Dying in hospital - A retrospective medical record analysis on care in the dying phase in intensive care units and general wards.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Sophie Meesters, Aneta Schieferdecker, Sukhvir Kaur, Nikolas Oubaid, Anneke Ullrich, Karin Oechsle, Holger Schulz, Raymond Voltz, Kerstin Kremeike
{"title":"Dying in hospital - A retrospective medical record analysis on care in the dying phase in intensive care units and general wards.","authors":"Sophie Meesters, Aneta Schieferdecker, Sukhvir Kaur, Nikolas Oubaid, Anneke Ullrich, Karin Oechsle, Holger Schulz, Raymond Voltz, Kerstin Kremeike","doi":"10.1093/intqhc/mzaf025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Care in the dying phase is often suboptimal in hospitals outside specialised palliative care. Studies of the implementation of recommendations for care in the dying phase are rare. Medical records can provide information in this regard. Methods Retrospective medical record analysis of n=400 patients who died on six intensive care units and four general wards of two German medical centres. To evaluate the care in the dying phase, we descriptively analysed 37 variables reflecting recommendations of the German Palliative Care Guideline. To identify factors associated with important aspects of care, seven of these variables were determined as appropriate for multiple logistic regression. Results In 299/400 (74.8%) patients, recognition of the dying phase was documented. Patients with ability to communicate were informed about the impending death in 46/121 (38.0%) and informal caregivers in 282/390 (72.3%). Patients' wishes regarding care were documented in 33/122 (27.1%). Monitoring was rarely stopped before death, with significantly lower percentages on intensive care units: e.g. vital signs in 30% (14.9% in intensive care units vs. 52.9% in general wards; confidence interval [28.4; 47.6]). Validated symptom assessment tools were used in 272/400 (68.0%), mainly for pain (66.3%). Logistic regression analysis identified setting (intensive care units vs. general ward), recognition of the dying phase, patient age, communication ability, and malignant neoplasm as factors significantly associated with aspects of care. Conclusion The dying phase was not consistently documented, many presumably non-beneficial interventions continued until death, systematic symptom assessment beyond pain was lacking, and communication with patients and informal caregivers was poorly documented. Findings suggest a need for setting-specific strengthening of healthcare professionals in these settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":13800,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaf025","RegionNum":4,"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

Background Care in the dying phase is often suboptimal in hospitals outside specialised palliative care. Studies of the implementation of recommendations for care in the dying phase are rare. Medical records can provide information in this regard. Methods Retrospective medical record analysis of n=400 patients who died on six intensive care units and four general wards of two German medical centres. To evaluate the care in the dying phase, we descriptively analysed 37 variables reflecting recommendations of the German Palliative Care Guideline. To identify factors associated with important aspects of care, seven of these variables were determined as appropriate for multiple logistic regression. Results In 299/400 (74.8%) patients, recognition of the dying phase was documented. Patients with ability to communicate were informed about the impending death in 46/121 (38.0%) and informal caregivers in 282/390 (72.3%). Patients' wishes regarding care were documented in 33/122 (27.1%). Monitoring was rarely stopped before death, with significantly lower percentages on intensive care units: e.g. vital signs in 30% (14.9% in intensive care units vs. 52.9% in general wards; confidence interval [28.4; 47.6]). Validated symptom assessment tools were used in 272/400 (68.0%), mainly for pain (66.3%). Logistic regression analysis identified setting (intensive care units vs. general ward), recognition of the dying phase, patient age, communication ability, and malignant neoplasm as factors significantly associated with aspects of care. Conclusion The dying phase was not consistently documented, many presumably non-beneficial interventions continued until death, systematic symptom assessment beyond pain was lacking, and communication with patients and informal caregivers was poorly documented. Findings suggest a need for setting-specific strengthening of healthcare professionals in these settings.

住院死亡——重症监护病房和普通病房死亡阶段护理的回顾性病历分析。
背景:在专科姑息治疗之外的医院,临终阶段的护理往往不是最佳的。对临终阶段护理建议实施情况的研究很少。医疗记录可以提供这方面的信息。方法回顾性分析德国两家医疗中心6个重症监护病房和4个普通病房死亡的n=400例患者的病历。为了评估临终阶段的护理,我们描述性地分析了反映德国姑息治疗指南建议的37个变量。为了确定与护理的重要方面相关的因素,其中七个变量被确定为适合进行多元逻辑回归。结果400例患者中有299例(74.8%)对死亡阶段有明确认识。有沟通能力的患者有46/121(38.0%)和282/390(72.3%)被告知即将到来的死亡。有33/122(27.1%)记录了患者对护理的意愿。在死亡前很少停止监测,重症监护病房的监测比例明显较低:例如,30%的人有生命体征(重症监护病房14.9%,普通病房52.9%;置信区间[28.4;47.6])。有272/400人(68.0%)使用了经过验证的症状评估工具,主要用于疼痛(66.3%)。Logistic回归分析发现环境(重症监护病房与普通病房)、对死亡阶段的认识、患者年龄、沟通能力和恶性肿瘤是与护理各方面显著相关的因素。结论临终阶段没有一致的记录,许多可能无益的干预措施一直持续到死亡,除了疼痛之外缺乏系统的症状评估,与患者和非正式护理人员的沟通记录也很差。研究结果表明,需要在这些环境中加强特定环境的卫生保健专业人员。
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
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
87
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal for Quality in Health Care makes activities and research related to quality and safety in health care available to a worldwide readership. The Journal publishes papers in all disciplines related to the quality and safety of health care, including health services research, health care evaluation, technology assessment, health economics, utilization review, cost containment, and nursing care research, as well as clinical research related to quality of care. This peer-reviewed journal is truly interdisciplinary and includes contributions from representatives of all health professions such as doctors, nurses, quality assurance professionals, managers, politicians, social workers, and therapists, as well as researchers from health-related backgrounds.
×
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