請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71080
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 蕭妃秀(Fei-Hsiu Hsiao) | |
dc.contributor.author | Chen-Wei Lin | en |
dc.contributor.author | 林珍瑋 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T04:51:58Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-08-30 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-08-30 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-07-30 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 中文部分
三軍總醫院(無日期) ・安寧照顧的起源・取自 http://wwwu.tsgh.ndmctsgh.edu.tw/hem/hema_oncology/HSPT/main_2_1.htm 王志嘉、楊奕華、邱泰源、羅慶徽、陳聲平(2003)・安寧緩和醫療條例有關 [不施行, 以及終止或撤除心肺復甦術]之法律觀點・台灣家庭醫學雜誌,13(3),101 -108。 內政部(2016) ・內政部統計查詢網・取自 http://statis.moi.gov.tw/micst/stmain.jsp?sys=100 公聽會,衛生福利部(2017)・建置病人自主權利法相關配套機制・取自 file:///C:/Users/lcw65/Downloads/%E5%85%AC%E8%81%BD%E6%9C%83%E 5%AD%90%E6%B3%95%E8%8D%89%E6%A1%88_%E5%85%A8_FINAL.pdf 全國法規資料庫(2016)・病人自主法・取自 https://law.moj.gov.tw/Law/LawSearchResult.aspx?p=A&t=A1A2E1F1&k1=%E7%97%85%E4%BA%BA%E8%87%AA%E4%B8%BB%E6%AC%8A%E5%88%A9%E6%B3%95 全國法規資料庫(2013)・安寧緩和條例・取自http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=L0020066 吳春桂, 林宏茂, 林芳如, 林亞陵, 蔡紋苓, 廖婉伶, ... &黃勝堅(2011)・重症生命末期照護之新趨勢・臺灣醫學,15(1),37-47. doi:10.6320/FJM.2011.15(1).07 杜明勳, 黃資雅, 陳如意, 曾馨慧, 鍾瑞美, & 林璊鸚(2016)・末期病人撤除維生醫療-某醫學中心之經驗・安寧療護雜誌,21(3), 289-303. DOI: 10.6537/TJHPC.2016.21(3).4 高秀娥(2007)・影響呼吸器依賴病患家屬選擇呼吸照護病房因素及滿意度調查 (碩士論文)・取自華藝線上圖書館 張曉婷、林明慧、陳曾基、 黃信彰 (2017)・淺談不予和撤除維生醫療-倫理,法律, 決策與病人照護・臨床醫學月刊,79(2), 106-111. doi: 10.6666/ClinMed.2017.79.2.020 陳安芝(2013)・末期病人臨終侵入性處置與DNR (碩士論文)・取自華藝線上圖書館 陳信如、盧映潔(2013)・從[不施行心肺復甦術]與[撤除維生醫療]之區別論[安寧緩 和醫療條例]之修正(上)・臺灣醫界,56(10),51-54。 陳信如、盧映潔(2013)・從[不施行心肺復甦術]與[撤除維生醫療]之區別論[安寧緩和醫療條例]之修正(下)・臺灣醫界,56(11),37-39。 陳殷正、劉郁孚、蔡蕙珊、林玉書、范建得(2016)・安寧緩和醫療條例回顧與探討・醫學與健康期刊,5(1),25-34。 黃勝堅(無日期)・生命末期撤除維生系統的迷思・取自www.hospice.org.tw/2009/chinese/share_view.php?cate=1&info=125 黃漢華(2014)・台灣癌症死亡率多過世界新進國家・取自https://www.moneydj.com/funddj/yb/yp052001.djhtm?a=B0CBAC80-2EA0-4CD4-8DDB-E4F37AF410E8 蔡甫昌(2008)・末期病人該不該撤除維生治療・健康世界,275,70-73。 蔡甫昌、方震中、陳麗光、王榮德(2012)・長期呼吸器依賴病患撤除維生治療之倫理法律議題・臺灣醫學,16(2),156-173。doi:10.6320/FJM.2012.16(2).10 衛生福利部(2017)・105年國人死因統計結果・取自 https://www.mohw.gov.tw/cp-16-33598-1.html 衛生福利部(2013)・安寧緩和條例・取自 https://hpcod.mohw.gov.tw/HospWeb/LawPages/lawinfo_01.aspx 衛生福利部社會及家庭署(無日期)・日常功能受損・取自 http://e-care.sfaa.gov.tw/MOI_HMP/HMPa001/eval.action 韓政道(2015)・末期之醫療決定與刑法評價・中正大學法學集刊,(48),251-296。 英文部分 American Medical Association. (1994). Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. (1992). Decisions near the end of life. JAMA, 267, 2229-2233. doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03480160087040 Batzlaff, C. M., Karpman, C., Afessa, B., & Benzo, R. P. (2014). Predicting 1-year mortality rate for patients admitted with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to an intensive care unit: an opportunity for palliative care. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 89(5):638-43. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.12.004. Beck, V., Chateau, D., Bryson, G. L., Pisipati, A., Zanotti, S., Parrillo, J. E., & Kumar, A. (2014). Timing of vasopressor initiation and mortality in septic shock: a cohort study. Critical care, 18(3), R97. doi:10.1186/cc13868 Belletti, A., Castro, M. L., Silvetti, S., Greco, T., Biondi-Zoccai, G., Pasin, L., ... & Landoni, G. (2015). The effect of inotropes and vasopressors on mortality: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia, 115(5), 656-675. doi.org/10.1093/bja/aev284 Chavez, G., Richman, I. B., Kaimal, R., Bentley, J., Yasukawa, L. A., Altman, R. B., ... & Chen, J. H. (2018). Reversals and limitations on high-intensity, life-sustaining treatments. PloS one, 13(2), e0190569. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190569 F Cooke, C. R., Hotchkin, D. L., Engelberg, R. A., Rubinson, L., & Curtis, J. R. (2010). Predictors of time to death after terminal withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in the ICU. Chest, 138(2), 289-297. doi: 10.1378/chest.10-0289. Epub 2010 Apr 2. Delaney, J. W., & Downar, J. (2016). How is life support withdrawn in intensive care units: A narrative review. Journal of critical care, 35, 12-18. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.04.006 Downar, J., Delaney, J. W., Hawryluck, L., & Kenny, L. (2016). Guidelines for the withdrawal of life-sustaining measures. Intensive care medicine, 42(6), 1003-1017. doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4330-7 Ducos, G., Mathe, O., Balardy, L., Lozano, S., Kurrek, M., Ruiz, J., ... & Minville, V. (2017). Influence of Age on Decision-Making Process to Limit or Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatment in the Intensive Care Unit-A Single Center Prospective Observational Study. The Journal of frailty & aging, 6(3), 148-153. doi: 10.14283/jfa.2017.22 Ferket, B., Lee, J. J., Barragan-Bradford, D. D., & Pollard, T. T. (2016). Time-limited trials of intensive care for critically Ill patients with cancer: How long is long enough? JAMA Oncology, 2(1), 76–83. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3336 Hall, R. I., & Rocker, G. M. (2000). End-of-life care in the ICU: treatments provided when life support was or was not withdrawn. CHEST Journal, 118(5), 1424-1430. doi.org/10.1378/chest.118.5.1424 Ho, T. W., Tsai, Y. J., Ruan, S. Y., Huang, C. T., Lai, F., Yu, C. J., & HINT Study Group. (2014). In-hospital and one-year mortality and their predictors in patients hospitalized for first-ever chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations: a nationwide population-based study. PloS one, 9(12), e114866. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114866 Hoel, H., Skjaker, S. A., Haagensen, R., & Stavem, K. (2014). Decisions to withhold or withdraw life‐sustaining treatment in a Norwegian intensive care unit. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 58(3), 329-336. doi: 10.1111/aas.12246 Khurana, P., Diamond, R., Quill, C., Holloway, R., & Quill, T. (2017). Time Limited Trials in Serious Illness. Internal Medicine Review, 3(8), 1-10. Lai, C. F., Tsai, H. B., Hsu, S. H., Chiang, C. K., Huang, J. W., & Huang, S. J. (2013). Withdrawal from long-term hemodialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease in Taiwan. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 112(10), 589-599. doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2013.04.009 Lesieur, O., Leloup, M., Gonzalez, F., Mamzer, M. F., & EPILAT Study Group. (2015). Withholding or withdrawal of treatment under French rules: a study performed in 43 intensive care units. Annals of intensive care, 5(1), 15. doi:10.1186/s13613-015-0056-x Lobo, S. M., De Simoni, F. H. B., Jakob, S. M., Estella, A., Vadi, S., Bluethgen, A., ... & Vincent, J. L. (2017). Decision-making on withholding or withdrawing life-support in the ICU: A worldwide perspective. Chest. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.04.176 Lokhandwala, S., McCague, N., Chahin, A., Escobar, B., Feng, M., Ghassemi, M. M., ... & Celi, L. A. (2018). One-year mortality after recovery from critical illness: A retrospective cohort study. PloS one, 13(5), e0197226. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197226 Lyngaa, T., Christiansen, C. F., Nielsen, H., Neergaard, M. A., Jensen, A. B., Laut, K. G., & Johnsen, S. P. (2015). Intensive care at the end of life in patients dying due to non-cancer chronic diseases versus cancer: a nationwide study in Denmark. Critical Care, 19(1), 413. doi: 10.1186/s13054-015-1124-1 Manara, A. R., Pittman, J. A. L., & Braddon, F. E. M. (1998). Reasons for withdrawing treatment in patients receiving intensive care. Anesthesia, 53(6), 523-528. McGrath, S., Chatterjee, F., Whiteley, C., & Ostermann, M. (2010). ICU and 6-month outcome of oncology patients in the intensive care unit. QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, 103(6), 397-403. Morgan, J. (2015). How do you decide when to withdraw life support?. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 3(6), 430-431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600 (15)00189-7 Mohsen, H., Haddad, P., Allam, A., & Hassan, A. (2014). Patterns in place of cancer death in the State of Qatar: A population-based study. PloS one, 9(12), e109615. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109615 Nolin, T., & Andersson, R. (2003). Withdrawal of medical treatment in the ICU. A cohort study of 318 cases during 1994–2000. Acta anaesthesiologica scandinavica, 47(5), 501-507. Scherer, J. S., & Holley, J. L. (2015). The role of time–limited trials in dialysis decision making in critically ill patients. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 11(2): 344–353. doi: 10.2215/CJN.03550315 Skjaker, S. A., Hoel, H., Dahl, V., & Stavem, K. (2017). Factors associated with life-sustaining treatment restriction in a general intensive care unit. PloS one, 12(7), e0181312. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181312 J Sonawane, P., Jagtap, B. L., & Chaudhury, S. (2016). Inotrope use in critically ill patients: Prevalence and effects on mortality. Pravara Medical Review, 8(4). Phua, J., Joynt, G. M., Nishimura, M., Deng, Y., Myatra, S. N., Chan, Y. H., ... & Wahjuprajitno, B. (2015). Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in intensive care units in Asia. JAMA internal medicine, 175(3), 363-371. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7386 Phua, J., Joynt, G. M., Nishimura, M., Deng, Y., Myatra, S. N., Chan, Y. H., ... & Wahjuprajitno, B. (2016). Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in low-middle-income versus high-income Asian countries and regions. Intensive care medicine, 42(7), 1118-1127. doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4347-y Poukkanen, M., Vaara, S. T., Reinikainen, M., Selander, T., Nisula, S., Karlsson, S., ... & Pettilä, V. (2015). Predicting one-year mortality of critically ill patients with early acute kidney injury: data from the prospective multicenter FINNAKI study. Critical Care, 19(1), 125. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-015-0848-2 Quill, T. E., & Holloway, R. (2011). Time-limited trials near the end of life. JAMA, 306(13), 1483-1484. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1413 Wunsch, H., Harrison, D. A., Harvey, S., & Rowan, K. (2005). End-of-life decisions: a cohort study of the withdrawal of all active treatment in intensive care units in the United Kingdom. Intensive care medicine, 31(6), 823-831. doi: 10.1007/s00134- 005-2644-y Yazigi, A., Riachi, M., & Dabbar, G. (2005). Withholding and withdrawal of life- sustaining treatment in a Lebanese intensive care unit: a prospective observational study. Intensive care medicine, 31(4), 562-567. doi: 10.1007/s00134-005-2578-4 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71080 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 背景:撤除維生醫療的精神為尊重末期病人不願仰賴機器維生的醫療意願,提供以舒適為主的緩和醫療。末期病人的家屬雖已簽署撤除「末期病人終止或撤除維生醫療」,但仍期待有相關醫療處置在進行。國外近年來對於末期病患維生醫療終止或撤除後所進行相關醫療處置之相關研究較多,反觀國內研究甚少,因此引發本篇作者希冀藉由此次的研究,能了解目前台灣在撤除維生醫療的現況。
研究目的:本研究目的探討內科加護病房末期病人,一、家屬有簽署「撤除維生醫療」同意書之現況和簽署時間,以及主要影響因素;二、於內科加護病房所接受相關醫療處置之項目和治療時間;三、接受相關醫療處置是否增加於加護病房中以及一年內死亡的風險。 研究方法及工具: 本研究採回溯縱貫性研究設計以查閱病歷方式分析北區大型醫學中心內科四個內科加護病房(internal medical intensive care unit, MICU),自2016年1月份至2016年12月份,以入內科加護病房後已簽署「不施行心肺復甦術」且有兩位專科醫師診斷為末期病患為對象,以病歷查閱方式收集病患入加護病房的日期、死亡或轉出日期、人口學、疾病資料、簽署「撤除維生醫療」同意書日期、入內科加護病房後所接受之相關醫療處置之項目和治療時間。 研究結果:本研究呈現326位末期病患的分析結果,有簽署撤除維生醫療的比例低10.4% (34/326),同意簽署撤除維生醫療的平均時間為入加護病房後13.09天(SD±5.57),簽署後同意書後至實際撤除維生醫療的平均時間為1.74天(SD±1.52)。相較沒有簽署的病患,有簽署「撤除維生醫療」同意書的病患年紀較年輕,平均為58.97歲(SD±16.44),較少社會資源補助(58.8%),癌症(29.4%)及心臟疾病(20.6%)為主要診斷比例較高,疾病嚴重度平均分數較高,平均住院天數較短(14.7天)。迴歸分析(Logistic regression)結果發現年齡及疾病嚴重度對於有無簽署「撤除維生醫療」同意書的解釋力達顯著意義,個別變項勝算比(Odds ratio)的檢定結果,平均年齡越高的病患簽署「撤除維生醫療」同意書的機率為平均年齡較低病患的0.965倍(p=0.004);疾病嚴重度較高的病患簽署「撤除維生醫療」同意書的機率為疾病嚴重度較低病患的1.045倍(p=0.017)。 末期病患的家屬決定簽署「撤除維生醫療」同意書的主要原因為不願生病的家人痛苦,比例為58.8%,其次為預後不佳(23.5%)以及生病之前意願(14.7%),不願撤除的原因87.5%希望積極治療;而撤除維生醫療項目中最多為人工呼吸器(侵襲性及非侵襲性),其比例為64.7%,其次為撤除強心升壓藥物、血液透析、葉克膜。相較沒有簽署病患,有簽署「撤除維生醫療」同意書的病患接受較多高濃度的強心升壓藥物治療(x2=4.253, p= 0.039),持續靜脈輸液(x2=4.686, p= 0.03),鎮靜藥物治療(緩解疼痛) ( x2=5.713, p= 0.017),以及葉克膜治療 (x2=7.567, p= 0.014);接受較少的治療為人工氣道(氣切手術) (x2=4.631, p=0.031)及腸道營養的給予(x2=11.45, p= 0.001)。以COX存活迴歸分析(COX regression)末期病患於加護病房接受相關醫療處置是否增加於加護病房中以及一年內死亡的風險。在控制疾病嚴重度的因素以及有無簽署「撤除維生醫療」同意書,影響於加護病房中死亡勝算比(Odds ratio)的風險結果為相較沒有接受以下治療,有接受氧氣治療死亡風險為0.451倍,有接受腸道營養治療死亡風險為0.275倍,有接受非腸道營養治療死亡風險為0.434倍,有接受點滴持續輸液治療死亡風險為0.625倍,有接受輸血治療死亡風險為0.487倍;相反的有接受強心升壓劑治療較沒有接受治療病患死亡風險為2.524倍。於一年內死亡的風險,相較沒有接受以下治療,有接受氧氣治療死亡風險為0.545倍,有接受腸道營養治療死亡風險為0.381倍,有接受非腸道營養治療死亡風險為0.562倍,有接受點滴持續輸液治療死亡風險為0.677倍,有接受輸血治療死亡風險為0.666倍;相反的,有接受強心升壓劑治療較沒有接受治療病患死亡風險為2.096倍。而沒有影響死亡風險的治療為人工呼吸器(侵襲性及非侵襲性)、血液透析、抗生素、抽血檢驗以及鎮靜藥物。 研究結論及應用:目前加護病房末期病患簽署「撤除維生醫療」同意書現況仍偏低。影響簽署的主要原因為年齡較輕和疾病嚴重度較高,有簽署病患較年輕且癌症及心臟疾病的比例較高,疾病嚴重度也較高,而沒有簽署病患平均年齡較年長且多為長期慢性疾病,主要決定撤除維生醫療的原因為不願看到生病家人痛苦。接受強心升壓劑治療與末期病患死亡風險有正相關,而接受氧氣治療、腸道營養治療、非腸道營養治療、點滴輸液以及輸血治療與死亡風險為負相關。長期而言,接受強心升壓劑治療末期病患於一年內之死亡風險增加有關。短期和長期而言人工呼吸器(侵襲性及非侵襲性)、血液透析、抗生素、抽血檢驗以及鎮靜藥物等治療不會影響死亡風險的治療。未來需有更多維生醫療對於末期病患之存活分析期能預測醫療處置對病患生存時間的影響,以幫助末期病患避免無效的維生醫療處置。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Background: The withdrawing life support for terminally ill patients is developed to meet their wishes for not maintaining their lives with machines, and providing palliative care to enhance their comfort. However, even after families have given the consent for withholding or withdrawal of life support for their ill family members, they are reluctant to withdrawal some medical intervention. While in the recent years, this issue has been done in overseas, very few researchers explore this issue in Taiwan.
Research purpose: This study aims to explore the following issues among the terminally ill patients in medical intensive care units (MICU): 1. the incidence and time of withdrawal of life support decisions and the main predictors associated with their decisions; 2. type and lengths of receiving life support treatments; 3. the impacts of life support medical interventions on the mortality in period of MICU and one-year after discharge from MICU. Methods: This study adopts a retrospective longitudinal study. We collected data from January 2016 to December 2016 by chart review of medical servicesamong the terminally ill patients from four MICUs in the general hospital. The inclusion criteria for this study were the patients who had signed “Do Not Resuscitate” forms and are diagnosed as terminally ill patients by two specialists. The date of admission to the MICU, date of death or discharge from the MICU, epidemiological information, disease information, date of signing a “withdrawal of life support consent”, and types and lengths of medical interventions received in the MICU. Results: The results of this study are based on the 326 terminal patients. The rates of consent for withdrawal of life support were 10.4% (34/326), average time of consenting to withdrawal is13.09 days (SD±5.57) after MICU admission, and average time from providing the written consents to implementing withdrawal of life support were 1.74 days (SD±1.52). Compared to the patients without the written consent for withdrawal, the patients who had signed “withdrawal of life support consents” were younger at an average age of 58.97 years old (SD±16.44), had less supports from social welfare (58.8%), had the higher percentages of cancer or cardiac diseases as the major diagnosis (20.6%), had higher average scores of Apache II for disease severity, and had a shorter length in MICU (14.79 days). Logistic regression model showed that age and Apache II disease severity were associated with the providing writeen consent for “withdrawal of life support”. The older patients were 0.965 times (p=0.004) likely provided the consent for withdrawal of life support than the younger patients. Patients with higher Apache II scores of disease severity were 1.045 times more likely to give consent for withdrawal of life support than patients with lower Apache II scores (p=0.017). The major reason for the families providing the written consent for “withdrawal of life support” was wishing no more suffering for their illfamily members (58.8%). The major reason for refusing to give the written consent for withdrawal of life support was to have the hope for being alive after the medical treatments (87.5%). The most common withdrawn life support was the ventilator (64.7%). Compared to the patients without providing the written consent, patients with written consent for “withdrawal of life support” received more high-dose inotropic agent and vasopressors (x2=4.253, p= 0.039), continuous intravenous fluid support (x2=4.686, p= 0.03), sedative drugs treatment (x2=5.713, p= 0.017), and ECMO treatment (x2=7.567, p= 0.014) while they received less tracheostomy operations (x2=4.631, p=0.031) and enteral nutrition (x2=11.45, p= 0.001). The results of COX regression model showed that after controlling Apache II scores, compared with the patients without receiving the following life support treatments, the odds ratios of the mortality for the patients who received these treatments were 0.451 for oxygen therapy, 0.275 for enteral nutrition, 0.434 for non-enteral nutrition, 0.625 for continuous intravenous fluid support, 0.487 for blood transfusion, and inotropic agents and vasopressors. Compared with the patients without receiving these treatments, the odds ratios for one-year mortality for the patients who received these treatments were: 0.545 for oxygen therapy, 0.381 for enteral nutrition, 0.562 f or non-enteral nutrition, 0.677 for continuous intravenous fluid support, 0.666 for blood transfusions, and 2.096 for inotropic agents and vasopressors. Theree were no significant differences in the mortality between with and without receiving the treatments of ventilator use (invasive and non-invasive), hemodialysis, antibiotics treatment, blood draws, and sedative drugs use. Conclusions: The incidence rates of providing written consent for withdrawal of life support are low. The main factors associated with providing written consent were younger age and higher levels of disease severity. The main reason for families providing the written consent was wishing no more suffering for their ill family members. The treatments of inotropic agents and vasopressors likely increase the risks of mortalityat the time of ICU and one year after discharging from ICU for the terminally ill patients. The treatments ofoxygen therapy, enteral nutrition, non-enteral nutrition, intravenous fluid support and blood transfusions likely reduce the risk of their mortality. No significant impacts of ventilator use (invasive and non-invasive), hemodialysis, antibiotics treatment, blood draws, and sedative drugs on the risks of mortality were found at the time of ICU and one year after discharge from ICU. In the future, more survival studies on the impacts of life support treatments on the risk of mortality are required to help the terminally ill patients away from ineffective treatments. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T04:51:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R04426033-1.pdf: 9115649 bytes, checksum: 17e39b2c3f6eeaa96c4775704269c429 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要............................. I
英文摘要..............................IV 目錄................................VIII 附錄..................................XI 圖目錄...............................XII 表目錄...............................XIII 第一章 緒論 第一節 研究背景與動機....................1 第二節 研究目的..........................3 第三節 研究假設..........................4 第四節 名詞解釋及操作型定義...............5 第二章 文獻查證 第一節 目前各國針對撤除維生醫療之法規及作法..7 第二節 國內外加護病房中簽署不施行心肺復甦術及撤除維生醫療之現況..11 第三節 維生醫療對加護病房病患存活率的研究 一、限時醫療........................17 二、入加護病房後一年內死亡率研究分析...........20 第四節 研究架構..............................21 第三章 研究方法與步驟 第一節 研究設計.............................22 第二節 研究場所與對象........................23 第三節 研究工具.............................24 第四節 研究流程.............................25 第五節 資料處理與分析........................26 第六節 研究倫理考量.........................27 第四章 研究結果..............................28 第一節 有無簽署撤除「撤除維生醫療」病患於人口學、疾病和接受維生醫療之差異分析 一、有無簽署「撤除維生醫療」同意書病患於人口學之差異.....30 二、有無簽署「撤除維生醫療」同意書病患於疾病特性之差異.....32 三、有無簽署「撤除維生醫療」的病患於接受相關維生醫療處置之差異37 四、有簽署撤除維生醫療病患所撤除的相關醫療處置之結果分析.....41 第二節 影響簽署撤除維生醫療之主要因素分析 一、影響簽署撤除維生醫療之主要因素分析...................44 二、有簽署病患照會安寧緩和及決定撤除原因分析..............46 第三節 加護病房末期病患接受相關維生醫療處置對死亡風險之影響 一、相關維生醫療處置對於末期病患於加護病房內死亡風險的影響...48 二、相關維生醫療處置對於末期病患於入加護病房後一年內死亡風險的影響.53 第五章 討論 第一節 有無簽署撤除維生醫療病患於人口學差異...............58 第二節 簽署撤除維生醫療現況及影響因素.............61 第三節 使用及撤除維生醫療處置之現況...............63 第四節 加護病房末期病患接受相關維生醫療處置對存活時間之影響….65 第六章 結論與建議 第一節 結論..........................67 第二節 政策以及臨床照護之貢獻................68 第三節 研究限制與建議........................69 參考文獻 中文部份 ..............................70 英文部份 ..............................72 附錄 附錄一 病歷查閱各變項之編碼方式調查表..................77 病人基本資料.....................77 病患疾病因素.....................78 入加護病房後是否簽署「末期病人終止或撤除維生醫療說明暨同意書」81 於入加護病房後接受相關醫療處置..............82 附錄二 研究倫理委員會審查通過核准公文..........83 圖目錄 圖一 研究架構圖............................21 圖二 收案流構圖............................29 圖三 有無接受氧氣治療之加護病房內存活分析圖..............50 圖四 有無接受腸道營養之加護病房內存活分析圖..............50 圖五 有無接受非腸道營養之加護病房內存活分析圖............51 圖六 有無接受點滴輸液之加護病房內存活分析圖..............51 圖七 有無接受輸血治療之加護病房內存活分析圖..............52 圖八 有無接受強心升壓劑之加護病房內存活分析圖............52 圖九 有無接受氧氣治療之一年內存活分析圖..................55 圖十 有無接受腸道營養之一年內存活分析圖..................55 圖十一 有無接受非腸道營養之一年內存活分析圖..............56 圖十二 有無接受點滴輸液之一年內存活分析圖................56 圖十三 有無接受輸血治療之一年內存活分析圖................57 圖十四 有無接受強心升壓劑之一年內存活分析圖..............57 表目錄 表一 有無簽署「撤除維生醫療」同意書病患於人口學之差異......31 表二 有無簽署「撤除維生醫療」同意書病患於診斷現況之差異.....33 表三 有無簽署「撤除維生醫療」同意書病患於疾病嚴重度之差異....36 表四 有無簽署「撤除維生醫療」同意書病患於接受相關醫療處置之差異38 表五 有簽署病患所同意撤除的相關醫療處置結果分析............42 表六 有無簽署「撤除維生醫療」的病患接受相關醫療處置使用時間之差異.43 表七 影響簽署之多項次回歸因素分析.....................45 表八 末期病患照會安寧緩和團隊結果以及決定是否撤除原因之差異..47 表九 末期病患接受各項維生醫療處置對加護病房內死亡風險之分析結果..49 表十 末期病患接受各項醫療處置對一年內死亡風險之分析結果.....54 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 加護病房末期病患有簽署撤除維生醫療的現況暨主要影響因素以及維生醫療對存活時間之影響 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The predictors of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments and the impacts of life-sustaining treatments on survival time among terminally ill patients at intensive care unit | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 王鶴健(Hao-Chien),古世基(Shih-Chi Ku) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 末期病患,不施行心肺復甦術,撤除維生醫療,末期照護,醫療處置, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | terminally ill patient,do not resuscitate,withdrawal of life support treatments, | en |
dc.relation.page | 87 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201802136 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2018-07-31 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 醫學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 護理學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 護理學系所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-107-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 8.9 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。