Morrison R Sean, Chichin Eileen, Carter John, Burack Orah, Lantz Melinda, Meier Diane E
Hertzberg Palliative Care Institute, Brookdale Department of Geriatrics, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York 10029, USA.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Feb;53(2):290-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53116.x.
To assess the effect of a multicomponent advance care planning intervention directed at nursing home social workers on identification and documentation of preferences for medical treatments and on patient outcomes.
Controlled clinical trial.
New York City nursing home.
One hundred thirty-nine newly admitted long-term care residents.
Nursing home social workers were randomized to the intervention or control groups. The intervention consisted of baseline education in advance care planning that incorporated small-group workshops and role play/practice sessions for intervention social workers; structured advance care planning discussions with residents and their proxies at admission, after any change in clinical status, and at yearly intervals; formal structured review of residents' goals of care at preexisting regular team meetings; "flagging" of advance directives on nursing home charts; and feedback to individual healthcare providers of the congruence of care they provided and the preferences specified in the advance care planning process. Control social workers received an educational training session on New York State law regarding advance directives but no additional training or interventions. Subjects were enrolled from January 9, 2001 through May 25, 2003 and followed for 6 months after enrollment.
Nursing home chart documentation of advance directives (healthcare proxies, living wills) and do-not-resuscitate orders; preferences for artificial nutrition and hydration, intravenous antibiotics, and hospitalization; and concordance of treatments received with documented preferences were compared for residents assigned to intervention and control social workers.
Intervention residents were significantly more likely than residents in the control group to have their preferences regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (40% vs 20%, P=.005), artificial nutrition and hydration (47% vs 9%, P<.01), intravenous antibiotics (44% vs 9%, P<.01), and hospitalization (49% vs 16%, P<.01) documented in the nursing home chart. Control residents were significantly more likely than intervention residents to receive treatments discordant with their prior stated wishes. Two of 49 (5%) intervention residents received a treatment in conflict with their prior stated wishes (one hospitalization, one episode of intravenous antibiotics), compared with 17 of 96 (18%) control patients (P=.04).
This generalizable intervention directed at nursing home social workers significantly improved the documentation and identification of patients' wishes regarding common life-sustaining treatments and resulted in a higher concordance between patients' prior stated wishes and treatments received.
评估针对养老院社会工作者的多组分预立医疗计划干预措施对医疗治疗偏好的识别与记录以及患者结局的影响。
对照临床试验。
纽约市养老院。
139名新入住的长期护理居民。
养老院社会工作者被随机分配至干预组或对照组。干预措施包括预立医疗计划的基线教育,其中为干预组社会工作者纳入小组研讨会及角色扮演/实践环节;在居民入院时、临床状态发生任何变化后以及每年定期与居民及其代理人进行结构化的预立医疗计划讨论;在现有的定期团队会议上对居民的护理目标进行正式的结构化审查;在养老院病历上“标记”预立医嘱;并向个体医疗服务提供者反馈他们所提供的护理与预立医疗计划过程中指定的偏好之间的一致性。对照社会工作者接受了关于纽约州预立医嘱法律的教育培训,但未接受额外培训或干预。研究对象于2001年1月9日至2003年5月25日入组,并在入组后随访6个月。
比较分配至干预组和对照组社会工作者的居民在养老院病历中关于预立医嘱(医疗代理人、生前遗嘱)和不进行心肺复苏医嘱的记录情况;对人工营养与补液、静脉用抗生素以及住院治疗的偏好;以及所接受的治疗与记录的偏好之间的一致性。
干预组居民在养老院病历中记录其关于心肺复苏(40%对20%,P = 0.005)、人工营养与补液(47%对9%,P < 0.01)、静脉用抗生素(44%对9%,P < 0.01)以及住院治疗(49%对16%,P < 0.01)偏好的可能性显著高于对照组居民。对照组居民接受与其先前声明意愿不一致治疗的可能性显著高于干预组居民。49名(5%)干预组居民中有2名接受了与其先前声明意愿相冲突的治疗(1次住院、1次静脉用抗生素治疗),相比之下,96名(18%)对照组患者中有17名(P = 0.04)。
这项针对养老院社会工作者的可推广干预措施显著改善了患者关于常见维持生命治疗意愿的记录与识别,并使患者先前声明的意愿与所接受的治疗之间具有更高的一致性。