Research on Advance directives of Amyotrophic Lateral sclerosis Patient and QOL

肌萎缩性侧索硬化症患者预嘱与qol1研究结果：(1)患者回复（N=300）中，预嘱的优点（多答）是有序的（18%“为了满足他的希望而进行谈话”，16%“符合他的要求并推进了医疗”，15%“分享了自我决定的内容”，14%“他/她、家人和医疗人员的沟通变得良好”，12%“不是不希望的强制医疗”）。护士（305名）和医生（265名）的回答也大致相同。(2)虽然“只有医生才能决定治疗政策”、“尚未习惯自我决定”、“对决定内容不熟悉”、“形式不规范”、“没有法律依据”等顺序是预嘱未传播的预防因素（多重回答），但医生对“没有法律依据是什么”存在怀疑的倾向。(3)关于预嘱传播的政策，虽然（多次回答）在患者回复中“检查内容更新和重写”的比例为11%，“信息充实”的比例为24%，“促进通知”的比例为18%，随后为“促进通知”的比例为19%，医生重视“法律依据”的比例为17%。(4)虽然是预嘱的呈现方式，但在患者答复中，顺序为“口头”、“文件”、“医院原始形式”、“手写备忘录”，且文件多与口头相抗衡。最多为3次，尽管约30%的患者答复说存在重写预嘱内容的情况。

Research on Advance directives of Amyotrophic Lateral sclerosis Patient and QOLResult: (1)The merit (multiple answers) of Advance directives is order (18%"talks are made in order to fulfill his hope", 16% "it complies with his/her request and medical treatment is advanced", 15%"contents of self-determination are shared", 14% "that communication of his/her, family, and medical stuff becomes good", and 12% "it is not forced medical treatment which is not desired" ), in patients' reply (N=300). It is the same as that also of nurses (N=305) and doctors (N=265) reply almost. (2) Although the prevention factor (multiple answers) through which Advance directives do not spread was the order of "only a doctor may decide treatment policy", "it not having got used to self-determination", "it not being well-known to a decision content", "the form not being standardized", and there "there being no legal basis" in the patient reply, the tendency to regard as questionable what "no legal basis is" was seen in the doctor. (3) About the policy of Advance directives spread, although (multiple answers) are 11% of order "which checks renewal of contents, and rewriting" in a patient reply 24% "information is made substantial", and 18% "which promotes a notice", subsequently to 19% "which promotes a notice", the doctor attaches importance to "legal-basis" 17%. (4) Although it is the presentation method of Advance directives, in the patient reply, it is the order of "oral", a "document", "the original form of a hospital", and a "handwriting memorandum", and the document has rivaled oral mostly. Maximum is 3 times although about 30 % has answered by the patient reply that the existence of rewriting of the contents of Advance directives.