S Schwarz1, C Kühner. 1. Zentralinstitut für Seelische Gesundheit Mannheim, Universität Heidelberg, J 5, 68159 Mannheim, Deutschland. stefan.schwarz@zi-mannheim.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Decompressive hemicraniectomy reduces mortality in patients with space-occupying MCA infarction. Quality of life in surviving patients is discussed controversially. We assessed attitudes of neurologists and nurses providing care to this patient group towards decompressive hemicraniectomy. METHODS: A postal questionnaire on attitudes and opinions on prognosis and quality of life after decompressive hemicraniectomy was returned by 280 neurologists and 166 nurses from tertiary care centers throughout Germany. RESULTS: In both groups of professionals, estimates of the probability of survival after decompressive hemicraniectomy and the resulting degree of disability were consistent with results of clinical outcomes studies. Only 9% of the nurses and 33% of the physicians assumed that the majority of survivors achieve an acceptable quality of life; 58% of physicians and 32% of nurses would suggest decompressive hemicraniectomy to their nearest relative. Under the assumption of an uncertain outcome, 61% of physicians and 22% of nurses would agree to decompressive hemicraniectomy. In both professional groups, agreement for surgery increases when scenarios with a more favorable outcome were proposed [modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 2-5)]. If an outcome of 4 on the mRS is proposed, indicating moderately severe disability, only a minority favored decompressive hemicraniectomy (25% of doctors and 8% of nurses). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a realistic assessment of prognosis after decompressive hemicraniectomy, a majority of respondents estimated the quality of life of survivors as unsatisfactory. Nurses had a more pessimistic attitude towards decompressive hemicraniectomy. The majority of respondents consider an outcome of 4 on the mRS as unacceptable.
BACKGROUND: Decompressive hemicraniectomy reduces mortality in patients with space-occupying MCA infarction. Quality of life in surviving patients is discussed controversially. We assessed attitudes of neurologists and nurses providing care to this patient group towards decompressive hemicraniectomy. METHODS: A postal questionnaire on attitudes and opinions on prognosis and quality of life after decompressive hemicraniectomy was returned by 280 neurologists and 166 nurses from tertiary care centers throughout Germany. RESULTS: In both groups of professionals, estimates of the probability of survival after decompressive hemicraniectomy and the resulting degree of disability were consistent with results of clinical outcomes studies. Only 9% of the nurses and 33% of the physicians assumed that the majority of survivors achieve an acceptable quality of life; 58% of physicians and 32% of nurses would suggest decompressive hemicraniectomy to their nearest relative. Under the assumption of an uncertain outcome, 61% of physicians and 22% of nurses would agree to decompressive hemicraniectomy. In both professional groups, agreement for surgery increases when scenarios with a more favorable outcome were proposed [modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 2-5)]. If an outcome of 4 on the mRS is proposed, indicating moderately severe disability, only a minority favored decompressive hemicraniectomy (25% of doctors and 8% of nurses). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a realistic assessment of prognosis after decompressive hemicraniectomy, a majority of respondents estimated the quality of life of survivors as unsatisfactory. Nurses had a more pessimistic attitude towards decompressive hemicraniectomy. The majority of respondents consider an outcome of 4 on the mRS as unacceptable.
Authors: Eric Jüttler; Stefan Schwab; Peter Schmiedek; Andreas Unterberg; Michael Hennerici; Johannes Woitzik; Steffen Witte; Ekkehart Jenetzky; Werner Hacke Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-08-09 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Kevin N Sheth; Nils H Petersen; Ken Cheung; Jordan J Elm; Holly E Hinson; Bradley J Molyneaux; Lauren A Beslow; Gordon K Sze; J Marc Simard; W Taylor Kimberly Journal: Stroke Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Hermann Neugebauer; Matthias Schnabl; Dorothée Lulé; Peter U Heuschmann; Eric Jüttler Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Tessa van Middelaar; Edo Richard; H Bart van der Worp; Pepijn van den Munckhof; Pythia T Nieuwkerk; Marieke C Visser; Jan Stam; Paul J Nederkoorn Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 2.474