首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medicine >Two distinct Do-Not-Resuscitate protocols leaving less to the imagination: an observational study using propensity score matching
【24h】

Two distinct Do-Not-Resuscitate protocols leaving less to the imagination: an observational study using propensity score matching

机译:两种截然不同的“不要复活”协议,这使人们难以想象:使用倾向得分匹配的观察性研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) patients tend to receive less medical care after the order is written. To provide a clearer approach, the Ohio Department of Health adopted the Do-Not-Resuscitate law in 1998, indicating two distinct protocols of DNR orders that allow DNR patients to choose the medical care: DNR Comfort Care (DNRCC), implying DNRCC patients receive only comfort care after the order is written; and DNR Comfort Care-Arrest (DNRCC-Arrest), implying that DNRCC-Arrest patients are eligible to receive aggressive interventions until cardiac or respiratory arrest. The aim of this study was to examine the medical care provided to patients with these two distinct protocols of DNR orders. Methods Data were collected from August 2002 to December 2005 at a medical intensive care unit in a university-affiliated teaching hospital. In total, 188 DNRCC-Arrest patients, 88 DNRCC patients, and 2,051 non-DNR patients were included. Propensity score matching using multivariate logistic regression was used to balance the confounding variables between the 188 DNRCC-Arrest and 2,051 non-DNR patients, and between the 88 DNRCC and 2,051 non-DNR patients. The daily cost of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, the daily cost of hospital stay, the daily discretionary cost of ICU stay, six aggressive interventions, and three comfort care measures were used to indicate the medical care patients received. The association of each continuous variable and categorical variable with having a DNR order written was analyzed using Student’s t -test and the χ2 test, respectively. The six aggressive interventions and three comfort care measures performed before and after the order was initiated were compared using McNemar’s test. Results DNRCC patients received significantly fewer aggressive interventions and more comfort care after the order was initiated. By contrast, for DNRCC-Arrest patients, the six aggressive interventions provided were not significantly decreased, but the three comfort care measures were significantly increased after the order was initiated. In addition, the three medical costs were not significantly different between DNRCC and non-DNR patients, or between DNRCC-Arrest and non-DNR patients. Conclusions When medical care provided to DNR patients is clearly indicated, healthcare professionals will provide the medical care determined by patient/surrogate decision-makers and healthcare professionals, rather than blindly decreasing medical care.
机译:背景请勿在未签署指令后进行复苏的患者接受较少的医疗护理。为了提供更清晰的方法,俄亥俄州卫生部门于1998年通过了《禁止复苏法》,指出了两种不同的DNR命令协议,允许DNR患者选择医疗服务:DNR舒适护理(DNRCC),这意味着DNRCC患者可以接受订单写完后只能进行舒适护理;和DNR舒适护理逮捕(DNRCC-逮捕),这意味着DNRCC-逮捕的患者有资格接受积极的干预,直到心脏或呼吸停止为止。这项研究的目的是检查使用这两种不同的DNR订单方案为患者提供的医疗服务。方法收集2002年8月至2005年12月在大学附属教学医院的医疗重症监护室收集的数据。总共包括188名DNRCC逮捕患者,88名DNRCC患者和2,051名非DNR患者。使用多元逻辑回归的倾向得分匹配用于平衡188名DNRCC-Arrest患者和2,051名非DNR患者之间以及88名DNRCC和2,051名非DNR患者之间的混淆变量。重症监护病房(ICU)住院日费用,住院日费用,ICU住院日酌定费用,六项积极干预措施和三项舒适护理措施均用于指示接受过医疗护理的患者。分别使用Student's t检验和χ 2 检验来分析每个连续变量和分类变量与DNR顺序的关联。使用McNemar的测试比较了在发起订单之前和之后执行的六项积极干预措施和三项舒适护理措施。结果发起该命令后,DNRCC患者接受的介入治疗明显少得多,而舒适护理得到了更多改善。相比之下,对于DNRCC-Arrest患者,所提供的六项积极干预措施并未显着减少,但在命令启动后,三项舒适护理措施显着增加。此外,在DNRCC和非DNR患者之间,或在DNRCC-Arrest和非DNR患者之间,这三种医疗费用没有显着差异。结论当明确指示为DNR患者提供医疗护理时,医疗保健专业人员将提供由患者/代理决策者和医疗保健专业人员确定的医疗保健,而不是盲目地减少医疗保健。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号