姑息治疗和肿瘤治疗的综合协同模式能否减少生命末期的激进护理?一项开放标签阶梯式分组随机试验的二次分析。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Qingyuan Zhuang, Siqin Zhou, Shirlynn Ho, Patricia Soek Hui Neo, Yin Bun Cheung, Grace Meijuan Yang
{"title":"姑息治疗和肿瘤治疗的综合协同模式能否减少生命末期的激进护理?一项开放标签阶梯式分组随机试验的二次分析。","authors":"Qingyuan Zhuang, Siqin Zhou, Shirlynn Ho, Patricia Soek Hui Neo, Yin Bun Cheung, Grace Meijuan Yang","doi":"10.1177/10499091231180460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical trial evidence on the effect of palliative care models in reducing aggressive end-of-life care is inconclusive. We previously reported on an integrated inpatient palliative care and medical oncology co-rounding model that significantly reduced hospital bed-days and postulate additional effect on reducing care aggressiveness.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the effect of a co-rounding model vs usual care in reducing receipt of aggressive treatment at end-of-life.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Secondary analysis of an open-label stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial comparing two integrated palliative care models within the inpatient oncology setting. The co-rounding model involved pooling specialist palliative care and oncology into one team with daily review of admission issues, while usual care constituted discretionary specialist palliative care referrals by the oncology team. We compared odds of receiving aggressive care at end-of-life: acute healthcare utilization in last 30 days of life, death in hospital, and cancer treatment in last 14 days of life between patients in two trial arms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2145 patients were included in the analysis, and 1803 patients died by 4th April 2021. Median overall survival was 4.90 (4.07 - 5.72) months in co-rounding and 3.75 (3.22 - 4.21) months in usual care, with no difference in survival <i>(P = .12).</i> We found no significant differences between both models with respect to receipt of aggressive care at end-of-life. (Odds Ratio .67 - 1.27; all <i>P</i> > .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The co-rounding model within an inpatient setting did not reduce aggressiveness of care at end-of-life. This could be due in part to the overall focus on resolving episodic admission issues.</p>","PeriodicalId":50810,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"442-451"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can an Integrated Palliative and Oncology Co-rounding Model Reduce Aggressive Care at the End of Life? Secondary Analysis of an Open-label Stepped-wedge Cluster-randomized Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Qingyuan Zhuang, Siqin Zhou, Shirlynn Ho, Patricia Soek Hui Neo, Yin Bun Cheung, Grace Meijuan Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10499091231180460\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical trial evidence on the effect of palliative care models in reducing aggressive end-of-life care is inconclusive. We previously reported on an integrated inpatient palliative care and medical oncology co-rounding model that significantly reduced hospital bed-days and postulate additional effect on reducing care aggressiveness.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the effect of a co-rounding model vs usual care in reducing receipt of aggressive treatment at end-of-life.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Secondary analysis of an open-label stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial comparing two integrated palliative care models within the inpatient oncology setting. The co-rounding model involved pooling specialist palliative care and oncology into one team with daily review of admission issues, while usual care constituted discretionary specialist palliative care referrals by the oncology team. We compared odds of receiving aggressive care at end-of-life: acute healthcare utilization in last 30 days of life, death in hospital, and cancer treatment in last 14 days of life between patients in two trial arms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2145 patients were included in the analysis, and 1803 patients died by 4th April 2021. Median overall survival was 4.90 (4.07 - 5.72) months in co-rounding and 3.75 (3.22 - 4.21) months in usual care, with no difference in survival <i>(P = .12).</i> We found no significant differences between both models with respect to receipt of aggressive care at end-of-life. (Odds Ratio .67 - 1.27; all <i>P</i> > .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The co-rounding model within an inpatient setting did not reduce aggressiveness of care at end-of-life. This could be due in part to the overall focus on resolving episodic admission issues.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50810,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"442-451\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231180460\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231180460","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:关于姑息关怀模式在减少临终关怀攻击性方面效果的临床试验证据尚无定论。我们曾报道过一种综合住院姑息关怀和肿瘤内科共同护理模式,该模式显著减少了住院天数,并推测其对减少侵袭性护理有额外效果:比较联合护理模式与常规护理在减少临终积极治疗方面的效果:方法:对一项开放标签阶梯式分组随机试验进行二次分析,该试验比较了肿瘤住院环境中的两种综合姑息关怀模式。共同围护模式是将姑息关怀专家和肿瘤学专家集中在一个团队,每天对入院问题进行审查,而常规护理则是由肿瘤学团队酌情转介姑息关怀专家。我们比较了两个试验组的患者在生命末期接受积极治疗的几率:生命最后30天的急诊使用情况、住院死亡情况以及生命最后14天的癌症治疗情况。结果:2145名患者纳入分析,1803名患者在2021年4月4日前死亡。共同围手术期的中位总生存期为4.90(4.07 - 5.72)个月,常规护理期为3.75(3.22 - 4.21)个月,生存期无差异(P = .12)。我们发现两种模式在生命末期接受积极治疗方面没有明显差异。(Odds比.67 - 1.27;所有P>.05):结论:住院环境中的共同围护模式并没有降低临终关怀的积极性。结论:在住院环境中采用共同轮回模式并未降低临终关怀的激进性,部分原因可能是该模式整体上侧重于解决偶发性入院问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Can an Integrated Palliative and Oncology Co-rounding Model Reduce Aggressive Care at the End of Life? Secondary Analysis of an Open-label Stepped-wedge Cluster-randomized Trial.

Background: Clinical trial evidence on the effect of palliative care models in reducing aggressive end-of-life care is inconclusive. We previously reported on an integrated inpatient palliative care and medical oncology co-rounding model that significantly reduced hospital bed-days and postulate additional effect on reducing care aggressiveness.

Objectives: To compare the effect of a co-rounding model vs usual care in reducing receipt of aggressive treatment at end-of-life.

Methods: Secondary analysis of an open-label stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial comparing two integrated palliative care models within the inpatient oncology setting. The co-rounding model involved pooling specialist palliative care and oncology into one team with daily review of admission issues, while usual care constituted discretionary specialist palliative care referrals by the oncology team. We compared odds of receiving aggressive care at end-of-life: acute healthcare utilization in last 30 days of life, death in hospital, and cancer treatment in last 14 days of life between patients in two trial arms.

Results: 2145 patients were included in the analysis, and 1803 patients died by 4th April 2021. Median overall survival was 4.90 (4.07 - 5.72) months in co-rounding and 3.75 (3.22 - 4.21) months in usual care, with no difference in survival (P = .12). We found no significant differences between both models with respect to receipt of aggressive care at end-of-life. (Odds Ratio .67 - 1.27; all P > .05).

Conclusion: The co-rounding model within an inpatient setting did not reduce aggressiveness of care at end-of-life. This could be due in part to the overall focus on resolving episodic admission issues.

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
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
169
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine (AJHPM) is a peer-reviewed journal, published eight times a year. In 30 years of publication, AJHPM has highlighted the interdisciplinary team approach to hospice and palliative medicine as related to the care of the patient and family. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
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