Self-assessment and Screening for Palliative Care Need in Patients with ChronicHeart Failure

K. Oechsle, J. Ehlert, Y. Kodolitsch, A. Ullrich, C. Bokemeyer, M. Rybczynski
{"title":"Self-assessment and Screening for Palliative Care Need in Patients with ChronicHeart Failure","authors":"K. Oechsle, J. Ehlert, Y. Kodolitsch, A. Ullrich, C. Bokemeyer, M. Rybczynski","doi":"10.4172/2165-7386.1000304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) rarely receive palliative care today. \nMethods: In a cross-sectional pilot study we evaluated feasibility of self-assessment and physician-directed \n screening for palliative care need in CHF patients. Patients answered German versions of the “Minimal \n Documentation system for patients in palliative care” (MIDOS), “Distress-Thermometer” (DT), and the “Patient \n Health Questionnaire” (PHQ4). A modified version of the “Five-Item Palliative Care Screening Tool” was used to \n screen for palliative care need by the treating cardiologists. \nResults: 218 patients were asked to participate and 148 (67%) completed all questionnaires. Median symptom \n burden (MIDOS) was 7 out of 30 points (SD 4.868), overall wellbeing was two of 5 (SD 0.902), and median distress \n score was 6 of 10 (SD 2.318). Most frequent moderate or severe symptoms were dyspnea (52%), weakness (51%), \n and tiredness (49%). Significant distress (DT score>5) was indicated by 106 patients (72%). Exhaustion (79%), \n sleeping problems (75%), and problems with breathing (69%) were most frequent problems. Only 11% and 14% of \n patients presented with significant anxiety and depression, respectively (PHQ4-score>3). \nPalliative care need was scored with mean 6.8 out of 12 points (SD 2.223). Using a cut-off value of >5, 113 \n patients (76%) would have needed palliative care. Objective parameters for palliative care need (symptom burden \n 43%, distress 68%, decision-making 67%) were indicated, but request for palliative care by the patients, their \n relatives (5%) or the cardiology team (5%) was rare. Symptom burden and palliative care screening showed \n significant, but not clinically relevant interaction. \nConclusion: This pilot study, feasibility of palliative care self-assessment and the modified screening instrument \n could be demonstrated in CHF patients. For comprehensive screening, both perspectives have to be included. First \n results indicate significant symptom burden, psychological distress and a high need for additional palliative care in \n CHF patients.","PeriodicalId":91127,"journal":{"name":"Journal of palliative care & medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4172/2165-7386.1000304","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of palliative care & medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2165-7386.1000304","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objective: Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) rarely receive palliative care today. Methods: In a cross-sectional pilot study we evaluated feasibility of self-assessment and physician-directed screening for palliative care need in CHF patients. Patients answered German versions of the “Minimal Documentation system for patients in palliative care” (MIDOS), “Distress-Thermometer” (DT), and the “Patient Health Questionnaire” (PHQ4). A modified version of the “Five-Item Palliative Care Screening Tool” was used to screen for palliative care need by the treating cardiologists. Results: 218 patients were asked to participate and 148 (67%) completed all questionnaires. Median symptom burden (MIDOS) was 7 out of 30 points (SD 4.868), overall wellbeing was two of 5 (SD 0.902), and median distress score was 6 of 10 (SD 2.318). Most frequent moderate or severe symptoms were dyspnea (52%), weakness (51%), and tiredness (49%). Significant distress (DT score>5) was indicated by 106 patients (72%). Exhaustion (79%), sleeping problems (75%), and problems with breathing (69%) were most frequent problems. Only 11% and 14% of patients presented with significant anxiety and depression, respectively (PHQ4-score>3). Palliative care need was scored with mean 6.8 out of 12 points (SD 2.223). Using a cut-off value of >5, 113 patients (76%) would have needed palliative care. Objective parameters for palliative care need (symptom burden 43%, distress 68%, decision-making 67%) were indicated, but request for palliative care by the patients, their relatives (5%) or the cardiology team (5%) was rare. Symptom burden and palliative care screening showed significant, but not clinically relevant interaction. Conclusion: This pilot study, feasibility of palliative care self-assessment and the modified screening instrument could be demonstrated in CHF patients. For comprehensive screening, both perspectives have to be included. First results indicate significant symptom burden, psychological distress and a high need for additional palliative care in CHF patients.
慢性心力衰竭患者姑息治疗需求的自我评估和筛查
目的:慢性心力衰竭(CHF)患者目前很少接受姑息治疗。方法:在一项横断面试点研究中,我们评估了CHF患者自我评估和医生指导的姑息治疗需求筛查的可行性。患者回答了德语版的“姑息治疗患者最低文件系统”(MIDOS)、“痛苦温度计”(DT)和“患者健康问卷”(PHQ4)。“五项姑息治疗筛查工具”的修改版本用于筛查治疗心脏病专家的姑息治疗需求。结果:218名患者被要求参与,148人(67%)完成了所有问卷调查。中位症状负担(MIDOS)为30分中的7分(SD 4.868),总体幸福感为5分中的2分(SD 0.902),中位痛苦评分为10分中的6分(SD 2.318)。最常见的中度或重度症状是呼吸困难(52%)、虚弱(51%)和疲劳(49%)。106名患者(72%)表现出明显的痛苦(DT评分>5)。疲劳(79%)、睡眠问题(75%)和呼吸问题(69%)是最常见的问题。只有11%和14%的患者分别表现出显著的焦虑和抑郁(PHQ4评分>3)。姑息治疗需求的平均得分为6.8分(满分12分)(标准差2.223)。如果临界值>5113名患者(76%)需要姑息治疗。指出了姑息治疗需求的客观参数(症状负担43%,痛苦68%,决策67%),但患者、其亲属(5%)或心脏病学团队(5%)很少要求姑息治疗。症状负担和姑息治疗筛查显示出显著的相互作用,但与临床无关。结论:这项初步研究、姑息治疗自我评估和改良筛查仪器在CHF患者中的可行性可以得到证实。为了进行全面的筛选,必须包括这两种观点。第一个结果表明CHF患者有显著的症状负担、心理困扰和高度需要额外的姑息治疗。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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