Breyre Amelia M, Vertelney Haley, Sporer Karl A, Davenport Glen, Issacs Eric D, Glomb Nicolaus W
Department of Emergency Medicine University of California San Francisco San Francisco USA.
Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Agency San Leandro California USA.
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2022 Mar 17;3(2):e12705. doi: 10.1002/emp2.12705. eCollection 2022 Apr.
Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms exist in some form in all 50 states. This study evaluates emergency medical service (EMS) practitioners interpretation of the POLST in cardiopulmonary arrest.
This study used a prospective convenience sample of California Bay Area EMS practitioners who reviewed 6 fictional scenarios of patients in cardiopulmonary arrest and accompanying California POLST forms. Based on the cases and POLST, EMS practitioners identified patient preference for "attempt resuscitation," "do not attempt resuscitation/DNR," or "unsure" and subsequently selected medical interventions (ie, chest compressions, defibrillation, and so on). They also rated their confidence in POLST use and interpretation.
In scenarios of cardiopulmonary arrest and POLST that indicated do not resuscitate (DNR)/do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) and full treatment, only 45%-65% of EMS practitioners correctly identified the patient as DNR/DNAR. EMS practitioners were more likely to interpret the POLST correctly in scenarios where patients were DNR/DNAR but indicated selective treatment (86%; 168/196) or comfort-focused treatment (86%; 169/196). In cardiopulmonary arrest scenarios where the patient was correctly identified as DNR/DNAR, EMS practitioners frequently selected defibrillation, advanced airway, or epinephrine as appropriate treatment. For all 6 scenarios, there was no statistical difference in response selection with level of training (emergency medical technician/paramedics) or type of EMS personnel (fire based/private).
The POLST is a powerful tool to convey medical treatment preferences; however, there is significant variation in the interpretation and application by EMS practitioners. To improve the POLST effectiveness, the authors suggest more EMS input into POLST development, concise language that defines resuscitation, and more EMS education about clinical application.
医师维持生命治疗医嘱(POLST)表格在全美50个州均以某种形式存在。本研究评估了紧急医疗服务(EMS)从业者对心脏骤停患者POLST的解读情况。
本研究采用前瞻性便利抽样法,选取了加利福尼亚湾区的EMS从业者,他们回顾了6个虚构的心脏骤停患者案例及相应的加利福尼亚POLST表格。基于这些案例和POLST,EMS从业者确定患者对“尝试复苏”“不尝试复苏/放弃复苏(DNR)”或“不确定”的偏好,随后选择医疗干预措施(如胸外按压、除颤等)。他们还对自己使用和解读POLST的信心进行了评分。
在心脏骤停且POLST表明不复苏(DNR)/不尝试复苏(DNAR)及全力治疗的案例中,只有45%-65%的EMS从业者正确地将患者识别为DNR/DNAR。在患者为DNR/DNAR但表明选择治疗(86%;168/196)或注重舒适治疗(86%;169/196)的案例中,EMS从业者更有可能正确解读POLST。在患者被正确识别为DNR/DNAR的心脏骤停案例中,EMS从业者经常选择除颤、高级气道管理或肾上腺素作为适当的治疗措施。对于所有6个案例,在反应选择上,培训水平(急救医疗技术员/护理人员)或EMS人员类型(消防部门/私人机构)之间没有统计学差异。
POLST是传达医疗治疗偏好的有力工具;然而,EMS从业者在解读和应用方面存在显著差异。为提高POLST的有效性,作者建议在POLST的制定过程中让更多的EMS人员参与,使用简洁的语言定义复苏,并加强关于临床应用的EMS教育。