Advance care planning in the context of clinical deterioration: a systematic review of the literature.

Palliative Care Pub Date : 2019-01-19 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1177/1178224218823509
Wendy Pearse, Florin Oprescu, John Endacott, Sarah Goodman, Mervyn Hyde, Maureen O'Neill
{"title":"Advance care planning in the context of clinical deterioration: a systematic review of the literature.","authors":"Wendy Pearse,&nbsp;Florin Oprescu,&nbsp;John Endacott,&nbsp;Sarah Goodman,&nbsp;Mervyn Hyde,&nbsp;Maureen O'Neill","doi":"10.1177/1178224218823509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A Rapid Response Team can respond to critically ill patients in hospital to prevent further deterioration and unexpected deaths. However, approximately one-third of reviews involve a patient approaching the end-of-life. It is not well understood whether patients have pre-existing advance care plans at the time of significant clinical deterioration requiring Rapid Response Team review. Nor is it understood whether such critical events prompt patients, their families and treating teams to discuss advance care planning and consider referral to specialist palliative care services.</p><p><strong>Aim and design: </strong>This systematic review examined advance care planning with patients who experience significant clinical deterioration in hospital and require Rapid Response Team review. The prevalence of pre-existing advance directives, whether this event prompts end-of-life discussions, the provision of broader advance care planning and referral to specialist palliative care services was examined.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Three electronic databases up to August 2017 were searched, and a manual review of article reference lists conducted. Quality of studies was appraised by the first and fourth authors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 324 articles identified through database searching, 31 met the inclusion criteria, generating data from 47,850 patients. There was a low prevalence of resuscitation orders and formal advance directives prior to Rapid Response Team review, with subsequent increases in resuscitation and limitations of medical treatment orders, but not advance directives. There was high short- and long-term mortality following review, and low rates of palliative care referral.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The failure of patients, their families and medical teams to engage in advance care planning may result in inappropriate Rapid Response Team review that is not in line with patient and family priorities and preferences. Earlier engagement in advance care planning may result in improved person-centred care and referral to specialist palliative care services for ongoing management.</p>","PeriodicalId":56348,"journal":{"name":"Palliative Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1178224218823509","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1178224218823509","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

Background: A Rapid Response Team can respond to critically ill patients in hospital to prevent further deterioration and unexpected deaths. However, approximately one-third of reviews involve a patient approaching the end-of-life. It is not well understood whether patients have pre-existing advance care plans at the time of significant clinical deterioration requiring Rapid Response Team review. Nor is it understood whether such critical events prompt patients, their families and treating teams to discuss advance care planning and consider referral to specialist palliative care services.

Aim and design: This systematic review examined advance care planning with patients who experience significant clinical deterioration in hospital and require Rapid Response Team review. The prevalence of pre-existing advance directives, whether this event prompts end-of-life discussions, the provision of broader advance care planning and referral to specialist palliative care services was examined.

Data sources: Three electronic databases up to August 2017 were searched, and a manual review of article reference lists conducted. Quality of studies was appraised by the first and fourth authors.

Results: Of the 324 articles identified through database searching, 31 met the inclusion criteria, generating data from 47,850 patients. There was a low prevalence of resuscitation orders and formal advance directives prior to Rapid Response Team review, with subsequent increases in resuscitation and limitations of medical treatment orders, but not advance directives. There was high short- and long-term mortality following review, and low rates of palliative care referral.

Conclusions: The failure of patients, their families and medical teams to engage in advance care planning may result in inappropriate Rapid Response Team review that is not in line with patient and family priorities and preferences. Earlier engagement in advance care planning may result in improved person-centred care and referral to specialist palliative care services for ongoing management.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
在临床恶化的背景下提前护理计划:文献的系统回顾。
背景:快速反应小组可以对住院危重患者作出反应,以防止病情进一步恶化和意外死亡。然而,大约三分之一的审查涉及接近生命末期的患者。在需要快速反应小组审查的重大临床恶化时,患者是否预先存在预先护理计划尚不清楚。同样不清楚的是,这些重大事件是否会促使患者、家属和治疗团队讨论预先护理计划,并考虑转诊到专科姑息治疗服务。目的和设计:本系统综述检查了在医院经历明显临床恶化并需要快速反应小组审查的患者的预先护理计划。预先存在的预先指示的普遍性,是否这一事件促使临终讨论,提供更广泛的预先护理计划和转介到专科姑息治疗服务进行了检查。数据来源:检索截至2017年8月的3个电子数据库,人工审阅文章参考文献列表。研究质量由第一和第四作者评价。结果:在通过数据库检索确定的324篇文章中,31篇符合纳入标准,产生了来自47,850例患者的数据。在快速反应小组审查之前,复苏命令和正式预先指示的流行率很低,随后复苏和医疗命令的限制增加,但没有预先指示。回顾后,短期和长期死亡率都很高,而姑息治疗转诊率很低。结论:患者、家属和医疗团队未能参与预先护理计划,可能导致快速反应小组审查不恰当,不符合患者和家属的优先事项和偏好。早期参与预先护理计划可能会改善以人为本的护理和转介到专科姑息治疗服务进行持续管理。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Palliative Care and Social Practice is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes articles on all aspects of palliative care. It welcomes articles from symptom science, clinical practice, and health services research. However, its aim is also to publish cutting-edge research from the realm of social practice - from public health theory and practice, social medicine, and social work, to social sciences related to dying and its care, as well as policy, criticism, and cultural studies. We encourage reports from work with under-represented groups, community development, and studies of civic engagement in end of life issues. Furthermore, we encourage scholarly articles that challenge current thinking about dying, its current care models and practices, and current understandings of grief and bereavement. We want to showcase the next generation of palliative care innovation research and practice - in clinics and in the wider society. Relaunched in July 2019. Partnered with Public Health Palliative Care International (PHPCI) (Title 2008-2018: - Palliative Care: Research and Treatment)
期刊最新文献
2022-RA-747-ESGO Quality of end-of-life care and patterns of palliative care use by women with gynaecologic malignancies in Ontario, Canada: a 13-year population-based retrospective analysis 2022-RA-1238-ESGO Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in oligometastatic gynaecological malignancies 2022-RA-1043-ESGO CT-guided percutenous radiologic gastrostomy in heavily pretreated patients with late stage ovarian cancer: -the charité experiences- 2022-RA-854-ESGO Giving prognostic information by using scenarios – attitudes of women with gynecological cancer 1022 Documenting the journey from DNACPR to surgical R zero – radical extent in a young patient with metastatic undifferentiated leiomyosarcoma relapse
×
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