外科医生对姑息治疗的看法:我们是更好治疗的障碍吗?

Q3 Medicine
Sean J Donohue, Baddr A Shakhsheer, Peter Phung, Anthony W Kim, Monica Zell, Sean C Wightman
{"title":"外科医生对姑息治疗的看法:我们是更好治疗的障碍吗?","authors":"Sean J Donohue, Baddr A Shakhsheer, Peter Phung, Anthony W Kim, Monica Zell, Sean C Wightman","doi":"10.1086/736145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>AbstractSurgeons face numerous perioperative challenges when caring for patients with life-threatening or chronic diseases. Although palliative care teams are uniquely poised to aid in the supportive approach to such holistic needs, they are underutilized by surgical services. Palliative care has been associated with an average reduction of $3,237 per admission, as well as reduction in emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and hospital length of stay. For patients within the intensive care setting, palliative interventions have shown a 26 percent relative risk reduction in intensive care unit length of stay and overall alignment of patients' and families' goals of care. However, there is a paucity of data surrounding outcomes associated with palliative care in surgery. It remains pervasive in surgical culture that operative intervention and palliation are mutually exclusive and occur sequentially, rather than concurrently. The majority (76.1%) of surgeons have no formal education in palliative care and feel burdened with the unrealistic expectations for patient outcomes after surgical intervention (61.8%). These cultural and knowledge barriers have significant impact on surgical palliative care referrals and team-based care. Preoperative palliative care consultations in surgical patients occur less than 1 percent of the time. Preoperative palliative care may serve to help explore, clarify, and document quality-of-life values and preferences, in hopes of better promoting goal-concordant care. We recommend implementing frailty-score-based risk assessments to refer surgical patients to palliative care consultation preoperatively. Normalizing referral to palliative care can help surgeons embrace its potential benefit in patient care and improve utilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"36 3","pages":"279-285"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgeon Perspectives on Palliative Care: Are We the Barrier to Better Care?\",\"authors\":\"Sean J Donohue, Baddr A Shakhsheer, Peter Phung, Anthony W Kim, Monica Zell, Sean C Wightman\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/736145\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>AbstractSurgeons face numerous perioperative challenges when caring for patients with life-threatening or chronic diseases. Although palliative care teams are uniquely poised to aid in the supportive approach to such holistic needs, they are underutilized by surgical services. Palliative care has been associated with an average reduction of $3,237 per admission, as well as reduction in emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and hospital length of stay. For patients within the intensive care setting, palliative interventions have shown a 26 percent relative risk reduction in intensive care unit length of stay and overall alignment of patients' and families' goals of care. However, there is a paucity of data surrounding outcomes associated with palliative care in surgery. It remains pervasive in surgical culture that operative intervention and palliation are mutually exclusive and occur sequentially, rather than concurrently. The majority (76.1%) of surgeons have no formal education in palliative care and feel burdened with the unrealistic expectations for patient outcomes after surgical intervention (61.8%). These cultural and knowledge barriers have significant impact on surgical palliative care referrals and team-based care. Preoperative palliative care consultations in surgical patients occur less than 1 percent of the time. Preoperative palliative care may serve to help explore, clarify, and document quality-of-life values and preferences, in hopes of better promoting goal-concordant care. We recommend implementing frailty-score-based risk assessments to refer surgical patients to palliative care consultation preoperatively. Normalizing referral to palliative care can help surgeons embrace its potential benefit in patient care and improve utilization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Ethics\",\"volume\":\"36 3\",\"pages\":\"279-285\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/736145\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/736145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要外科医生在护理危及生命或慢性疾病的患者时面临着许多围手术期挑战。虽然姑息治疗团队是独特的准备,以帮助支持的方法,以这种整体需求,他们没有充分利用的外科服务。姑息治疗与每次住院平均减少3 237美元以及急诊就诊、住院和住院时间减少有关。对于重症监护环境中的患者,姑息干预显示重症监护病房住院时间相对风险降低26%,患者和家属的护理目标总体一致。然而,手术中与姑息治疗相关的结果缺乏相关数据。在外科文化中,手术干预和姑息是相互排斥的,是顺序发生的,而不是同时发生的。大多数(76.1%)外科医生没有接受过正规的姑息治疗教育,并且对手术干预后患者的预后抱有不切实际的期望(61.8%)。这些文化和知识障碍对外科姑息治疗转诊和团队护理有重大影响。术前姑息治疗会诊手术患者发生不到1%的时间。术前姑息治疗可能有助于探索、澄清和记录生活质量价值观和偏好,以期更好地促进目标和谐的护理。我们建议实施基于衰弱评分的风险评估,以推荐手术患者术前进行姑息治疗咨询。正常化转诊到姑息治疗可以帮助外科医生接受其潜在的利益在病人护理和提高利用率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Surgeon Perspectives on Palliative Care: Are We the Barrier to Better Care?

AbstractSurgeons face numerous perioperative challenges when caring for patients with life-threatening or chronic diseases. Although palliative care teams are uniquely poised to aid in the supportive approach to such holistic needs, they are underutilized by surgical services. Palliative care has been associated with an average reduction of $3,237 per admission, as well as reduction in emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and hospital length of stay. For patients within the intensive care setting, palliative interventions have shown a 26 percent relative risk reduction in intensive care unit length of stay and overall alignment of patients' and families' goals of care. However, there is a paucity of data surrounding outcomes associated with palliative care in surgery. It remains pervasive in surgical culture that operative intervention and palliation are mutually exclusive and occur sequentially, rather than concurrently. The majority (76.1%) of surgeons have no formal education in palliative care and feel burdened with the unrealistic expectations for patient outcomes after surgical intervention (61.8%). These cultural and knowledge barriers have significant impact on surgical palliative care referrals and team-based care. Preoperative palliative care consultations in surgical patients occur less than 1 percent of the time. Preoperative palliative care may serve to help explore, clarify, and document quality-of-life values and preferences, in hopes of better promoting goal-concordant care. We recommend implementing frailty-score-based risk assessments to refer surgical patients to palliative care consultation preoperatively. Normalizing referral to palliative care can help surgeons embrace its potential benefit in patient care and improve utilization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Ethics
Journal of Clinical Ethics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Ethics is written for and by physicians, nurses, attorneys, clergy, ethicists, and others whose decisions directly affect patients. More than 70 percent of the articles are authored or co-authored by physicians. JCE is a double-blinded, peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and other indexes.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信