Impact of Pediatric Palliative Care on Goal Concordant Care in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Matthew Lin, Sadaf Kazmi, Olivia Bosworth, Taylor Kiernan, Clara Horner, Jordan Nelson, Kristyn Pierce, Deborah Dore, Daniel Eison, Christine Zawistoswki
{"title":"Impact of Pediatric Palliative Care on Goal Concordant Care in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.","authors":"Matthew Lin, Sadaf Kazmi, Olivia Bosworth, Taylor Kiernan, Clara Horner, Jordan Nelson, Kristyn Pierce, Deborah Dore, Daniel Eison, Christine Zawistoswki","doi":"10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2025.01.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Little is known about the prevalence of goal-concordant care (GCC) in the NICU and whether it can be measured from chart data.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine if GCC can be evaluated using chart data, to identify factors associated with GCC, and to evaluate the impact of pediatric palliative care (PPC) consultation on GCC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective review of infants who died in a level IV NICU over a 10-year period (2014-2024). A structured questionnaire was used to guide independent chart abstraction for GCC outcomes between two reviewers. Cohen's kappa was used to measure reviewer agreement. Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used to evaluate differences between infants with GCC vs. no GCC. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of PPC on aspects of GCC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>78% (99/127) of patients received GCC. Reviewer agreement for determining aspects of GCC was low, however, consensus was reached for all GCC outcomes. GCC was significantly associated with religious tradition, insurance status, limitations of resuscitation, mode of death, PPC consult, any family meeting or advance care planning discussion, and more social work visits. In logistic regression, PPC consultation was not a significant predictor of GCC after adjusting for religion, insurance, time since death, length of stay, and family meetings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most infants received GCC, which was able to be determined from chart data. GCC was associated with several demographic and hospitalization factors such as PPC consultation and psychosocial supports. After adjusting for confounding, PPC was not a significant predictor of GCC.</p>","PeriodicalId":16634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pain and symptom management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pain and symptom management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2025.01.008","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Little is known about the prevalence of goal-concordant care (GCC) in the NICU and whether it can be measured from chart data.

Objectives: To determine if GCC can be evaluated using chart data, to identify factors associated with GCC, and to evaluate the impact of pediatric palliative care (PPC) consultation on GCC.

Methods: Retrospective review of infants who died in a level IV NICU over a 10-year period (2014-2024). A structured questionnaire was used to guide independent chart abstraction for GCC outcomes between two reviewers. Cohen's kappa was used to measure reviewer agreement. Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used to evaluate differences between infants with GCC vs. no GCC. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of PPC on aspects of GCC.

Results: 78% (99/127) of patients received GCC. Reviewer agreement for determining aspects of GCC was low, however, consensus was reached for all GCC outcomes. GCC was significantly associated with religious tradition, insurance status, limitations of resuscitation, mode of death, PPC consult, any family meeting or advance care planning discussion, and more social work visits. In logistic regression, PPC consultation was not a significant predictor of GCC after adjusting for religion, insurance, time since death, length of stay, and family meetings.

Conclusion: Most infants received GCC, which was able to be determined from chart data. GCC was associated with several demographic and hospitalization factors such as PPC consultation and psychosocial supports. After adjusting for confounding, PPC was not a significant predictor of GCC.

儿童姑息治疗对新生儿重症监护病房目标和谐护理的影响。
背景:关于新生儿重症监护室目标和谐护理(GCC)的流行情况,以及是否可以从图表数据中测量出来,我们知之甚少。目的:确定是否可以使用图表数据评估GCC,确定与GCC相关的因素,并评估儿科姑息治疗(PPC)咨询对GCC的影响。方法:回顾性分析2014-2024年10年间在IV级NICU死亡的婴儿。一个结构化的问卷被用来指导两个评论者之间GCC结果的独立图表抽象。Cohen’s kappa被用来衡量审稿人的同意度。使用Mann-Whitney U和卡方检验或Fisher精确检验来评估GCC与非GCC婴儿之间的差异。使用逻辑回归来评估PPC对GCC各方面的影响。结果:78%(99/127)的患者接受了GCC治疗。审稿人在确定GCC各方面的一致性很低,然而,对GCC的所有结果达成了共识。GCC与宗教传统、保险状况、复苏限制、死亡方式、PPC咨询、任何家庭会议或预先护理计划讨论以及更多的社会工作访问显著相关。在逻辑回归中,在调整宗教、保险、死亡时间、住院时间和家庭会议后,PPC咨询不是GCC的显著预测因子。结论:大多数婴儿接受了GCC,这可以从图表数据中确定。GCC与若干人口和住院因素有关,如PPC咨询和社会心理支持。在调整混杂因素后,PPC不是GCC的显著预测因子。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
6.40%
发文量
821
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pain and Symptom Management is an internationally respected, peer-reviewed journal and serves an interdisciplinary audience of professionals by providing a forum for the publication of the latest clinical research and best practices related to the relief of illness burden among patients afflicted with serious or life-threatening illness.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信