临终舒适度评估,门诊就足够了吗?用镇痛/痛觉指数和门诊对非沟通障碍患者进行综合舒适度评估的回顾性队列研究。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Palliative Care Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2021-11-29 DOI:10.1177/08258597211063687
Loïc Bauschert, Chloé Prod'homme, Magali Pierrat, Luc Chevalier, Hélène Lesaffre, Licia Touzet
{"title":"临终舒适度评估,门诊就足够了吗?用镇痛/痛觉指数和门诊对非沟通障碍患者进行综合舒适度评估的回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Loïc Bauschert, Chloé Prod'homme, Magali Pierrat, Luc Chevalier, Hélène Lesaffre, Licia Touzet","doi":"10.1177/08258597211063687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Comfort evaluation is one of the major challenges in the palliative care setting, particularly when it comes to non-communicative patients. For this specific population, validated tools for comfort evaluation are scarce and healthcare professionals have to rely on their clinical sense and experience. <b>Objectives:</b> To provide arguments for the use of Analgesia/Nociception Index (ANI) monitoring in order to improve clinical comfort evaluation. <b>Methods:</b> We conducted a retrospective cohort study of non-communicative patients at the end of their lives whose comfort was evaluated clinically and with ANI. We focused on the coherence or discordance of clinical and ANI evaluations and on pharmacological interventions driven by them. <b>Results:</b> 58 evaluations from 33 patients were analyzed. Clinical and demographic characteristics were highly variable. Simultaneous clinical and ANI evaluations were concordant in 45 measurements (77.58%), leading mostly to no treatment modification when indicating comfort and to increasing anxiolytic or pain-relief treatments when indicating discomfort. Thirteen (22.41%) evaluations were discordant, leading mostly to treatment incrementation. <b>Conclusion:</b> We suggest that the ANI monitor is a reliable tool in the palliative setting and may help provide patients with the best symptom relief and the most appropriate therapeutics.</p>","PeriodicalId":51096,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Palliative Care","volume":" ","pages":"122-128"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"End-of-life Comfort Evaluation, is Clinic Enough? A Retrospective Cohort Study of Combined Comfort Evaluation with <i>Analgesia/Nociception Index</i> and Clinic in non-Communicative Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Loïc Bauschert, Chloé Prod'homme, Magali Pierrat, Luc Chevalier, Hélène Lesaffre, Licia Touzet\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08258597211063687\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Comfort evaluation is one of the major challenges in the palliative care setting, particularly when it comes to non-communicative patients. For this specific population, validated tools for comfort evaluation are scarce and healthcare professionals have to rely on their clinical sense and experience. <b>Objectives:</b> To provide arguments for the use of Analgesia/Nociception Index (ANI) monitoring in order to improve clinical comfort evaluation. <b>Methods:</b> We conducted a retrospective cohort study of non-communicative patients at the end of their lives whose comfort was evaluated clinically and with ANI. We focused on the coherence or discordance of clinical and ANI evaluations and on pharmacological interventions driven by them. <b>Results:</b> 58 evaluations from 33 patients were analyzed. Clinical and demographic characteristics were highly variable. Simultaneous clinical and ANI evaluations were concordant in 45 measurements (77.58%), leading mostly to no treatment modification when indicating comfort and to increasing anxiolytic or pain-relief treatments when indicating discomfort. Thirteen (22.41%) evaluations were discordant, leading mostly to treatment incrementation. <b>Conclusion:</b> We suggest that the ANI monitor is a reliable tool in the palliative setting and may help provide patients with the best symptom relief and the most appropriate therapeutics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Palliative Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"122-128\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Palliative Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08258597211063687\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/11/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08258597211063687","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:舒适度评估是姑息治疗中的主要挑战之一,尤其是在涉及不善交流的病人时。针对这一特殊人群,舒适度评估的有效工具非常缺乏,医护人员必须依靠自己的临床感觉和经验。目标:为使用镇痛/痛觉指数(ANI)监测以改善临床舒适度评估提供论据。方法:我们对生命末期不善交流的患者进行了一项回顾性队列研究,对他们的舒适度进行了临床评估和 ANI 评估。我们重点研究了临床评估和 ANI 评估的一致性或不一致性,以及由它们驱动的药物干预。结果:对 33 名患者的 58 项评估进行了分析。临床和人口统计学特征差异很大。同时进行的临床和 ANI 评估有 45 次(77.58%)是一致的,当显示舒适时,大多数情况下不需要修改治疗方案;当显示不适时,则需要增加抗焦虑或止痛治疗。有 13 次(22.41%)评估结果不一致,主要导致增加治疗次数。结论:我们认为,在姑息治疗中,ANI 监测仪是一种可靠的工具,有助于为患者提供最佳的症状缓解和最合适的治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
End-of-life Comfort Evaluation, is Clinic Enough? A Retrospective Cohort Study of Combined Comfort Evaluation with Analgesia/Nociception Index and Clinic in non-Communicative Patients.

Background: Comfort evaluation is one of the major challenges in the palliative care setting, particularly when it comes to non-communicative patients. For this specific population, validated tools for comfort evaluation are scarce and healthcare professionals have to rely on their clinical sense and experience. Objectives: To provide arguments for the use of Analgesia/Nociception Index (ANI) monitoring in order to improve clinical comfort evaluation. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of non-communicative patients at the end of their lives whose comfort was evaluated clinically and with ANI. We focused on the coherence or discordance of clinical and ANI evaluations and on pharmacological interventions driven by them. Results: 58 evaluations from 33 patients were analyzed. Clinical and demographic characteristics were highly variable. Simultaneous clinical and ANI evaluations were concordant in 45 measurements (77.58%), leading mostly to no treatment modification when indicating comfort and to increasing anxiolytic or pain-relief treatments when indicating discomfort. Thirteen (22.41%) evaluations were discordant, leading mostly to treatment incrementation. Conclusion: We suggest that the ANI monitor is a reliable tool in the palliative setting and may help provide patients with the best symptom relief and the most appropriate therapeutics.

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 Palliative Care
Journal of Palliative Care 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
63
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Palliative Care is a quarterly, peer-reviewed, international and interdisciplinary forum for practical, critical thought on palliative care and palliative medicine. JPC publishes high-quality original research, opinion papers/commentaries, narrative and humanities works, case reports/case series, and reports on international activities and comparative palliative care.
×
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