Palliative Care and Intensivists' Different Perspectives on Specialist Palliative Care Engagement in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Care.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of palliative medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-13 DOI:10.1089/jpm.2024.0231
Astrid Grouls, Yangseon Park, Elizabeth Kvale, Bindu Akkanti
{"title":"Palliative Care and Intensivists' Different Perspectives on Specialist Palliative Care Engagement in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Care.","authors":"Astrid Grouls, Yangseon Park, Elizabeth Kvale, Bindu Akkanti","doi":"10.1089/jpm.2024.0231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> There is limited understanding of critical care (CC) and specialist palliative care (SPC) professionals' perceptions regarding the role and utility of SPC for patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> An 18-item survey was distributed via convenience sampling and snowballing strategies to CC and SPC attendings working with veno-venous ECMO patients. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 75 surveys were completed. Many CC professionals indicated that SPC consultation was not routinely helpful (5% vs. 71%, <i>p</i> < 0.05). Responses varied on the appropriateness of discussing SPC with patients/families prognosis (81% SPC vs. 47% CC, <i>p</i> < 0.05), end-of-life preferences (100% vs. 62%, <i>p</i> < 0.05), goals of care (95% vs. 58%, <i>p</i> < 0.05), and code status (76% vs. 43%, <i>p</i> < 0.05). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Most respondents indicated that psychosocial support and multidisciplinary team collaborations were within the SPC scope. CC professionals were less likely to indicate that discussion of the care trajectory with patients/families was within SPC scope.</p>","PeriodicalId":16656,"journal":{"name":"Journal of palliative medicine","volume":" ","pages":"251-256"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of palliative medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2024.0231","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: There is limited understanding of critical care (CC) and specialist palliative care (SPC) professionals' perceptions regarding the role and utility of SPC for patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Methods: An 18-item survey was distributed via convenience sampling and snowballing strategies to CC and SPC attendings working with veno-venous ECMO patients. Results: A total of 75 surveys were completed. Many CC professionals indicated that SPC consultation was not routinely helpful (5% vs. 71%, p < 0.05). Responses varied on the appropriateness of discussing SPC with patients/families prognosis (81% SPC vs. 47% CC, p < 0.05), end-of-life preferences (100% vs. 62%, p < 0.05), goals of care (95% vs. 58%, p < 0.05), and code status (76% vs. 43%, p < 0.05). Conclusion: Most respondents indicated that psychosocial support and multidisciplinary team collaborations were within the SPC scope. CC professionals were less likely to indicate that discussion of the care trajectory with patients/families was within SPC scope.

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
姑息治疗和重症医师对专科姑息治疗参与体外膜氧合治疗的不同看法。
引言:对于重症监护(CC)和专科姑息治疗(SPC)专业人员对SPC在体外膜氧合(ECMO)患者中的作用和效用的看法,了解有限。方法:采用方便抽样和滚雪球策略对处理静脉-静脉ECMO患者的CC和SPC主治医师进行18项调查。结果:共完成问卷调查75份。许多CC专业人士表示SPC咨询并没有常规帮助(5%对71%,p < 0.05)。在讨论SPC与患者/家属预后的适当性(81% SPC vs 47% CC, p < 0.05)、临终偏好(100% vs 62%, p < 0.05)、护理目标(95% vs 58%, p < 0.05)和代码状态(76% vs 43%, p < 0.05)方面,反应各不相同。结论:大多数受访者表示心理社会支持和多学科团队合作在SPC范围内。CC专业人员不太可能指出与患者/家属讨论护理轨迹在SPC范围内。
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
Journal of palliative medicine
Journal of palliative medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.70%
发文量
345
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Palliative Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed journal covering medical, psychosocial, policy, and legal issues in end-of-life care and relief of suffering for patients with intractable pain. The Journal presents essential information for professionals in hospice/palliative medicine, focusing on improving quality of life for patients and their families, and the latest developments in drug and non-drug treatments. The companion biweekly eNewsletter, Briefings in Palliative Medicine, delivers the latest breaking news and information to keep clinicians and health care providers continuously updated.
期刊最新文献
"Telehealth Allows for Flexibility and More Equity": Provider Perspectives on Telehealth for Outpatient Palliative Care for Underserved Patients. Grief and Bereavement in Pediatric Palliative Care #502. A Systematic Review of Grief Experiences of Children Who Have Lost a Sibling. Pancreatic Enzyme Supplementation for Patients with Pancreatic Cancer #500. Letter to the Editor: Error in Estimating Prevalence of Iatrogenic Opioid Use Disorder.
×
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