Suppr超能文献

针对患有晚期疾病的老年人在急诊科进行的重病谈话:一项随机临床试验。

Serious Illness Conversations in the Emergency Department for Older Adults With Advanced Illnesses: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

作者信息

Ouchi Kei, Block Susan D, Rentz Dorene M, Berry Donna L, Oelschlager Hannah, Shiozawa Youkie, Rossmassler Sarah, Berger Amanda L, Hasdianda Mohammad A, Wang Wei, Boyer Edward, Sudore Rebecca L, Tulsky James A, Schonberg Mara A

机构信息

Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

出版信息

JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Jun 2;8(6):e2516582. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.16582.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Conversations between seriously ill patients and clinicians about values and goals (ie, serious illness conversations [SICs]) can lead to patient-centered care toward the end of life. However, many patients have not had SICs when arriving in the emergency department (ED) and are at risk of receiving undesired care.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of an ED-based, multimodal SIC intervention (known as ED GOAL) compared with usual care on patient-reported engagement in advance care planning (ACP) and clinician-documented SICs after leaving the ED.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This 2-armed, 1:1, parallel-design randomized clinical trial was conducted at 3 participating EDs (2 academic medical centers and 1 community hospital) in Boston, Massachusetts, within a single health system between March 1, 2022, and July 1, 2024, with a follow-up duration of 6 months. Eligible participants were English-speaking adults 50 years or older with serious illnesses, including mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia, along with their caregivers. For patients with moderate to severe dementia, caregivers were the primary participants in the study. Patients with documented goals for medical care or physician orders in the last 3 months in medical records or deemed clinically inappropriate by the treating ED team were excluded.

INTERVENTION

SIC-trained research nurses conducted (1) a motivational interview about SICs, (2) a structured SIC, and (3) communication priming for the patients and their primary clinicians to reinitiate SICs on a tablet computer in the ED or within 1 week after leaving the ED.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was a validated survey of patient-reported engagement in ACP at 1 month, with total possible scores ranging from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more engagement. Secondary outcomes included clinician documentation of end-of-life values and preferences in the medical record and completed advance directives.

RESULTS

A total of 141 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [9.2] years; 73 [51.8%] female), predominantly diagnosed with metastatic cancer (85 [60.3%]), were enrolled and randomized to the intervention (n = 70) or usual care (n = 71). At 1 month, no difference was observed in patient-reported engagement in ACP (mean [SD] score, 3.32 [1.28] for control vs 3.37 [1.07] for intervention; maximum possible score, 5.00; P = .58), yet 12 patients in the intervention group (17.1%) discussed care preferences with their physicians compared with 5 (7.0%) control group patients (P = .07). Medical record documentation of end-of-life values and goals was significantly higher in the intervention group at 3 months (17 [24.3%] vs 7 [9.9%]; P = .03) and 6 months (22 [31.4%] vs 9 [12.7%]; P =  .008).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial of seriously ill older adults in the ED, while a nurse-led SIC intervention did not significantly improve patient-reported engagement in ACP, it did increase clinician-documented SICs in the medical records. ED visits may serve as a critical access point to enhance SICs for seriously ill yet clinically stable older adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05209880.

摘要

重要性

重症患者与临床医生之间关于价值观和目标的对话(即重症疾病对话[SICs])可促成以患者为中心的临终关怀。然而,许多患者在抵达急诊科(ED)时并未进行SICs,因此有接受非预期治疗的风险。

目的

确定基于急诊科的多模式SIC干预措施(称为ED GOAL)与常规护理相比,对患者报告的参与预先护理计划(ACP)以及离开急诊科后临床医生记录的SICs的影响。

设计、设置和参与者:这项双臂、1:1平行设计的随机临床试验于2022年3月1日至2024年7月1日在马萨诸塞州波士顿的3家参与研究的急诊科(2家学术医疗中心和1家社区医院)进行,这些医院均隶属于同一个医疗系统,随访期为6个月。符合条件的参与者为50岁及以上患有重症疾病(包括轻度认知障碍或轻度痴呆)的英语使用者及其护理人员。对于中度至重度痴呆患者,护理人员是研究的主要参与者。排除在过去3个月的病历中有医疗护理目标记录或医生医嘱,或被急诊科治疗团队认为临床不适当的患者。

干预措施

接受SIC培训的研究护士进行了以下操作:(1)关于SICs的动机性访谈;(2)结构化SIC;(3)为患者及其主治医生进行沟通引导,以便在急诊科通过平板电脑或在离开急诊科后的1周内重新启动SICs。

主要结局和测量指标

主要结局是在1个月时对患者报告的参与ACP情况进行的一项经过验证的调查,总得分范围为1至5分,得分越高表明参与度越高。次要结局包括临床医生在病历中记录的临终价值观和偏好以及完成的预先医疗指示。

结果

共纳入141例患者(平均[标准差]年龄为66.7[9.2]岁;73例[51.8%]为女性),主要诊断为转移性癌症(85例[60.3%]),并随机分为干预组(n = 70)或常规护理组(n = 71)。在1个月时,患者报告的参与ACP情况未观察到差异(对照组平均[标准差]得分为3.32[1.28],干预组为3.37[1.07];最高可能得分为5.00;P = 0.58),但干预组有12例患者(17.1%)与医生讨论了护理偏好,而对照组为5例(7.0%)患者(P = 0.07)。在3个月时(17例[2l.3%]对7例[9.9%];P = 0.03)和6个月时(22例[31.4%]对9例[12.7%];P = 0.008),干预组病历中临终价值观和目标的记录显著更高。

结论和相关性

在这项针对急诊科重症老年患者的随机临床试验中,虽然护士主导的SIC干预措施并未显著提高患者报告的参与ACP情况,但确实增加了病历中临床医生记录的SICs。急诊科就诊可能是为重症但临床稳定的老年患者加强SICs的关键切入点。

试验注册

ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT05209880。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/af16/12177648/8fbfdb7e75f9/jamanetwopen-e2516582-g001.jpg

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