Suppr超能文献

预防措施还是隔离措施?重新审视姑息治疗中的接触和隔离措施:一项系统的范围综述。

Precaution or barrier? Reconsidering contact and isolation measures in palliative care: a systematic scoping review.

作者信息

He Henry T, Bunn Shannon, Rance Brittany

机构信息

Division of Palliative Care, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

出版信息

Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol. 2025 Aug 7;5(1):e174. doi: 10.1017/ash.2025.10096. eCollection 2025.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Infection control measures like contact precautions may conflict with patient-centered palliative care principles, but their efficacy and harms in this context remain understudied. This review evaluates how contact precautions affect quality of life, social connectedness, and infection control efficacy in palliative care.

DESIGN

Systematic scoping review.

SETTING

Palliative care settings (eg, palliative care units and hospices).

PARTICIPANTS

Adults and children receiving palliative care, with no restrictions on age or comorbidity.

METHODS

English-language studies on contact precautions in palliative care were included. Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase were searched from inception to December 20, 2024, using terms related to antimicrobial resistance, contact precautions, and palliative care. No publication type or status restrictions were applied. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework and followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included, primarily from Germany (73%) and using qualitative methods (80%). Most focused on patients in palliative care units or hospices, though geographic and methodological limitations restrict generalizability. Common challenges included fear, loneliness, disrupted intimacy, and inconsistent protocols. Contact precautions were often bundled with other infection prevention interventions, limiting the ability to assess their specific impact. Terminology varied widely. No study directly evaluated the efficacy of contact precautions in reducing antimicrobial-resistant organism (ARO) transmission, though one pediatric study reported liberal protocols and no nosocomial ARO infections.

CONCLUSIONS

A case-by-case approach is needed to balance infection control with patient dignity and quality of life. Consistent terminology and more robust, mixed-methods research are essential to inform evidence-based protocols in diverse settings.

摘要

目的

接触预防等感染控制措施可能与以患者为中心的姑息治疗原则相冲突,但在此背景下其有效性和危害仍未得到充分研究。本综述评估接触预防对姑息治疗中生活质量、社会联系和感染控制效果的影响。

设计

系统的范围综述。

背景

姑息治疗环境(如姑息治疗病房和临终关怀机构)。

参与者

接受姑息治疗的成人和儿童,年龄和合并症无限制。

方法

纳入关于姑息治疗中接触预防的英文研究。从数据库建立至2024年12月20日,使用与抗菌药物耐药性、接触预防和姑息治疗相关的术语在Ovid MEDLINE和Ovid Embase数据库中进行检索。不设出版物类型或状态限制。该方案已在开放科学框架上注册,并遵循系统评价和Meta分析扩展的范围综述的首选报告项目指南。

结果

纳入15项研究,主要来自德国(73%)且采用定性方法(80%)。大多数研究聚焦于姑息治疗病房或临终关怀机构的患者,不过地理和方法上的局限性限制了研究结果的普遍性。常见挑战包括恐惧、孤独、亲密关系中断和协议不一致。接触预防措施常与其他感染预防干预措施捆绑实施,限制了评估其具体影响的能力。术语差异很大。没有研究直接评估接触预防在减少抗菌药物耐药菌(ARO)传播方面的效果,不过一项儿科研究报告称宽松的方案且未发生医院获得性ARO感染。

结论

需要采取个案处理的方法来平衡感染控制与患者尊严及生活质量。一致的术语和更有力的混合方法研究对于为不同环境下基于证据的方案提供信息至关重要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2d45/12345051/f8241bd153e1/S2732494X2510096X_fig1.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