Nursing home contrasts: A critical discussion on harnessing reflection for dignified change.

IF 2.7 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Trude Anita Hartviksen, Lisbeth Uhrenfeldt, Jessica Aspfors
{"title":"Nursing home contrasts: A critical discussion on harnessing reflection for dignified change.","authors":"Trude Anita Hartviksen, Lisbeth Uhrenfeldt, Jessica Aspfors","doi":"10.1177/09697330251374177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The capacity of healthcare personnel to promote well-being and dignity among nursing home residents remains a topic of ongoing discourse. This critical discussion extends from a previously published research project on healthcare leadership. The results revealed that healthcare middle managers' perceived lack of resources, trust, and collaboration hindered their capability for quality improvement. Our concern was reinforced when relatives expressed a willingness to accept undignified care due to resource constraints. In this discussion paper, we add to existing knowledge by critically discussing how nursing home relatives and managers share experiences and face the consequences of negotiating human dignity as both a fundamental right and moral obligation. Galvin and Todres's existential theoretical framework is applied to understand dignified care and to reveal contrasts and overlaps within academic and public discourse. We argue that resource-limited healthcare, which generates undignified care, creates cross-pressure of suffering for relatives and managers. If both groups are incapacitated by this cross-pressure, knowledge mobilization and practice improvement stagnate. However, integrating measures into organizational quality systems to promote critical reflection among both groups as a tool for quality improvement may offer potential dignified change.</p>","PeriodicalId":49729,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"9697330251374177"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330251374177","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The capacity of healthcare personnel to promote well-being and dignity among nursing home residents remains a topic of ongoing discourse. This critical discussion extends from a previously published research project on healthcare leadership. The results revealed that healthcare middle managers' perceived lack of resources, trust, and collaboration hindered their capability for quality improvement. Our concern was reinforced when relatives expressed a willingness to accept undignified care due to resource constraints. In this discussion paper, we add to existing knowledge by critically discussing how nursing home relatives and managers share experiences and face the consequences of negotiating human dignity as both a fundamental right and moral obligation. Galvin and Todres's existential theoretical framework is applied to understand dignified care and to reveal contrasts and overlaps within academic and public discourse. We argue that resource-limited healthcare, which generates undignified care, creates cross-pressure of suffering for relatives and managers. If both groups are incapacitated by this cross-pressure, knowledge mobilization and practice improvement stagnate. However, integrating measures into organizational quality systems to promote critical reflection among both groups as a tool for quality improvement may offer potential dignified change.

疗养院对比:利用反思实现有尊严的改变的关键讨论。
保健人员的能力,以促进福祉和尊严的养老院居民仍然是一个持续的话题。这个关键的讨论从以前发表的医疗保健领导研究项目延伸。结果显示,医疗保健中层管理人员认为缺乏资源、信任和协作阻碍了他们的质量改进能力。当亲属们表示愿意接受由于资源限制而没有尊严的照料时,我们的担忧得到了加强。在本讨论文件中,我们通过批判性地讨论养老院亲属和管理人员如何分享经验并面对将人类尊严作为基本权利和道德义务进行谈判的后果,从而增加了现有知识。Galvin和Todres的存在主义理论框架被应用于理解有尊严的关怀,并揭示学术和公共话语中的对比和重叠。我们认为,资源有限的医疗保健,这产生了不体面的护理,造成了痛苦的亲属和管理者的交叉压力。如果这两个群体在这种交叉压力下都无能为力,知识动员和实践改进就会停滞不前。然而,将措施整合到组织质量体系中,以促进两个群体之间的批判性反思,作为质量改进的工具,可能会带来潜在的有尊严的变化。
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
Nursing Ethics
Nursing Ethics 医学-护理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
11.90%
发文量
117
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Ethics takes a practical approach to this complex subject and relates each topic to the working environment. The articles on ethical and legal issues are written in a comprehensible style and official documents are analysed in a user-friendly way. The international Editorial Board ensures the selection of a wide range of high quality articles of global significance.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信