請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/80526完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 陳秀熙(Hsiu-Hsi Chen) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yu-Jing Wang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 王郁菁 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-11-24T03:08:34Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2021-11-05 | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-11-24T03:08:34Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2021-11-05 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2021-10-27 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1.范光中,許永河。台灣人口高齡化的社經衝擊。台灣老年醫學暨老年學雜誌,2010;5(3):P149-68。 2.賴昭智,鄭展志,洪子堯等。急診安寧緩和醫療整合照護模式之建立,北市醫學雜誌,2016;13(3): 312-323。 3.Nappa U, Lindqvist O, Rasmussen BH, et al. Palliative chemotherapy during the last month of life. Ann Oncol 2011;22(11):2375-80. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq778 4.Beemath A and Zalenski RJ. Palliative emergency medicine: resuscitating comfort care? Ann Emerg Med. 2009; 54: 103-5. 5.Stone SC, Mohanty SA, Gruzden C, Lorenz KA and Asch SM. Emergency department research in palliative care: challenges in recruitment. J Palliat Med. 2009; 12: 867-8. 6.White N, Kupeli N, Vickerstaff V, et al. How accurate is the ‘Surprise Question’ at identifying patients at the end of life? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med 2017; 15: 139. 7.Wang RF, Lai CC, Fu PY, et al. A-qCPR risk score screening model for predicting 1-year mortality associated with hospice and palliative care in the emergency department. Palliat Med. 2021; 35: 408-16. 8.ECOG-ACRIN cancer research group. ECOG Performance Status. Available at: https://ecog-acrin.org/resources/ecog-per formance-status, 2020. 9.Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 2016;315(8):801–10. 10.Aminzadeh, F., Dalziel, W. B. (2002). Older adults in the department: a systematic review of patterns of use, adverse) outcomes, and effectiveness of interventions. Ann Emerg Med, 39(3), 238-247. 11.Eagle, D., Rideout, E., Price, P., McCann, C., Wonnacott, E. (1993). Misuse of the emergency department by the elderly population: Myth or reality? Journal of emergency nursing: JEN: official publication of the Emergency Department Nurses Association, 19(3), 212. 12.Samaras, N., Chevalley, T., Samaras, D., Gold, G. (2010). Older patients in the emergency department: a review. Ann Emerg Med, 56(3), 261-269. 13.趙可式(2015).安寧療護是普世價值且為護 理的本質.護理雜誌,62(2),5-12。doi: 10.6224/JN.62.2.5 14.傅賓也,林文允,趙國萍等。臺北市立聯合醫院不施行心肺復甦術之 急診病患流行病學。北市醫學雜誌,2016; 13(3): 324-328。 15.Grudzen CR, Richardson LD, Morrison M, et al. Palliative care needs of seriously ill, older adults presenting to the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2010; 17: 1253–1257. 16.Rosenberg M, Lamba S, Misra S. Palliative medicine and geriatric emergency care: challenges, opportunities, and basic principles. Clin Geriatr Med. 2013 Feb;29(1):1-29. 17.林綉君、李佳苓、張家銘。探討中部某醫學中心加護病 房老年病人及家屬對預立醫療指示的認知情形。台灣老 年醫學暨老年學雜誌 2016; 11: 50-65。 18.World Health Organization: Pain relief and palliative care. National Cancer Control Programmes. Policies and Management Guidelines 2nd edn. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2002. 19.Decker L, Annweiler C, Launay C, Fantino B, Beauchet O. Do not resuscitate orders and aging: Impact of multimorbidity on the decision-making process. The journal of nutrition, health aging. 2014;3(18):330-5. 20.Duplan KL, Pirret AM. Documentation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions in a New Zealand hospital: A prospective observational study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2016; 37: 75-81. doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2016.06.005 21.Lin WY, Chiu TY, Hsu HS,et al. Medical expenditure and family satisfaction between hospice and general care in terminal cancer patients in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc. 2009; 108(10): 794-802. 22.Seaman JB, Barnato AE, Sereika SM, et al. Patterns of palliative care service consultation in a sample of critically ill ICU patients at high risk of dying. Heart Lung 2017; 46: 18-23. 23.Lin, K. H., Chen, Y. S., Chou, N. K., Huang, S. J.,Wu, C. C., Chen, Y. Y. (2016). The associations between the religious background social supports and do not resuscitate orders in Taiwan An observational study. Medicine (Baltimore) , 95(3), 2571. 24.Decker L, Annweiler C, Launay C, Fantino B, Beauchet O (2014) Do not resuscitate orders and aging: impact of multimorbidity on the decision-making process. J Nutr Health Aging 18(3):330–335. 25.Foreman T, Kekewich M, Landry J, et al. Impact of Palliative Care Consultations on Resource Utilization in the Final 48 to 72 Hours of Life at an Acute Care Hospital in Ontario, Canada. J Palliat Care 2015; 31: 69-75. 26.White N, Kupeli N, Vickerstaff V and Stone P. How accurate is the 'Surprise Question' at identifying patients at the end of life? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2017; 15: 139. 27.Salpeter SR, Luo EJ, Malter DS, et al. Systematic review of noncancer presentations with a median survival of 6 months or less. Am J Med 2012; 125(5): 512-16. 28.Beemath A and Zalenski RJ. Palliative emergency medicine: resuscitating comfort care? Ann Emerg Med. 2009; 54: 103-5. 29.Stone SC, Mohanty SA, Gruzden C, Lorenz KA and Asch SM. Emergency department research in palliative care: challenges in recruitment. J Palliat Med. 2009; 12: 867-8. 30.Penrod JD, Deb P, Luhrs C, et al. Cost and utilization outcomes of patients receiving hospital-based palliative care consultation. J Palliat Med. 2006; 9: 855-60. 31.Penrod JD, Deb P, Dellenbaugh C, et al. Hospital-based palliative care consultation: effects on hospital cost. J Palliat Med. 2010; 13: 973-9. 32.Sasaki A, Hiraoka E, Homma Y. et al. Association of code status discussion with invasive procedures among advanced-stage cancerand noncancer patients. Int J Gen Med. 2017; 10: 207-214. doi:10.2147/IJGM.S136921. 33.Emmett A. Kistler, R. Sean Morrison, et al. Emergency Department–triggered Palliative Care in Advanced Cancer: Proof of Concept. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2015; 22(2): 237-9. 34.Susanne M Mierendorf, Vinita Gidvani. Palliative care in the emergency department. Perm J 2014; 18(2): 77-85. doi:10.7812/TPP/13-103. 35.林綉君,李佳苓,張家銘。探討中部某醫學中心加護病房老年病人及家屬對預立醫療指示的認知情形。台灣老誌,2016;11:50-65。 36.Delgado-Guay MO, Rodriguez-Nunez A, Shin SH, Chisholm G, Williams J, Frisbee-Hume S, Bruera E. Characteristics and outcomes of patients with advanced cancer evaluated by a palliative care team at an emergency center. A retrospective study. Support Care Cancer. 2016 May;24(5):2287-95. doi: 10.1007/s00520-0153034-9. Epub 2015 Nov 21. 37.馬瑞菊,鄭婉如,林佩璇等。安寧緩和醫療 修法後對巴拉刈中毒末期病人醫療過程之影響。安寧療護雜誌,2016;21(1):46-60。doi:10.6537/TJHPC.2016.21(1).4 38.安寧緩和醫療條例。中華民國八十九年六月七日總統(89)華總一義字第 08900135080 號令公布全文15條。2021年10月10日,取自 https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawHistory.aspx?pcode=L0020066 39.Rosenberg M, Lamba S, Misra S. Palliative medicine and geriatric emergency care: challenges, opportunities, and basic principles. Clin Geriatr Med. 2013 Feb;29(1):1-29. 40.衛生福利部中央健康保險署。今(98)年9月1日起,新增八類非癌症重症末期病患也能接受安寧療護服務,並正式納入健保給付。2021年10月10日,取自 https://www.nhi.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=FC05EB85BD57C709 sms=587F1A3D9A03E2AD s=952B1D123B71E9EE. 41.陳安芝、賴德仁、周希諴:臨終受苦指數與不施行心肺復甦術(DNR)。安寧療 護雜誌 2015;20:105-19。 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/80526 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | "背景:台灣高齡人口快數增加,預估2025年老年人口會達到20%以上,正式進入超高齡社會,2000年6月《安寧緩和醫療條例》正式立法通過施行及《病人自主權利法》已於2019年1月6日通過且公告,有鑑於國人面對安寧緩和醫療照護的意識抬頭及需求日益增加,因此急診面對求醫人口越來越多、疾病型態日益多元化、複雜化,面臨死亡的機率也漸增,對於急診安寧緩和醫療照護相關的議題更顯重要。若能在急診評估相關死亡風險因子及預測死亡,有助於確定生命末期病人之安寧緩和醫療需求。研究結果可作為推動急診病患安寧緩和醫療照護之參考。 目的:本研究之目的為急診住院病患簽立不施行心肺復甦術的風險評估及死亡率的臨床時效性研究,探討急診住院病患簽立不施行心肺復甦術是否對死亡有影響及依據之前建立的風險評分篩檢模型之結果進行外部驗證,並用於預測4年的死亡率及安寧緩和醫療需求的確立。 方法:本研究於臺北市某區域醫院急診進行之回溯性研究,收案條件為15歲以上經急診住院之患者,排除兒科病患。由2015年6月至2016年5月的4627名患者組成發展族群(developing cohort),由2017年1月至2020年12月的20970名患者組成驗證族群。A-qCPR (Age, qSOFA, Cancer, Performance scales, DNR)模型之風險評分:年齡(每年0.05分)、qSOFA≥2(1分)、日常功能狀態量表≥2(2分)、DNR狀態(3分)和癌症(4分)。描述性統計以α=0.05為顯著水準,若是連續變項時,以t-test來檢定;類別變項時,則使用卡方檢定(Chi-square test),通過邏輯迴歸模式計算具有95%信賴區間(CI)的勝算比(OR),並採用多變量邏輯迴歸模型用於確定四年死亡率的最重要決定因素。驗證的預測概率繪製了ROC曲線,通過驗證族群中的ROC曲線下面積(AUROC)對預測模型進行了外部驗證。Kaplan-Meier方法評估生存率,並應用對數秩檢定(log-rank test)評估組間的生存率差異。進一步嘗試對於不同危險因子進行分析,使用Cox proportional hazard model來研究調整風險因素影響存活率。最後使用AFT model (accelerated failure time model)評估對存活時間影響。統計方法以SAS 9.4版進行分析。 結果:我們模型在發展族群之AUROC曲線是0.84(0.83-0.85),基於發展族群在驗證族群為0.707(0.700-0.714);多變量邏輯迴歸模型,4年死亡率的ROC曲線下面積為0.733(0.727-0.740)。多變量邏輯迴歸模式分析急診住院患者的死亡危險因子,以下變項具有統計顯著意義:年齡(1.02-1.02)、性別(1.16-1.30)、qSOFA≧2(1.57-2.07)、PS≧2(1.80-2.09)、有DNR(1.04-1.20)、有Cancer(2.85-3.31)、有創傷(0.67-0.78)、SQ(1.75-2.11)、Triage 1(2.37-3.12)、Triage 2(1.40-1.77)及Triage 3(0.79-0.97)。低風險(≤4分)、中等風險(4到9分)和高風險(>9分以上)這三個類別的4年死亡率分別為23.2% (22.1%-24.3%)、47.4% (46.5%-48.3%) 和65.5%(64.0%-67.0%)。本篩檢工具相較驚訝問題(SQ):0.195(0.185-0.205)與PS:0.415(0.403-0.428)有較高敏感度0.949(0.943–0.955)和SQ:0.595(0.588-0.602)與功能狀態量表(PS;performance scales):0.673(0.629-0.645)有較高陰性預測值0.793(0.776–0.809)。多變項Cox proportional hazard model分析風險危險時,以下變項具有統計顯著意義:年齡(1.008-1.011)、性別(1.088-1.181)、qSOFA≧2(1.269-1.476)、PS≧2(1.360-1.500)、有DNR(1.045-1.153)、有Cancer(1.855-2.033)、有創傷(0.750-0.841)、SQ-N (1.307-1.457)、SQ-D(1.328-1.803)、Triage 1(1.798-2.039)、Triage 2(1.333-1.477)及Triage 3(0.703-0.788)。多變項AFT model分析顯示以下變項具有統計顯著意義:年齡(0.989-0.994)、性別(0.841-0.959)、qSOFA≧2(0.511-0.646)、PS≧2(0.648-0.759)、有DNR(0.791-0.926)、有Cancer(0.290-0.337)、有創傷(1.404-1.697)、SQ-N (0.668-0.805)、SQ-D(0.573-0.821)、Triage 1(0.310-0.411)、Triage 2(0.533-0.687)及Triage 3(1.028-1.297)。其中有簽DNR比沒簽DNR少活15.5%。 結論:急診住院病患以死亡風險評分時,可以快速、簡單且客觀找出需要臨終關懷和安寧緩和醫療需求者,有助於凝聚醫病雙方安寧緩和照顧之共識,協助末期病患家屬進行安寧決策,協助後續身心靈的「療癒(healing)」,藉由實現「臨終者善終;失親者善別;在世者善生」,達生死兩相安。 " | zh_TW |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2022-11-24T03:08:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2610202116584100.pdf: 2614377 bytes, checksum: 68aaf68c2f0cee2803cf8e5b496d54f3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2021 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書......................................................I 誌謝.................................................................II 中文摘要.............................................................III 英文摘要.............................................................V 目錄.................................................................VIII 圖目錄...............................................................X 表目錄...............................................................XI 第一章 導論..........................................................1 第一節 實習單位特色與簡介.........................................1 第二節 研究背景與動機.............................................2 第三節 研究目的與研究問題..........................................4 第二章 文獻回顧.......................................................5 第三章 方法...........................................................9 第一節 研究設計與統計..............................................9 第二節 研究對象...................................................11 第四章 研究結果.......................................................12 第五章 討論...........................................................26 第六章 結論...........................................................29 第一節 對實務實習單位的建議與回饋...................................30 第二節 相關政策上的意涵或政策建議...................................31 參考文獻 .............................................................32 附錄一、Kaplan-Meier方法評估生存率,並應用對數秩檢定(log-rank test)評估組 間的生存率差異.........................................................37 附錄二、單變項的Cox比例風險模式,對存活函數的影響成等比例的,符合風 險評估生存機率…….......................................................43 附錄三、臺北市立聯合醫院社區安寧照護計畫急診安寧緩和照護需求評估表..........49 附錄四、臺北市立聯合醫院人體研究倫理審查委員會計畫執行許可書................51 圖目錄 圖一 急診病患簽立不施行心肺復甦術流行病學收案流程圖................................10 圖二(a) 驗證族群ROC曲線下面積為0.707(0.700-0.714).....................................18 圖二(b) 多變量邏輯迴歸模型,4年死亡率的ROC曲線下面積為0.733(0.727- 0.740)...........................................................................................................18 圖三 第1組:風險評分≦4;第2組:4<風險評分≤9;第3組:風險評分>9存 活機率..............................................................................................................19 表目錄 表一(a) 發展族群有簽署DNR及沒簽署DNR病人特徵......................................13 表一(b) 驗證族群有簽署DNR及沒簽署DNR病人特徵......................................14 表二 驗證族群急診住院患者死亡危險因素分析....................................................16 表三 驗證族群多變項邏輯式迴歸模式急診住院患者的死亡危險因子分析........17 表四 發展族群及驗證族群急診死亡風險評估........................................................20 表五 發展族群與驗證族群的風險死亡率................................................................20 表六 急診科驗證族群中1年死亡率篩檢工具的敏感性、特異性、陽性預測值和 陰性預測值......................................................................................................21 表七 Cox比例風險模式單變項急診住院病人的風險評估分析............................22 表八. Cox比例風險模式多變項急診住院病人的風險評估分析............................23 表九 加速失效模式單變項急診住院病人4年內的死亡評估分析........................25 表十 加速失效模式多變項急診住院病人4年內的死亡評估分析........................26 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | A-qCPR 模型 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 急診科 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 緩和醫療 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 臨終關懷 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 日常功能狀態量表 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 器官衰竭評估 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 不施行心肺復甦術 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Emergency department | en |
| dc.subject | DNR | en |
| dc.subject | qSOFA | en |
| dc.subject | performance status score | en |
| dc.subject | hospice | en |
| dc.subject | palliative | en |
| dc.subject | A-qCPR model | en |
| dc.title | 急診病患簽立不施行心肺復甦術的臨床實效研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Outcome research of patients signing do not cardio-pulmonary resuscitation in the emergency department | en |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 109-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.coadvisor | 賴昭智(Chao-Chih Lai),許辰陽(Chen-Yang Hsu) | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | #VALUE! | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 急診科,緩和醫療,臨終關懷,日常功能狀態量表,器官衰竭評估,不施行心肺復甦術,A-qCPR 模型, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Emergency department,palliative,hospice,performance status score,qSOFA,DNR,A-qCPR model, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 53 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202104251 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2021-10-28 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 公共衛生碩士學位學程 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 公共衛生碩士學位學程 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-2610202116584100.pdf 授權僅限NTU校內IP使用(校園外請利用VPN校外連線服務) | 2.55 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。
