Suppr超能文献

针对成年非重症监护病房住院患者,由医生主导的呼吸治疗与呼吸治疗咨询服务主导的呼吸护理的随机对照试验。

Randomized controlled trial of physician-directed versus respiratory therapy consult service-directed respiratory care to adult non-ICU inpatients.

作者信息

Stoller J K, Mascha E J, Kester L, Haney D

机构信息

Section of Respiratory Therapy, Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

出版信息

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998 Oct;158(4):1068-75. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.158.4.9709076.

Abstract

Although current evidence suggests that respiratory care protocols can enhance allocation of respiratory care services while conserving costs, a randomized trial is needed to address shortcomings of available studies. We therefore conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing respiratory care for adult non-ICU inpatients directed by a Respiratory Therapy Consult Service (RTCS) versus respiratory care by managing physicians. Eligible subjects were adult non-ICU inpatients whose physicians had prescribed specific respiratory care services. Consecutive eligible patients were approached for consent, after which a blocked randomization strategy was used to assign patients to (1) Physician-directed respiratory care, in which the prescribed physician respiratory care orders were maintained (n = 74), or (2) RTCS-directed respiratory care, in which the physician's respiratory care orders were preempted by a respiratory care plan generated by the RTCS (n = 71). Specifically, these patients were evaluated by an RTCS therapist evaluator whose respiratory care plan was based on sign/symptom-based algorithms drafted to comply with the American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC) Clinical Practice Guidelines. Appropriateness of respiratory care orders was assessed as agreement between the prescribed respiratory care plan and an algorithm-based "standard care plan" generated by an expert therapist who was blind to the patient's actual orders. The compared groups were similar at baseline regarding demographic features, admission diagnostic category, smoking status, and Triage Score (mean, 3.8 +/- 0.9 SD [RTCS] versus 3.7 +/- 1.0). Similarly, no differences were observed between RTCS-directed and physician-directed respiratory care regarding hospital mortality rate (5.7 versus 5.6%), hospital length of stay (7.9 +/- 9.0 versus 7.7 +/- 7.3 d), total number of respiratory care treatments delivered (30.3 +/- 30 versus 31.6 +/- 30.5), or days requiring respiratory care (4.2 +/- 5.2 versus 4.1 +/- 3.6). Notably, using both a stringent (S) and a liberal (L) criterion for agreement, RTCS-directed respiratory care demonstrated better agreement with the "standard care plan" (82 +/- 17% [S] and 86 +/- 16% [L]) than did physician-directed respiratory care (64 +/- 21% [S] and 72 +/- 23% [L]) (p < 0.001). Finally, the true cost of respiratory care treatments was slightly lower with RTCS-directed respiratory care (mean, $235.70 versus $255.70/pt, p = 0.61). We conclude that (1) compared with physician-directed respiratory care, the RTCS prescribed a similar number and duration of respiratory care services at a slight savings (that did not achieve statistical significance) and without any increased adverse events; and (2) compared with physician-directed respiratory care, RTCS-directed respiratory care showed greater agreement with Clinical Practice Guideline-based algorithms.

摘要

尽管目前的证据表明,呼吸护理方案可以在节约成本的同时提高呼吸护理服务的分配效率,但仍需要进行一项随机试验来解决现有研究的不足之处。因此,我们进行了一项随机对照试验,比较了由呼吸治疗咨询服务(RTCS)指导的成年非重症监护病房住院患者的呼吸护理与主治医生提供的呼吸护理。符合条件的受试者为其医生已开出特定呼吸护理服务处方的成年非重症监护病房住院患者。连续符合条件的患者被邀请签署同意书,之后采用区组随机化策略将患者分配到:(1)医生指导的呼吸护理组,即维持医生开出的呼吸护理医嘱(n = 74);或(2)RTCS指导的呼吸护理组,即RTCS生成的呼吸护理计划优先于医生的呼吸护理医嘱(n = 71)。具体而言,这些患者由一名RTCS治疗师评估,该治疗师的呼吸护理计划基于为符合美国呼吸护理协会(AARC)临床实践指南而起草的基于体征/症状的算法。呼吸护理医嘱的适当性通过比较开出的呼吸护理计划与由一名对患者实际医嘱不知情的专家治疗师生成的基于算法的“标准护理计划”之间的一致性来评估。在人口统计学特征、入院诊断类别、吸烟状况和分诊评分方面,两组在基线时相似(平均值,3.8±0.9标准差[RTCS]对3.7±1.0)。同样,在医院死亡率(5.7%对5.6%)、住院时间(7.9±9.0对7.7±7.3天)、提供的呼吸护理治疗总数(30.3±30对31.6±30.5)或需要呼吸护理的天数(4.2±5.2对4.1±3.6)方面,RTCS指导的呼吸护理与医生指导的呼吸护理之间未观察到差异。值得注意的是,使用严格(S)和宽松(L)两种一致性标准时,RTCS指导的呼吸护理与“标准护理计划”的一致性(分别为82±17%[S]和86±16%[L])优于医生指导的呼吸护理(分别为64±21%[S]和72±23%[L])(p < 0.001)。最后,RTCS指导的呼吸护理治疗的实际成本略低(平均值,235.70美元对255.70美元/患者,p = 0.61)。我们得出结论:(1)与医生指导的呼吸护理相比,RTCS开出的呼吸护理服务数量和持续时间相似,略有节省(未达到统计学显著性)且无任何不良事件增加;(2)与医生指导的呼吸护理相比,RTCS指导的呼吸护理与基于临床实践指南的算法的一致性更高。

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