Symptom assessment in the dying: family members versus healthcare professionals.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1136/spcare-2023-004382
Lisa Martinsson, Margareta Brännström, Sofia Andersson
{"title":"Symptom assessment in the dying: family members versus healthcare professionals.","authors":"Lisa Martinsson, Margareta Brännström, Sofia Andersson","doi":"10.1136/spcare-2023-004382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Symptom management and support of the family members (FMs) are considered essential aspects of palliative care. During end of life, patients are often not able to self-report symptoms. There is little knowledge in the literature of how healthcare professionals (HCPs) assess symptoms compared with FMs. The objective was to compare the assessment of symptoms and symptom relief during the final week of life between what was reported by FMs and what was reported by HCPs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from the Swedish Register of Palliative Care from 2021 and 2022 were used to compare congruity of the assessments by the FMs and by HCPs regarding occurrence and relief of three symptoms (pain, anxiety and confusion), using Cohen's kappa.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1131 patients were included. The agreement between FMs and HCPs was poor for occurrence of pain and confusion (kappa 0.25 and 0.16), but fair for occurrence of anxiety (kappa 0.30). When agreeing on a symptom being present, agreement on relief of that symptom was poor (kappa 0.04 for pain, 0.10 for anxiety and 0.01 for confusion). The trend was that HCPs more often rated occurrence of pain and anxiety, less often occurrence of confusion and more often complete symptom relief compared with the FMs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The views of FMs and HCPs of the patients' symptoms differ in the end-of-life context, but both report important information and their symptom assessments should be considered both together and individually. More communication between HCPs and FMs could probably bridge some of these differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":9136,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","volume":" ","pages":"428-433"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/spcare-2023-004382","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Symptom management and support of the family members (FMs) are considered essential aspects of palliative care. During end of life, patients are often not able to self-report symptoms. There is little knowledge in the literature of how healthcare professionals (HCPs) assess symptoms compared with FMs. The objective was to compare the assessment of symptoms and symptom relief during the final week of life between what was reported by FMs and what was reported by HCPs.

Methods: Data from the Swedish Register of Palliative Care from 2021 and 2022 were used to compare congruity of the assessments by the FMs and by HCPs regarding occurrence and relief of three symptoms (pain, anxiety and confusion), using Cohen's kappa.

Results: A total of 1131 patients were included. The agreement between FMs and HCPs was poor for occurrence of pain and confusion (kappa 0.25 and 0.16), but fair for occurrence of anxiety (kappa 0.30). When agreeing on a symptom being present, agreement on relief of that symptom was poor (kappa 0.04 for pain, 0.10 for anxiety and 0.01 for confusion). The trend was that HCPs more often rated occurrence of pain and anxiety, less often occurrence of confusion and more often complete symptom relief compared with the FMs.

Conclusions: The views of FMs and HCPs of the patients' symptoms differ in the end-of-life context, but both report important information and their symptom assessments should be considered both together and individually. More communication between HCPs and FMs could probably bridge some of these differences.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临终者的症状评估:家庭成员与医疗保健专业人员。
目的:症状管理和支持家庭成员(FMs)被认为是姑息治疗的重要方面。在生命末期,患者往往无法自我报告症状。文献中很少有关于卫生保健专业人员(HCPs)如何与FMs相比评估症状的知识。目的是比较FMs报告的和hcp报告的生命最后一周的症状评估和症状缓解。方法:使用瑞典姑息治疗登记处2021年和2022年的数据,比较FMs和hcp对三种症状(疼痛、焦虑和混乱)的发生和缓解的评估的一致性,使用Cohen's kappa。结果:共纳入1131例患者。FMs和HCPs在疼痛和困惑发生方面的一致性较差(kappa分别为0.25和0.16),但在焦虑发生方面的一致性较好(kappa为0.30)。当对某一症状的存在达成一致时,对该症状的缓解的一致性很差(kappa为疼痛0.04,为焦虑0.10,为困惑0.01)。趋势是,与FMs相比,hcp更常评估疼痛和焦虑的发生,更少发生混乱,更经常完全缓解症状。结论:FMs和HCPs对患者临终症状的看法不同,但两者都报告了重要的信息,其症状评估应一并考虑,也应单独考虑。hcp和FMs之间更多的交流可能会弥合这些差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
170
期刊介绍: Published quarterly in print and continuously online, BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care aims to connect many disciplines and specialties throughout the world by providing high quality, clinically relevant research, reviews, comment, information and news of international importance. We hold an inclusive view of supportive and palliative care research and we are able to call on expertise to critique the whole range of methodologies within the subject, including those working in transitional research, clinical trials, epidemiology, behavioural sciences, ethics and health service research. Articles with relevance to clinical practice and clinical service development will be considered for publication. In an international context, many different categories of clinician and healthcare workers do clinical work associated with palliative medicine, specialist or generalist palliative care, supportive care, psychosocial-oncology and end of life care. We wish to engage many specialties, not only those traditionally associated with supportive and palliative care. We hope to extend the readership to doctors, nurses, other healthcare workers and researchers in medical and surgical specialties, including but not limited to cardiology, gastroenterology, geriatrics, neurology, oncology, paediatrics, primary care, psychiatry, psychology, renal medicine, respiratory medicine.
期刊最新文献
Better end-of-life care in surgical patients: Veterans Affairs Bereaved Family Survey - a qualitative analysis. Airflow rates and breathlessness recovery from submaximal exercise in healthy adults: prospective, randomised, cross-over study. Oregon Death with Dignity Act access: 25 year analysis. Spiritual conversation model for patients and loved ones in palliative care: a validation study. Symptom assessment in the dying: family members versus healthcare professionals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1