CPR-Directive Conversations in the Emergency Department: The Opinion of Elderly Patients

Kelvin H Kramp, Rutger de Hond, Mirwais Mehrab, Martijn A A van Hooft, R. Hessels
{"title":"CPR-Directive Conversations in the Emergency Department: The Opinion of Elderly Patients","authors":"Kelvin H Kramp, Rutger de Hond, Mirwais Mehrab, Martijn A A van Hooft, R. Hessels","doi":"10.17294/2694-4715.1028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The average age of patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) continues to rise. Many face difficult discussions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and end-of-life decisions. Objectives This study aimed to determine which healthcare professionals that elderly patients admitted via the ED preferred to discuss their CPR directive with and their opinion about the ED as a setting for discussing their CPR directive. Methods A mixed-methods study with an explanatory sequential design was conducted. A questionnaire was administered to 100 patients >65 years of age admitted to nursing wards via the ED that had a CPR-directive conversation during admission 24-48 hours earlier. Patients who indicated that they preferred to discuss their CPR-directive conversation with a physician working in the ED were invited for follow-up semi-structured interviews. Results General practitioners (GP) were the most preferred healthcare professionals for a conversation about CPR directives (64%). However, physicians working in the ED were the second most preferred medical professionals (51%) along with medical specialists (51%). Only 6% of patients did not consider a physician in the ED as a suitable option for these conversations. Interviewed patients saw a physician consultation in the ED as an opportunity to: 1) check and update their CPR directive, 2) get information about the content and consequences of CPR considering their current health status, and 3) prevent the use of undesired medical treatment during admission. Conclusions Although GPs were the most preferred healthcare professionals with whom to discuss CPR preferences, an unexpectedly large proportion of the investigated population preferred to discuss their choices with a physician working in the ED. These considered these discussions of In conclusion, this study demonstrates that elderly patients admitted to a hospital ward via the ED identified their GP as the most preferred health professional with which to discuss their CPR preferences. However, a significant part of the study population answered in our questionnaire that they also prefer to discuss this topic at the time of admission with a physician in the ED. Interviews showed that a conversation with a physician in the ED was primarily considered suitable based on their decline in health before admission and the expected level of expertise in acute care of the physician in the ED. The results suggest that the topic is on average less repulsive for elderly patients than healthcare providers might think and that, for a significant part of elderly patients, engaging in these conversations is a key aspect of patient-centered healthcare.","PeriodicalId":73757,"journal":{"name":"Journal of geriatric emergency medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of geriatric emergency medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17294/2694-4715.1028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background The average age of patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) continues to rise. Many face difficult discussions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and end-of-life decisions. Objectives This study aimed to determine which healthcare professionals that elderly patients admitted via the ED preferred to discuss their CPR directive with and their opinion about the ED as a setting for discussing their CPR directive. Methods A mixed-methods study with an explanatory sequential design was conducted. A questionnaire was administered to 100 patients >65 years of age admitted to nursing wards via the ED that had a CPR-directive conversation during admission 24-48 hours earlier. Patients who indicated that they preferred to discuss their CPR-directive conversation with a physician working in the ED were invited for follow-up semi-structured interviews. Results General practitioners (GP) were the most preferred healthcare professionals for a conversation about CPR directives (64%). However, physicians working in the ED were the second most preferred medical professionals (51%) along with medical specialists (51%). Only 6% of patients did not consider a physician in the ED as a suitable option for these conversations. Interviewed patients saw a physician consultation in the ED as an opportunity to: 1) check and update their CPR directive, 2) get information about the content and consequences of CPR considering their current health status, and 3) prevent the use of undesired medical treatment during admission. Conclusions Although GPs were the most preferred healthcare professionals with whom to discuss CPR preferences, an unexpectedly large proportion of the investigated population preferred to discuss their choices with a physician working in the ED. These considered these discussions of In conclusion, this study demonstrates that elderly patients admitted to a hospital ward via the ED identified their GP as the most preferred health professional with which to discuss their CPR preferences. However, a significant part of the study population answered in our questionnaire that they also prefer to discuss this topic at the time of admission with a physician in the ED. Interviews showed that a conversation with a physician in the ED was primarily considered suitable based on their decline in health before admission and the expected level of expertise in acute care of the physician in the ED. The results suggest that the topic is on average less repulsive for elderly patients than healthcare providers might think and that, for a significant part of elderly patients, engaging in these conversations is a key aspect of patient-centered healthcare.
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
急诊科心肺复苏术指导对话:老年患者的意见
背景急诊科病人的平均年龄持续上升。许多人面临着关于心肺复苏(CPR)和临终决定的艰难讨论。目的本研究旨在确定通过急诊室入院的老年患者更喜欢与哪些医疗专业人员讨论他们的心肺复苏指令,以及他们对急诊室作为讨论他们心肺复苏指示的环境的看法。方法采用解释性时序设计进行混合方法研究。通过ED对100名年龄>65岁的护理病房患者进行问卷调查,这些患者在入院24-48小时前进行了心肺复苏指令对话。那些表示他们更喜欢与急诊科医生讨论心肺复苏术指导对话的患者被邀请进行后续的半结构化访谈。结果全科医生(GP)是最喜欢谈论CPR指令的医疗保健专业人员(64%)。然而,在急诊科工作的医生是第二受欢迎的医疗专业人员(51%),与医疗专家(51%)并列。只有6%的患者不认为急诊室的医生是进行这些对话的合适选择。受访患者将急诊室的医生咨询视为一个机会:1)检查和更新他们的心肺复苏指令,2)考虑到他们目前的健康状况,获得有关心肺复苏内容和后果的信息,3)防止在入院期间使用不期望的医疗。结论尽管全科医生是最喜欢与之讨论心肺复苏偏好的医疗保健专业人员,但出乎意料的是,很大一部分受调查人群更喜欢与急诊科医生讨论他们的选择,这项研究表明,通过ED入住医院病房的老年患者认为他们的全科医生是最喜欢与他们讨论心肺复苏偏好的健康专业人员。然而,在我们的问卷调查中,很大一部分研究人群回答说,他们也更喜欢在入院时与急诊科医生讨论这个话题。访谈显示,与急诊科医生的谈话主要被认为是合适的,因为他们在入院前的健康状况有所下降,以及急诊科医生在急性护理方面的专业水平。结果表明,这个话题对老年患者的反感程度平均比医疗保健提供者想象的要低,对于很大一部分老年患者来说,参与这些对话是以患者为中心的医疗保健的一个关键方面。
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
期刊最新文献
Frailty Explains Variation in Emergency Department Use for Older Veterans During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Geriatric Emergency Medicine Fellowship Journal Club – Community Paramedicine Older Adult with Transplanted Kidney Failure from Ureteral Obstruction Within a Hernia Bilateral corneal perforations due to elder neglect: a case report Emergency Care of an Older Adult with Complex Care Needs
×
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