.
This study aimed to determine the frailty, prognosis, complexity, and palliative care complexity of nursing home residents with palliative care needs and define the characteristics of the cases eligible for receiving advanced palliative care according to the resources available at each nursing home. In this multi-centre, descriptive, and cross-sectional study, trained nurses from eight nursing homes in southern Spain selected 149 residents with palliative care needs. The following instruments were used: the Frail-VIG index, the case complexity index (CCI), the Diagnostic Instrument of Complexity in Palliative Care (IDC-Pal), the palliative prognosis index, the Barthel index (dependency), Pfeiffer's test (cognitive impairment), and the Charlson comorbidity index. A consensus was reached on the complexity criteria of the Diagnostic Instrument of Complexity in Palliative Care that could be addressed in the nursing home (no priority) and those that required a one-off (priority 2) or full (priority 1) intervention of advanced palliative care resources. Non-parametric tests were used to compare non-priority patients and patients with some kind of priority. A high percentage of residents presented frailty (80.6%), clinical complexity (80.5%), and palliative care complexity (65.8%). A lower percentage of residents had a poor prognosis (10.1%) and an extremely poor prognosis (2%). Twelve priority 1 and 14 priority 2 elements were identified as not matching the palliative care complexity elements that had been previously identified. Of the studied cases, 20.1% had priority 1 status and 38.3% had priority 2 status. Residents with some kind of priority had greater levels of dependency ( < 0.001), cognitive impairment ( < 0.001), and poorer prognoses ( < 0.001). Priority 1 patients exhibited higher rates of refractory delirium ( = 0.003), skin ulcers ( = 0.041), and dyspnoea ( = 0.020). The results indicate that there are high levels of frailty, clinical complexity, and palliative care complexity in nursing homes. The resources available at each nursing home must be considered to determine when advanced palliative care resources are required.
本研究旨在确定有姑息治疗需求的养老院居民的脆弱性、预后、复杂性和姑息治疗复杂性,并根据每个养老院的可用资源确定符合接受高级姑息治疗条件的病例特征。 在这项多中心、描述性和横断面研究中,来自西班牙南部 8 家养老院的经过培训的护士选择了 149 名有姑息治疗需求的居民。使用了以下工具:脆弱性 VIG 指数、病例复杂性指数(CCI)、姑息治疗复杂性诊断工具(IDC-Pal)、姑息预后指数、巴氏指数(依赖性)、 Pfeiffer 测试(认知障碍)和 Charlson 合并症指数。就姑息治疗复杂性诊断工具在养老院中可以解决的(非优先)和需要一次性(优先 2)或全面(优先 1)干预高级姑息治疗资源的复杂性标准达成共识。非参数检验用于比较非优先患者和有某种优先患者。 高比例的居民表现出脆弱性(80.6%)、临床复杂性(80.5%)和姑息治疗复杂性(65.8%)。预后较差(10.1%)和极差(2%)的居民比例较低。确定了 12 个优先 1 级和 14 个优先 2 级元素与先前确定的姑息治疗复杂性元素不匹配。在所研究的病例中,20.1%有优先 1 级状态,38.3%有优先 2 级状态。有某种优先的居民依赖性更强(<0.001)、认知障碍更严重(<0.001)、预后更差(<0.001)。优先 1 级患者出现难治性谵妄(=0.003)、皮肤溃疡(=0.041)和呼吸困难(=0.020)的比例更高。 结果表明,养老院存在较高水平的脆弱性、临床复杂性和姑息治疗复杂性。必须考虑每个养老院的可用资源,以确定何时需要高级姑息治疗资源。