Conceptual Confusion: A Barrier to Multi-Professional Involvement in Advance Care Planning in Nursing Homes - An Ethnographic Study.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Nicola Andrews, Michelle Myall
{"title":"Conceptual Confusion: A Barrier to Multi-Professional Involvement in Advance Care Planning in Nursing Homes - An Ethnographic Study.","authors":"Nicola Andrews, Michelle Myall","doi":"10.1177/08258597241305846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>How health and social care professionals need to work together to deliver advance care planning (ACP) in nursing homes is not fully understood, with a reliance on professionals external to the nursing home to support ACP in the United Kingdom. The objectives of this study were to (a) examine the factors that influence multi-professional involvement in the ACP process within nursing homes and (b) explore how multi-professional working impacts the ACP process in nursing homes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using ethnography, data was collected through observation, interviews and document review from 36 participants including residents (<i>n</i> = 6), relatives (<i>n</i> = 4), nursing home staff (<i>n</i> = 19) and visiting professionals (<i>n</i> = 7). Data analysis combined thematic analysis, mapping of ACP trajectories for participant residents, and documentary analysis of nursing home policies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was conceptual confusion around ACP. How ACP was understood and what was prioritised for inclusion varied between residents and professionals, and between different professionals. That ACP was frequently integrated with routine care planning was not recognised in how professionals accounted for their ACP practice. Professionals prioritised biomedical concerns, despite this not reflecting resident priorities and policy suggesting a broader definition. This created difficulties in enacting ACP, with a holistic understanding of resident wishes not always captured.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A shared understanding of ACP was not consistently evident from those tasked with its enactment. This, combined with professional construction of ACP in biomedical terms, limits multi-professional working and can prevent a person-centred process being achieved for nursing home residents.</p>","PeriodicalId":51096,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Palliative Care","volume":" ","pages":"8258597241305846"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08258597241305846","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: How health and social care professionals need to work together to deliver advance care planning (ACP) in nursing homes is not fully understood, with a reliance on professionals external to the nursing home to support ACP in the United Kingdom. The objectives of this study were to (a) examine the factors that influence multi-professional involvement in the ACP process within nursing homes and (b) explore how multi-professional working impacts the ACP process in nursing homes.

Methods: Using ethnography, data was collected through observation, interviews and document review from 36 participants including residents (n = 6), relatives (n = 4), nursing home staff (n = 19) and visiting professionals (n = 7). Data analysis combined thematic analysis, mapping of ACP trajectories for participant residents, and documentary analysis of nursing home policies.

Results: There was conceptual confusion around ACP. How ACP was understood and what was prioritised for inclusion varied between residents and professionals, and between different professionals. That ACP was frequently integrated with routine care planning was not recognised in how professionals accounted for their ACP practice. Professionals prioritised biomedical concerns, despite this not reflecting resident priorities and policy suggesting a broader definition. This created difficulties in enacting ACP, with a holistic understanding of resident wishes not always captured.

Conclusions: A shared understanding of ACP was not consistently evident from those tasked with its enactment. This, combined with professional construction of ACP in biomedical terms, limits multi-professional working and can prevent a person-centred process being achieved for nursing home residents.

概念混淆:养老院多专业人员参与预先护理计划的障碍--一项人种学研究。
目标:在英国,健康和社会护理专业人员需要如何共同努力,在养老院提供预先护理计划(ACP)尚不完全清楚,依赖于养老院以外的专业人员来支持ACP。本研究的目的是:(a)探讨影响养老院内多专业参与ACP过程的因素;(b)探讨多专业工作如何影响养老院ACP过程。方法:采用民族志方法,通过观察、访谈和文献查阅等方法,对36名调查对象进行资料收集,其中包括住院者(n = 6)、家属(n = 4)、养老院工作人员(n = 19)和来访专业人员(n = 7)。数据分析结合专题分析、参与居民的ACP轨迹映射和养老院政策的文献分析。结果:ACP存在概念上的混淆。居民和专业人员之间以及不同专业人员之间对ACP的理解和优先纳入的内容各不相同。ACP经常与常规护理计划相结合,这在专业人员如何解释他们的ACP实践中没有得到认可。专业人员优先考虑生物医学问题,尽管这没有反映居民的优先事项和政策建议更广泛的定义。这给制定《非加太计划》造成了困难,因为对居民的愿望并不总是有全面的了解。结论:负责制定非加太计划的人员对非加太计划的共同理解并不一贯明显。这一点,再加上ACP在生物医学方面的专业建设,限制了多专业工作,并可能阻碍养老院居民实现以人为本的过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Palliative Care
Journal of Palliative Care 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
63
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Palliative Care is a quarterly, peer-reviewed, international and interdisciplinary forum for practical, critical thought on palliative care and palliative medicine. JPC publishes high-quality original research, opinion papers/commentaries, narrative and humanities works, case reports/case series, and reports on international activities and comparative palliative care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信