Lourençato Frederica Montanari, Miranda Carlos Henrique, de Carvalho Borges Marcos, Pazin-Filho Antonio
Master in Healthcare Organizations, Hospital Estadual Serrana, São Paulo, Brazil.
Emergency Medicine Division, Internal Medicine Department, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Int J Emerg Med. 2022 Sep 16;15(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s12245-022-00456-y.
To describe the process of implementing a palliative care team (PCT) in a Brazilian public tertiary university hospital and compare this intervention as an active in-hospital search (strategy I) with the Emergency Department (strategy II).
We described the development of a complex Palliative Care Team (PCT). We evaluated the following primary outcomes: hospital discharge, death (in-hospital and follow-up mortality) or transfer, and performance outcomes-Perception Index (difference in days between hospitalization and the evaluation by the PTC), follow-up index (difference in days between the PTC evaluation and the primary outcome), and the in-hospital stay.
We included 1203 patients-strategy I (587; 48.8%) and strategy II (616; 51.2%). In both strategies, male and elderly patients were prevalent. Most came from internal medicine I (39.3%) and II (57.9%), p < 0.01. General clinical conditions (40%) and Oncology I (27.7%) and II (32.4%) represented the majority of the population. Over 70% of all patients had PPS 10 and ECOG 4 above 85%. There was a reduction of patients identified in ICU from I (20.9%) to II (9.2%), p < 0.01, reduction in the ward from I (60.8%) to II (42.5%), p < 0.01 and a significant increase from I (18.2%) to II (48.2%) in the emergency department, p < 0.01. Regarding in-hospital mortality, 50% of patients remained alive within 35 days of hospitalization (strategy I), while for strategy II, 50% were alive within 20 days of hospitalization (p < 0.01). As for post-discharge mortality, in strategy II, 50% of patients died 10 days after hospital discharge, while in strategy I, this number was 40 days (p < 0.01). In the Cox multivariate regression model, adjusting for possible confounding factors, strategy II increased 30% the chance of death. The perception index decreased from 10.9 days to 9.1 days, there was no change in follow-up (12 days), and the duration of in-hospital stay dropped from 24.3 to 20.7 days, p < 0.01. The primary demand was the definition of prognosis (56.7%).
The present work showed that early intervention by an elaborate and complex PCT in the ED was associated with a faster perception of the need for palliative care and influenced a reduction in the length of hospital stay in a very dependent and compromised old population.
描述在巴西一家公立三级大学医院实施姑息治疗团队(PCT)的过程,并将这种作为医院内主动筛查的干预措施(策略I)与急诊科的干预措施(策略II)进行比较。
我们描述了一个复杂的姑息治疗团队(PCT)的发展情况。我们评估了以下主要结局:出院、死亡(院内及随访死亡率)或转院,以及绩效结局——感知指数(住院与PTC评估之间的天数差异)、随访指数(PTC评估与主要结局之间的天数差异)和住院时间。
我们纳入了1203例患者——策略I(587例;48.8%)和策略II(616例;51.2%)。在两种策略中,男性和老年患者占多数。大多数患者来自内科I(39.3%)和内科II(57.9%),p<0.01。一般临床病症(40%)以及肿瘤内科I(27.7%)和肿瘤内科II(32.4%)占患者群体的大多数。所有患者中超过70%的患者PPS为10且ECOG 4高于85%。ICU中识别出的患者从策略I的20.9%降至策略II的9.2%,p<0.01,病房中的患者从策略I的60.8%降至策略II的42.5%,p<0.01,而急诊科的患者从策略I的18.2%显著增加至策略II的48.2%,p<0.01。关于院内死亡率,策略I中50%的患者在住院35天内仍存活,而策略II中,50%的患者在住院20天内仍存活(p<0.01)。至于出院后死亡率,在策略II中,50%的患者在出院后10天死亡,而在策略I中,这个数字是40天(p<0.01)。在Cox多变量回归模型中,对可能的混杂因素进行校正后,策略II使死亡几率增加了30%。感知指数从10.9天降至9.1天,随访时间无变化(12天),住院时间从24.3天降至20.7天,p<0.01。主要需求是预后判定(56.7%)。
本研究表明,精心组建的复杂PCT在急诊科的早期干预与对姑息治疗需求的更快感知相关,并影响了非常依赖他人且健康状况不佳的老年人群住院时间的缩短。