Suppr超能文献

临床医生的谵妄治疗实践、实践改变及其影响:一项全国性在线调查。

Clinicians' delirium treatment practice, practice change, and influences: A national online survey.

机构信息

The University of Notre Dame Australia, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.

St Vincent's Health Network Sydney, The Cunningham Centre for Palliative Care, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.

出版信息

Palliat Med. 2021 Sep;35(8):1553-1563. doi: 10.1177/02692163211022183. Epub 2021 Jun 6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Recent studies cast doubt on the net effect of antipsychotics for delirium.

AIM

To investigate the influence of these studies and other factors on clinicians' delirium treatment practice and practice change in palliative care and other specialties using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

DESIGN

Australia-wide online survey of relevant clinicians.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Registered nurses (72%), doctors (16%), nurse practitioners (6%) and pharmacists (5%) who cared for patients with delirium in diverse settings, recruited through health professionals' organisations.

RESULTS

Most of the sample ( = 475): worked in geriatrics/aged (31%) or palliative care (30%); in hospitals (64%); and saw a new patient with delirium at least weekly (61%). More (59%) reported delirium practice change since 2016, mostly by increased non-pharmacological interventions (53%). Fifty-five percent reported current antipsychotic use for delirium, primarily for patient distress (79%) and unsafe behaviour (67%). Common Theoretical Domains Framework categories of influences on respondents' delirium practice were: emotion (54%); knowledge (53%) and physical (43%) and social (21%) opportunities. Palliative care respondents more often reported: awareness of any named key study of antipsychotics for delirium (73% vs 39%,  < 0.001); changed delirium treatment (73% vs 53%,  = 0.017); decreased pharmacological interventions (60% vs 15%,  < 0.001); off-label medication use (86% vs 51%,  < 0.001: antipsychotics 79% vs 44%,  < 0.001; benzodiazepines 61% vs 26%,  < 0.001) and emotion as an influence (82% vs 39%,  < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians' use of antipsychotic during delirium remains common and is primarily motivated by distress and safety concerns for the patient and others nearby. Supporting clinicians to achieve evidence-based delirium practice requires further work.

摘要

背景

最近的研究对抗精神病药治疗谵妄的净效应提出了质疑。

目的

使用理论领域框架,调查这些研究和其他因素对姑息治疗和其他专业的临床医生治疗谵妄的实践和实践改变的影响。

设计

对相关临床医生进行澳大利亚范围内的在线调查。

设置/参与者:在不同环境中照顾谵妄患者的注册护士(72%)、医生(16%)、执业护士(6%)和药剂师(5%),通过卫生专业人员组织招募。

结果

大多数样本( = 475):在老年医学/老年科(31%)或姑息治疗科(30%)工作;在医院(64%);每周至少看到一位新的谵妄患者(61%)。更多(59%)报告自 2016 年以来改变了谵妄实践,主要是增加了非药物干预(53%)。55%的人报告目前使用抗精神病药治疗谵妄,主要是为了缓解患者的痛苦(79%)和不安全行为(67%)。影响受访者谵妄实践的常见理论领域框架类别为:情绪(54%)、知识(53%)和身体(43%)和社会(21%)机会。姑息治疗的受访者更经常报告:意识到任何关于抗精神病药治疗谵妄的有名称的关键研究(73%比 39%, < 0.001);改变了谵妄治疗(73%比 53%, = 0.017);减少了药物干预(60%比 15%, < 0.001);非标签药物使用(86%比 51%, < 0.001:抗精神病药 79%比 44%, < 0.001;苯二氮䓬类 61%比 26%, < 0.001)和情绪作为一种影响(82%比 39%, < 0.001)。

结论

在谵妄期间使用抗精神病药仍然很常见,主要是为了缓解患者和附近其他人的痛苦和安全问题。需要进一步努力支持临床医生实现基于证据的谵妄实践。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验