基于COSMIN指南对癌症患者支持性照护需求量表的系统评价

背景国内外用于评估癌症患者支持性照护需求的量表较多，但有关此类量表质量的标准化评价研究及不同量表间的横向比较研究较为缺乏，也少有研究者对此类量表的测量特性进行系统的整合与评价。目的评价中文版癌症患者支持性照护需求量表的测量学性能及研究的方法学质量。方法2021年4月检索中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、维普中文科技期刊全文数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库、PubMed、EmBase、Web of Science、CINAHL Complete数据库，获取有关中文版癌症患者支持性照护需求量表测量学性能评价的研究，检索时限均为建库至2021年3月30日。由两位研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料后，采用健康测量工具遴选标准（COSMIN）系统综述指南，在对量表的测量特性及研究的方法学质量进行评价的基础上，综合评定中文版癌症患者支持性照护需求评估量表各测量特性的证据等级，并形成对于量表的最终推荐意见。采用描述分析法对评价结果进行汇总、分析。结果共纳入15项研究，涉及8个中文版癌症患者支持性照护需求评估量表〔癌症患者支持性照护需求简明问卷中文版（SCNS-SF34）、中文版支持性照护需求筛查工具（SCNS-ST9-C）、癌症患者综合需求评估量表（CNAT）、癌症需求简明问卷（CNQ-SF）、中文版癌症患者未满足需求量表（CaSUN-C）、癌症患者未满足需求简明量表（SF-SUNS）、晚期癌症患者需求评估问卷（ACNQ-41）、晚期癌症患者需求评估表简表（ACNQ-29）〕。就量表的测量特性质量而言，除ACNQ-29的内容效度为"未提及"外，其余7个量表的内容效度均为"不确定"；除CaSUN-C、SF-SUNS的结构效度为"充分"外，其余6个量表的结构效度均为"不确定"；SCNS-SF34、CNQ-SF、CaSUN-C、SF-SUNS的内部一致性为"充分"，ACNQ-41的内部一致性为"不充分"，其余3个量表的内部一致性为"不确定"；CNAT、CNQ-SF、ACNQ-29的假设检验为"未提及"，CaSUN-C、SF-SUNS、ACNQ-41的假设检验为"不确定"，SCNS-SF34、SCNS-ST9-C的假设检验为"充分"；除ACNQ-41的稳定性为"不充分"，SCNS-ST9-C、ACNQ-29的稳定性为"未提及"外，其余5个量表的稳定性均为"充分"；仅SCNS-SF34的跨文化效度为"充分"，其余7个量表的跨文化效度均为"未提及"。8个量表的推荐等级均为B级。结论SCNS-SF34的测量特性得到了最为全面的评价，其具有较好的信效度，且临床应用可行性高，可暂时被推荐使用，但上述结论仍有待更多高质量证据加以支撑。     

美国跨文化医疗实践的做法及对我国的启示

通过网页调查的方式，收集整理2019—2020年度美国最佳医院排行榜前20家医院的跨文化医疗实践的做法，总结了这部分医院跨文化医疗服务的理念、特色项目和模式等内容。整体上看，这些医院倡导“以患者为中心”的服务理念，提供就诊前、就诊期间、就诊后的全流程服务，涉及预约、住宿、交通、语言翻译、医疗流程管理等内容，重视文化因素在医疗中的作用和对员工的跨文化医疗教育和培训。在此基础上，提出中国医疗机构在涉外医疗服务工作中可从以下方面入手：接轨国际化医疗服务理念和标准，提升医务人员等群体的跨文化医疗能力，探索具有本土化特色的跨文化医疗服务模式，并以国际化环境建设塑造医院的国际化形象。     

经鼻高流量氧气湿化治疗老年慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重合并呼吸衰竭的可行性研究

ObjectiveTo investigate the feasibility of transnasal heated humidified high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) with respiratory failure in elderly patients. MethodsA total of 176 elderly patients with AECOPD complicated with respiratory failure who were hospitalized at Peking University Shougang Hospital from December 2016 to January 2022 were enrolled, including 82 patients in an HFNC group and 94 patients in an NPPV group. After treatment, pulse oxygen saturation (SPO₂), arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂), oxygenation index (OI), respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), comfort score, discharge rate, rate of endotracheal intubation, rate of transfer to intensive care unit (ICU), and mortality were compared between the two groups. The independent sample t-test was used for comparison between the two groups. Statistical data are expressed in percentage or number of cases and the χ² test was used for their comparisons. ResultsThe SPO₂ values at 30 min, 1 h, and 6 h were significantly higher in the HFNC group than in the NPPV group (t=-2.049,-2.618, and -3.314, P=0.043, 0.010, and 0.001, respectively). SPO₂ before discharge was significantly lower than that of the NPPV group (t=2.162, P=0.033), but OI at each time point and before discharge had no statistical significance (P＞0.05). MAP at 6 h was significantly higher in the HFNC group than in the NPPV group (t=-2.209, P=0.029), but within the normal range. HRs at 2 h and 3 h in the HFNC group were significantly higher than those of the NPPV group (t=-2.199 and -2.336, P=0.030 and 0.021, respectively). There were no significant differences in RR, HR, or MAP between the two groups at other time points and before discharge (P＞0.05). There was no significant difference in PaCO2 between the two groups (P＞0.05). Comfort score in the HFNC group was significantly higher than that of the NPPV group (t=-46.807, P＜0.001). There were no significant differences in discharge rate, ICU transfer rate, endotracheal intubation rate, and mortality between the two groups (P＞0.05). ConclusionHFNC is as effective as NPPV in treating elderly patients with AECOPD complicated with type Ⅰ or mild type Ⅱ respiratory failure, and HFNC is more comfortable than NPPV.