4.2 Review

Advance care planning in primary care, only for severely ill patients? A structured review

期刊

FAMILY PRACTICE
卷 32, 期 1, 页码 16-26

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmu074

关键词

Advance care planning; Alzheimer's disease/dementia; cancer care/oncology; chronic disease; geriatrics; palliative care/end-of-life care; primary care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Increasing medical possibilities, ageing of the population and the growing number of people with chronic illness appears to make advance care planning (ACP) inevitable. However, to what extent and how primary care providers (PCPs) provide ACP in daily practice is largely unknown. Objective. To provide an overview of the actual practice of ACP in primary care. Methods. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library for empirical studies that described the practice of ACP with patients in primary health care. Studies focussing on non-adult patients, and hospital or nursing home settings were excluded. Results. Ten articles met the inclusion criteria. The content of the ACP varied from discussing to refrain from cardiopulmonary resuscitation to existential issues. The prevalence ranged from 21% of PCPs having ACP discussions with the general elderly population to 69% having ACP discussions with terminal patients and 81% with patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. ACP was more common among cancer patients than among patients with non-cancer patients. Whether health care professionals or patients initiated ACP varied greatly. Advance directives and the Gold Standard Framework were perceived as helpful to guide ACP. Conclusions. ACP does not seem to have a systematic place in the care for all community-dwelling older people. Rather, it is used for specific groups, like patients with terminal disease, cancer and Alzheimer's Disease. Whether ACP might have beneficial effects for a broader primary care population, in terms of future care planning, is yet to be investigated.

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

4.2
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