4.5 Review

Transferring home to die from critical care units: A scoping review of international practices

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
卷 65, 期 -, 页码 205-215

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.06.012

关键词

Critical care; Discharge; Home death; Scoping review; Transfer; Treatment withdrawal

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council (CSC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted a systematic scoping review on the international practices of transferring dying patients home from critical care units, revealing significant variations in this practice across countries. The number of patients being transferred home to die was higher in China compared to the West, with differences in clinical characteristics, barriers to transfer, and facilitators reported.
Purpose: To identify and characterise the international practices of transferring a dying patient home to die from critical care units. Materials and methods: A systematic scoping review following the Joanne Briggs Institute methodology was applied searching fifteen data sources to identify papers published in English and Chinese from 1970 to 2019. Results: Of the 28 papers meeting eligibility criteria 19 were published in the West and seven in China. The number of patients being transferred home to die was larger in China (74/184-96/159) than in the West (1-7). Clinical characteristics of patients transferred included: consciousness, with or without intubation and ventilation, and clinical stability. Reported key barriers to transfer included: Lack of evidence guiding transfer practice, the CCU environment and culture, Practical and logistical factors and Family members expectations and reactions. Key facilitators of transfer were reported as: Engagement with the multidisciplinary team and Personal patient and family wishes. Conclusions: Transferring patients home to die from critical care is a complex practice varying significantly across countries. Further research to address current knowledge gaps is important to inform policy and practice. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. 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