背景:充血性心力衰竭(CHF)患者,慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)和痴呆在专科姑息性家庭护理(SPHC)中的代表性不足.然而,他们病情的复杂性要求全科医生(GP)和SPHC团队进行协作,并及时整合到SPHC中以有效满足他们的需求.
目的:促进联合姑息治疗计划和晚期慢性非恶性疾病患者及时转移到SPHC。
方法:双臂,未失明,集群随机对照试验。德国北部的49个GP实践使用基于网络的块随机化进行了随机化。我们纳入了晚期CHF患者,COPD和/或痴呆。KOPAL干预包括SPHC护士-患者咨询,然后是SPHC团队和GP之间的跨专业电话会议。主要结果是基线后48周的住院人数。二级分析检查了对健康相关生活质量和自我评估健康状况的影响,由EuroQol5D量表测量。
结果:共172例患者纳入分析。80.4%的GP实践之前曾与SHPC合作过,其中大多数是专门针对癌症患者的。在基线,患者报告的平均EQ-VAS为48.4,平均生活质量指数(EQ-5D-5L)为0.63,前一年平均住院人数为0.80.干预措施并未显着降低住院人数(发生率比率=0.79,95CI:[0.49,1.26],P=0.31)或住院天数(发生率=0.65,95CI:[0.28,1.49],P=0.29)。对生活质量也没有显着影响(÷=-0.02,95CI:[-0.09,0.05],P=0.53)或自评健康状况(÷=-2.48,95CI:[-9.95,4.99],P=0.51)。
结论:该研究未显示对住院和健康相关生活质量的假设影响。未来的研究应该集中在完善这种方法上,特别强调优化病例会议的时机和实施讨论的治疗计划的变化,以改善GP和SPHC团队之间的协作。
Patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and dementia are underrepresented in specialist palliative home care (SPHC). However, the complexity of their conditions requires collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and SPHC teams and timely integration into SPHC to effectively meet their needs.
To facilitate joint palliative care planning and the timely transfer of patients with advanced chronic non-malignant conditions to SPHC.
A two-arm, unblinded, cluster-randomised controlled trial. 49 GP practices in northern Germany were randomised using web-based block randomisation. We included patients with advanced CHF, COPD and/or dementia. The KOPAL intervention consisted of a SPHC nurse-patient consultation followed by an interprofessional telephone
case conference between SPHC team and GP. The primary outcome was the number of hospital admissions 48 weeks after baseline. Secondary analyses examined the effects on health-related quality of life and self-rated health status, as measured by the EuroQol 5D scale.
A total of 172 patients were included in the analyses. 80.4% of GP practices had worked with SHPC before, most of them exclusively for cancer patients. At baseline, patients reported a mean EQ-VAS of 48.4, a mean quality of life index (EQ-5D-5L) of 0.63 and an average of 0.80 hospital admissions in the previous year. The intervention did not significantly reduce hospital admissions (incidence rate ratio = 0.79, 95%CI: [0.49, 1.26], P = 0.31) or the number of days spent in hospital (incidence rate ratio = 0.65, 95%CI: [0.28, 1.49], P = 0.29). There was also no significant effect on quality of life (∆ = -0.02, 95%CI: [-0.09, 0.05], P = 0.53) or self-rated health (∆ = -2.48, 95%CI: [-9.95, 4.99], P = 0.51).
The study did not show the hypothesised effect on hospitalisations and health-related quality of life. Future research should focus on refining this approach, with particular emphasis on optimising the timing of
case conferences and implementing discussed changes to treatment plans, to improve collaboration between GPs and SPHC teams.