首页> 外文期刊>Palliative medicine >Effects of two feedback interventions on end-of-life outcomes in nursing home residents with dementia: A cluster-randomized controlled three-armed trial
【24h】

Effects of two feedback interventions on end-of-life outcomes in nursing home residents with dementia: A cluster-randomized controlled three-armed trial

机译:两种反馈干预对痴呆症育龄居民居民结束结果的影响:簇随机控制三武装试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Despite increased attention for palliative care in dementia, recent studies found burdensome symptoms and unmet family caregiver needs in the last phase of life. Feedback is being used to improve the quality of palliative care, but we do not know how effective it is. Aim: To assess the effect of two feedback strategies on perceived quality of end-of-life care and comfort in dying nursing home residents with dementia. Methods: In a cluster-randomized controlled trial, the End-of-Life in Dementia–Satisfaction With Care and the End-of-Life in Dementia–Comfort Assessment in Dying scales were completed by bereaved family caregivers of residents with dementia of 18 Dutch nursing homes. Two feedback strategies, generic feedback with mean End-of-Life in Dementia-scores and feedback with individual (patient-specific) End-of-Life in Dementia-scores, were compared to no feedback provided. The intervention groups discussed End-of-Life in Dementia-ratings in team meetings and formulated actions to improve care. Multi-level analyses assessed effects. Results: A total of 668 families rated the End-of-Life in Dementia–instruments. Compared to no feedback, the generic strategy resulted in lower quality of end-of-life care in unadjusted ( B ?=??1.65, confidence interval?=??3.27;??0.21) and adjusted analyses ( B ?=??2.41, confidence interval?=??4.07;??0.76), while there was no effect on comfort. The patient-specific strategy did not affect the quality of end-of-life care, but it increased comfort in unadjusted analyses (only, B ?=?2.20, confidence interval?=?0.15; 4.39; adjusted: B ?=?1.88, confidence interval?=??0.34; 4.10). Conclusion: Neither feedback strategy improved end-of-life outcome. Perhaps, skills to translate the feedback into care improvement actions were insufficient. Feedback with favorable family ratings might even have triggered opposite effects. Trial number: NTR3942.
机译:背景:尽管痴呆症的姑息治疗增加了,但最近的研究发现繁重的症状和未满足的家庭照顾者需要在最后的生活中的需求。反馈正在用来提高姑息治疗的质量,但我们不知道它有多有效。目的:评估两次反馈策略对患有痴呆症染色家庭居民的生活终生护理和舒适性的影响。方法:在簇随机对照试验中,患有痴呆症的痴呆症和痴呆尺度痴呆症患者患者的寿命终止症患者的痴呆症患者患者的痴呆症患者患者的痴呆症患者患有18名荷兰人的痴呆症疗养院。与痴呆症 - 分数的平均寿命的两次反馈策略,与个体(患者特异性)痴呆症分数的寿命结束的常见反馈与痴呆症 - 分数的寿命终生终端,与没有提供反馈。干预群在团队会议中讨论了痴呆症的痴呆症结束,并制定了改善护理的行动。多级分析评估效果。结果:共有668个家庭评分痴呆仪器的寿命结束。与没有反馈相比,通用策略导致未经调整的寿命结束的质量较低(B?= ?? 1.65,置信区间?= ?? 3.27; ?? 0.21)和调整后的分析(B?= ?? 2.41,置信区间?= ?? 4.07; ?? 0.76),虽然没有对舒适感的影响。特定于患者的策略不会影响终生终端护理的质量,但它在未调整的分析中增加了舒适性(仅限B?=?2.20,置信区间?=?0.15; 4.39;调整后:B?= 1.88 ,置信区间?= ?? 0.34; 4.10)。结论:无论反馈策略都没有改善寿命结束结果。也许,将反馈转化为护理改善行动的技能不足。具有有利的家庭评分的反馈甚至可能引发了相反的影响。试用号码:NTR3942。

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