Does Having an Individualized End-of-Life Care Record Actually Make a Difference?

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Gabriella E Swanepoel, Sophie Williams, Daniel Monnery
{"title":"Does Having an Individualized End-of-Life Care Record Actually Make a Difference?","authors":"Gabriella E Swanepoel, Sophie Williams, Daniel Monnery","doi":"10.1089/jpm.2024.0556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends an individualized approach to end-of-life care (EOLC), including an individualized record of care, which supports shared decision-making and timely rationalization of futile observations and medications. <b><i>Aim:</i></b> To assess the impact of the individualized record of care in supporting patients at the end of life at a UK tertiary cancer center. <b><i>Method:</i></b> In May 2024, we audited the case notes of 100 consecutive patients who received EOLC at our center. Data regarding clinical decision-making and rationalization were collected. Outcomes for those supported by an individualized record of care were compared to those who were not. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 98 patient records were analyzed. 97.3% with an individualized care record had their observations rationalized compared to 75% without, and 74.3% versus 41.7% for medications, respectively (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Certain medications, e.g., prophylactic low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), were less likely to be rationalized. Evidence of discussion about rationalization of observations and medications was present in approximately half of the case notes and often occurred after the rationalization had taken place. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The presence of an individualized end-of-life record of care improved rates of review and rationalization of observations and medications. Future qualitative work is needed to identify challenges regarding these conversations, including examining the role of shared decision-making on rationalization versus patients' refusal.</p>","PeriodicalId":16656,"journal":{"name":"Journal of palliative medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of palliative medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2024.0556","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends an individualized approach to end-of-life care (EOLC), including an individualized record of care, which supports shared decision-making and timely rationalization of futile observations and medications. Aim: To assess the impact of the individualized record of care in supporting patients at the end of life at a UK tertiary cancer center. Method: In May 2024, we audited the case notes of 100 consecutive patients who received EOLC at our center. Data regarding clinical decision-making and rationalization were collected. Outcomes for those supported by an individualized record of care were compared to those who were not. Results: A total of 98 patient records were analyzed. 97.3% with an individualized care record had their observations rationalized compared to 75% without, and 74.3% versus 41.7% for medications, respectively (p < 0.01). Certain medications, e.g., prophylactic low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), were less likely to be rationalized. Evidence of discussion about rationalization of observations and medications was present in approximately half of the case notes and often occurred after the rationalization had taken place. Conclusion: The presence of an individualized end-of-life record of care improved rates of review and rationalization of observations and medications. Future qualitative work is needed to identify challenges regarding these conversations, including examining the role of shared decision-making on rationalization versus patients' refusal.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of palliative medicine
Journal of palliative medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.70%
发文量
345
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Palliative Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed journal covering medical, psychosocial, policy, and legal issues in end-of-life care and relief of suffering for patients with intractable pain. The Journal presents essential information for professionals in hospice/palliative medicine, focusing on improving quality of life for patients and their families, and the latest developments in drug and non-drug treatments. The companion biweekly eNewsletter, Briefings in Palliative Medicine, delivers the latest breaking news and information to keep clinicians and health care providers continuously updated.
×
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