BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2013
Factors influencing decision-making in relation to timing of gastrostomy insertion in patients with motor neurone disease.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Stavroulakis Theocharis, Baird Wendy O, Baxter Susan K, Walsh Theresa, Shaw Pamela J, McDermott Christopher J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the decision-making process leading up to gastrostomy insertion from the perspective of the patients and their informal carers. Gastrostomy feeding is commonly used to support motor neurone disease patients with dysphagia. However, there is no robust evidence to suggest the optimal timing for gastrostomy insertion.
METHODS: Retrospective qualitative exploration using semistructured interviews with paired patients and carers in order to elicit their perceptions in relation to gastrostomy timing.
RESULTS: 27 patients consented to the study; of these, 23 underwent a successful gastrostomy. Approximately 3 months following a successful gastrostomy, 10 patients and 8 carers were interviewed. Decision-making in relation to the timing of gastrostomy was described as being a difficult process with individual variations and wishes. A range of factors acted as triggers for taking the decision to proceed with gastrostomy such as prolonged, tiring and effortful meals; the task of food preparation; choking and aspiration; and weight loss. Factors such as the reluctance to give up oral feeding, not realising the potential benefits and negative perceptions of gastrostomy influenced a decision to delay the procedure. A tendency for late insertion was identified despite the opposite advice by health professionals.
CONCLUSIONS: The advice for early insertion does not outweigh the personal perceptions and psychosocial factors for patients and their carers. Understanding the factors which influence decision-making on an individual basis is important for information and care provision by healthcare professionals in aiding patients, and their carers, to make informed decisions in relation to gastrostomy timing.
METHODS: Retrospective qualitative exploration using semistructured interviews with paired patients and carers in order to elicit their perceptions in relation to gastrostomy timing.
RESULTS: 27 patients consented to the study; of these, 23 underwent a successful gastrostomy. Approximately 3 months following a successful gastrostomy, 10 patients and 8 carers were interviewed. Decision-making in relation to the timing of gastrostomy was described as being a difficult process with individual variations and wishes. A range of factors acted as triggers for taking the decision to proceed with gastrostomy such as prolonged, tiring and effortful meals; the task of food preparation; choking and aspiration; and weight loss. Factors such as the reluctance to give up oral feeding, not realising the potential benefits and negative perceptions of gastrostomy influenced a decision to delay the procedure. A tendency for late insertion was identified despite the opposite advice by health professionals.
CONCLUSIONS: The advice for early insertion does not outweigh the personal perceptions and psychosocial factors for patients and their carers. Understanding the factors which influence decision-making on an individual basis is important for information and care provision by healthcare professionals in aiding patients, and their carers, to make informed decisions in relation to gastrostomy timing.