Birmingham/Atlanta Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC), Birmingham VA Medical Center, Birmingham, AL, USA.
University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Jul;36(7):1928-1936. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06482-x. Epub 2021 Feb 5.
There is an ongoing need for interventions to improve quality of end-of-life care for patients in inpatient settings.
To compare two methods for implementing a Comfort Care Education Intervention for Palliative Care Consultation Teams (PCCT) in Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs).
Cluster randomized implementation trial conducted March 2015-April 2019. PCCTs were assigned to a traditional implementation approach using a teleconference or to an in-person, train-the-champion workshop to prepare PCCTs to be clinical champions at their home sites.
One hundred thirty-two providers from PCCTs at 47 VAMCs.
Both training modalities involved review of educational materials, instruction on using an electronic Comfort Care Order Set, and coaching to deliver the intervention to other providers.
Several processes of care were identified a priori as quality endpoints for end-of-life care (last 7 days) and abstracted from medical records of veterans who died within 9 months before or after implementation (n = 6,491). The primary endpoint was the presence of an active order for opioid medication at time of death. Secondary endpoints were orders/administration of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and scopolamine, do-not-resuscitate orders, advance directives, locations of death, palliative care consultations, nasogastric tubes, intravenous lines, physical restraints, pastoral care visits, and family presence at/near time of death. Generalized estimating equations were conducted adjusting for potential covariates.
Eighty-eight providers from 23 VAMCs received teleconference training; 44 providers from 23 VAMCs received in-person workshop training. Analyses found no significant differences between intervention groups in any process-of-care endpoints (primary endpoint AOR (CI) = 1.18 (0.74, 1.89). Furthermore, pre-post changes were not significant for any endpoints (primary endpoint AOR (CI) = 1.16 (0.92, 1.46). Analyses may have been limited by high baseline values on key endpoints with little room for improvement.
Findings suggest the clinical effectiveness of palliative care educational intervention was not dependent on which of the two implementation methods was used.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02383173.
需要采取干预措施,以提高住院患者临终关怀的质量。
比较两种方法在退伍军人事务部医疗中心(VAMC)中实施姑息治疗咨询团队(PCCT)的舒适护理教育干预措施。
2015 年 3 月至 2019 年 4 月进行的集群随机实施试验。PCCT 被分配到传统的实施方法,使用电话会议,或亲自进行培训,以培训冠军准备在其所在地担任临床冠军。
47 个 VAMC 的 132 名 PCCT 提供者。
两种培训模式都涉及审查教育材料,指导使用电子舒适护理订单集,以及为向其他提供者提供干预措施提供辅导。
事先确定了几个护理过程作为临终关怀(最后 7 天)的质量终点,并从实施前或实施后 9 个月内死亡的退伍军人的病历中提取(n=6491)。主要终点是死亡时是否有积极的阿片类药物医嘱。次要终点是抗精神病药、苯二氮卓类药物和东莨菪碱、不复苏医嘱、预先指示、死亡地点、姑息治疗咨询、鼻胃管、静脉输液、身体约束、牧师探访和家属在/接近死亡时间的存在。使用广义估计方程调整潜在协变量。
来自 23 个 VAMC 的 88 名提供者接受了电话会议培训;来自 23 个 VAMC 的 44 名提供者接受了现场研讨会培训。分析发现,干预组在任何护理过程终点(主要终点优势比(CI)=1.18(0.74,1.89))均无显著差异。此外,任何终点的前后变化均不显著(主要终点优势比(CI)=1.16(0.92,1.46))。分析可能受到关键终点高基线值的限制,几乎没有改善的空间。
研究结果表明,姑息治疗教育干预的临床效果不依赖于所使用的两种实施方法之一。
ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT02383173。