4.1 Article

Prescribing for Nausea in Palliative Care: A Cross-Sectional National Survey of Australian Palliative Medicine Doctors

期刊

JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
卷 17, 期 9, 页码 1032-1036

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2013.0610

关键词

-

资金

  1. Palliative Care Branch of the Australian government's Department of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Nausea can be a debilitating symptom for patients with a life-limiting illness. While addressing reversible components, nonpharmacological strategies and antiemetics are the main therapeutic option. The choice of medication, dose, and route of administration remain highly variable. Objective: The aim of this study was to codify the current clinical approaches and quantify any variation found nationally. Methods: A cross-sectional study utilizing a survey of palliative medicine clinicians examined prescribing preferences for nausea using a clinical vignette. Respondent characteristics, the use of nonpharmacological interventions, first-and second-line antiemetic choices, commencing and maximal dose, and time to review were collected. Results: Responding clinicians were predominantly working in palliative medicine across a range of settings with a 49% response rate (105/213). The main nonpharmacological recommendation was small, frequent snacks.'' Metoclopramide was the predominant first-line agent (69%), followed by haloperidol (26%), while second-line haloperidol was the predominant agent (47%), with wide variation in other nominated agents. Respondents favoring metoclopramide as first-line tended to use haloperidol second-line (65%), but not vice versa. Maximal doses for an individual antiemetic varied up to tenfold. Conclusion: For nausea, a commonly encountered symptom in palliative care, clinicians' favored metoclopramide and haloperidol; however, after these choices, there was large variation in antiemetic selection. While most clinicians recommended modifying meal size and frequency, use of other nonpharmacological therapies was limited.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据