A cross-sectional study assessing concordance with advance care directives in a rural health district.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING Australian Journal of Rural Health Pub Date : 2024-08-09 DOI:10.1111/ajr.13166
Dan Curley, Leigh Kinsman, Graeme Mooney, Gail Whiteford, Tony Lower, Megan Hobbs, Beverley Morris, Kerry Bartlett, Alycia Jacob
{"title":"A cross-sectional study assessing concordance with advance care directives in a rural health district.","authors":"Dan Curley, Leigh Kinsman, Graeme Mooney, Gail Whiteford, Tony Lower, Megan Hobbs, Beverley Morris, Kerry Bartlett, Alycia Jacob","doi":"10.1111/ajr.13166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To measure compliance with Advance Care Directives (ACDs) for decedents in a rural setting.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Observational, cross-sectional medical records audit comparing requests in ACDs with actual outcomes.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Rural Australian coastal district.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>People who had an ACD, died during the study period (30 May 2020 to 15 December 2021) and participated in a local research project.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure(s): </strong>Compliance was measured by comparing stated requests in the ACD with outcomes recorded in medical records. This included the place of death and a list of 'unacceptable interventions'.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-eight people met the inclusion criteria (age range of 46-92 [mean 67 years; median 74 years]; 42 [62%] male). The main cause of death was cancer (n = 48; 71%). Preferred place of death was not stated in 16 ACDs. Compliance with documented preferred place of death was 63% (33/52): 48% (16/33) when the preferred place of death was home; 78% (7/9) when sub-acute was preferred; and 100% (10/10) when hospital was preferred. Compliance was 100% with 'unacceptable interventions'.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results demonstrate strong compliance with rural patients' requests in ACDs, particularly 'unacceptable interventions'. Home was the most common preferred place of death, but the compliance measure (48%) was the lowest in this study. This requires further exploration.</p>","PeriodicalId":55421,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Rural Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.13166","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To measure compliance with Advance Care Directives (ACDs) for decedents in a rural setting.

Design: Observational, cross-sectional medical records audit comparing requests in ACDs with actual outcomes.

Setting: Rural Australian coastal district.

Participants: People who had an ACD, died during the study period (30 May 2020 to 15 December 2021) and participated in a local research project.

Main outcome measure(s): Compliance was measured by comparing stated requests in the ACD with outcomes recorded in medical records. This included the place of death and a list of 'unacceptable interventions'.

Results: Sixty-eight people met the inclusion criteria (age range of 46-92 [mean 67 years; median 74 years]; 42 [62%] male). The main cause of death was cancer (n = 48; 71%). Preferred place of death was not stated in 16 ACDs. Compliance with documented preferred place of death was 63% (33/52): 48% (16/33) when the preferred place of death was home; 78% (7/9) when sub-acute was preferred; and 100% (10/10) when hospital was preferred. Compliance was 100% with 'unacceptable interventions'.

Conclusion: These results demonstrate strong compliance with rural patients' requests in ACDs, particularly 'unacceptable interventions'. Home was the most common preferred place of death, but the compliance measure (48%) was the lowest in this study. This requires further exploration.

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
一项横断面研究评估了一个农村医疗区对预先护理指令的遵从情况。
目的衡量农村地区对死者预先护理指示(ACD)的遵守情况:观察性、横断面医疗记录审计,比较 ACD 申请与实际结果:环境:澳大利亚沿海农村地区:主要结果测量:主要结果测量:通过比较 ACD 中所述要求和医疗记录中记录的结果来测量遵守情况。这包括死亡地点和 "不可接受的干预 "清单:68人符合纳入标准(年龄范围为46-92岁[平均67岁;中位数74岁];42人[62%]为男性)。主要死因是癌症(48 人;71%)。16 份 ACD 没有说明首选死亡地点。有记录的首选死亡地点符合率为 63%(33/52):首选死亡地点为家庭时,符合率为 48%(16/33);首选亚急性时,符合率为 78%(7/9);首选医院时,符合率为 100%(10/10)。对 "不可接受的干预 "的依从性为 100%:结论:这些结果表明,农村患者在 ACD 中的要求,特别是 "不可接受的干预 "得到了很好的遵守。居家是最常见的首选死亡地点,但在本研究中,符合率(48%)却是最低的。这需要进一步探讨。
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
Australian Journal of Rural Health
Australian Journal of Rural Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
122
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: The Australian Journal of Rural Health publishes articles in the field of rural health. It facilitates the formation of interdisciplinary networks, so that rural health professionals can form a cohesive group and work together for the advancement of rural practice, in all health disciplines. The Journal aims to establish a national and international reputation for the quality of its scholarly discourse and its value to rural health professionals. All articles, unless otherwise identified, are peer reviewed by at least two researchers expert in the field of the submitted paper.
期刊最新文献
Barriers and enablers to bowel cancer screening participation in remote Tasmania: A qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework. Exploring learning characteristics and progression of GP trainees based in regional, rural and remote settings: A qualitative study. The term 'Comprehensive Cancer Centre' is outdated in contemporary Australian health systems. Issue Information International declaration on rural mental health research: 10 guiding principles and standards
×
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