Fischer G S, Alpert H R, Stoeckle J D, Emanuel L L
Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical School, Pa, USA.
Arch Intern Med. 1997 Apr 14;157(7):801-7.
Some have suggested that advance directives elicit goals of care from patients, instead of or in addition to specific intervention preferences, but little is known about whether goals of care can be used in a meaningful way on documents or whether they can predict preferences for specific interventions.
Attending physicians (n = 716) at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston were surveyed to elicit general goals of care (eg, treat everything or comfort measures only) along with specific preferences for 11 medical, interventions in 6 scenarios. In each scenario, each goal was classified as an adequate predictor of acceptance or rejection of an intervention if its predictive value of the preference for that intervention was at least 80%.
Goals varied with scenarios (P < .001) in a predictable manner. The goal treat everything was an adequate predictor of acceptance of each intervention, and comfort was an adequate predictor of rejection for nearly every intervention. Attempt cure adequately predicted acceptance of almost every nonaggressive intervention, but did not predict acceptance of aggressive interventions. Quality of life predicted rejection of aggressive interventions in 3 scenarios, but was not useful in other cases. When goals were predictors of preferences, the mean range of 95% confidence intervals for their predictive values was generally 20% or less.
Goals have a valid role in advance directives, since the goal choices had a logical relationship to scenarios and intervention choices. However, the 2 goals attempt cure and choose quality of life were not predictive in many instances. If these findings hold true for more general populations of patients, then advance directive documents will need to rely on more than these general goal statements if they are to adequately represent patient preferences.
一些人认为,预立医疗指示能够引出患者的医疗护理目标,以替代或补充特定的干预偏好,但对于医疗护理目标能否在文件中以有意义的方式使用,或者它们是否能够预测对特定干预措施的偏好,我们知之甚少。
对波士顿麻省总医院的716名主治医生进行了调查,以了解他们的总体医疗护理目标(例如,全力治疗或仅采取舒适护理措施)以及在6种情景下对11种医疗干预措施的具体偏好。在每种情景中,如果某个目标对某一干预措施接受或拒绝偏好的预测价值至少为80%,则该目标被归类为该干预措施接受或拒绝的充分预测指标。
目标因情景而异(P <.001),且方式可预测。“全力治疗”这一目标是每种干预措施接受情况的充分预测指标,而“舒适护理”几乎是每种干预措施拒绝情况的充分预测指标。“尝试治愈”充分预测了几乎每种非激进干预措施的接受情况,但无法预测激进干预措施的接受情况。“生活质量”在3种情景中预测了激进干预措施的拒绝情况,但在其他情况下并无作用。当目标是偏好的预测指标时,其预测值的95%置信区间的平均范围通常为20%或更小。
目标在预立医疗指示中具有有效作用,因为目标选择与情景和干预选择具有逻辑关系。然而,“尝试治愈”和“选择生活质量”这两个目标在许多情况下并无预测作用。如果这些发现适用于更广泛的患者群体,那么预立医疗指示文件若要充分体现患者偏好,就需要依靠比这些总体目标陈述更多的内容。