4.1 Article

Advance Care Planning Preferences and Readiness in Cirrhosis: A Prospective Assessment of Patient Perceptions and Knowledge

期刊

JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 552-557

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2019.0244

关键词

advance care planning; cirrhosis; palliative care; personal directive

资金

  1. Canadian Liver Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In 2014, the province of Alberta launched a campaign to promote public awareness of advance care planning (ACP) and its associated two-part documentation-a Goals of care designation (GCD, a medical order written by a health care practitioner detailing wishes for care) and a personal directive (PD, a document naming a surrogate decision maker). Notably, unlike the GCD, the PD can be self-initiated independent of a health practitioner. Objective: Two years after the campaign, we aimed to assess knowledge and recall of participation in ACP among cirrhosis patients. Design/Setting: Consecutive adult cirrhosis patients attending one of two specialty cirrhosis clinics in Edmonton, Alberta, were surveyed. Results: Ninety-seven patients were included. Mean model for end-stage liver disease was 12. Although 97% of patients indicated it was extremely important to know the reality of their illness, only 53% understood that cirrhosis would affect their future quality of life. Thirty-three percent of patients had completed a PD and 14% had completed a GCD. Seventy-eight percent of patients believed a GCD was important to them and 85% preferred to complete it in an outpatient clinic setting. Only a minority of patients who had taken the initiative to complete a PD in the community also had a GCD. Conclusions: Despite efforts to raise awareness of and educate Albertans about ACP, <20% of cirrhosis patients have a completed GCD. Additional strategic prioritization is required in both patients and providers to ensure that health practitioner-facilitated ACP is carried out as standard-of-care in all patients with cirrhosis.

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