4.5 Article

Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST): Lessons learned from analysis of the Oregon POLST Registry

期刊

RESUSCITATION
卷 85, 期 4, 页码 480-485

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.11.027

关键词

POLST; Resuscitation; Registries Emergency Medical Services (EMS); Advance care planning; Scope of treatment

资金

  1. Samuel S. Johnson Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) has become a common means of documenting patient treatment preferences. In addition to orders either for Attempt Resuscitation or Do Not Attempt Resuscitation, for patients not in cardiopulmonary arrest, POLST provides three levels of treatment: Full Treatment, Limited Interventions, and Comfort Measures Only. Oregon has an electronic registry for POLST forms completed in the state. We used registry data to examine the different combinations of treatment orders. Methods and results: We analyzed data from forms signed and entered into the Oregon POLST Registry in 2012. The analysis included 31,294 POLST forms. The mean Registrant age was 76.7 years. 21,396 (68.4%) had Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNR) orders and 9900 (31.6%) had orders for Attempt Resuscitation. The 6 order combinations were: Do Not Resuscitate (DNR)/Comfort Measures Only 10,769 (34.4%), DNR/Limited Interventions 9306 (29.7%), DNR/Full Treatment 1211 (3.9%), Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)/Comfort Measures Only 11 (0.04%), Attempt CPR/Limited Interventions 2281 (7.3%), and Attempt CPR/Full Treatment 7473 (23.9%). Conclusions: The most common order combinations were DNR/Comfort Measures Only, DNR/Limited Interventions and Attempt Resuscitation/Full Treatment. These three makes sense to health professionals. However, other order combinations that require interpretation at the time of a crisis were completed for about 10% of Registrants. These combinations need further investigation. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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