Getting Beyond Pros and Cons: Results of a Stakeholder Needs Assessment on Physician Assisted Dying in the Hospital Setting.

IF 1.2 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Hec Forum Pub Date : 2022-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-23 DOI:10.1007/s10730-022-09492-w
Andrea Frolic, Leslie Murray, Marilyn Swinton, Paul Miller
{"title":"Getting Beyond Pros and Cons: Results of a Stakeholder Needs Assessment on Physician Assisted Dying in the Hospital Setting.","authors":"Andrea Frolic,&nbsp;Leslie Murray,&nbsp;Marilyn Swinton,&nbsp;Paul Miller","doi":"10.1007/s10730-022-09492-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study assessed the attitudes and needs of physicians and health professional staff at a tertiary care hospital in Canada regarding the introduction of physician assisted dying (PAD) during 2015-16. This research aimed to develop an understanding of the wishes, concerns and hopes of stakeholders related to handling requests for PAD; to determine what supports/structures/resources health care professionals (HCP) require in order to ensure high quality and compassionate care for patients requesting PAD, and a supportive environment for all healthcare providers across the moral spectrum. This study constituted a mixed methods design with a qualitative descriptive approach for the study's qualitative component. A total of 303 HCPs working in a tertiary care hospital completed an online survey and 64 HCPs working in hospital units with high mortality rates participated in 8 focus group discussions. Both focus group and survey data coalesced around several themes to support the implementation of PAD following the decriminalization of this practice: the importance of high quality care; honoring moral diversity; supporting values (such as autonomy, privacy, beneficence); and developing resources, including collaboration with palliative care, education, policies and a specialized team. This study provided the foundational evidence to support the development of the PAD program described in other papers in this collection, and can be a model for gathering evidence from stakeholders to inform the implementation of PAD in any healthcare organization.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":" ","pages":"391-408"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9671973/pdf/","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-022-09492-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This study assessed the attitudes and needs of physicians and health professional staff at a tertiary care hospital in Canada regarding the introduction of physician assisted dying (PAD) during 2015-16. This research aimed to develop an understanding of the wishes, concerns and hopes of stakeholders related to handling requests for PAD; to determine what supports/structures/resources health care professionals (HCP) require in order to ensure high quality and compassionate care for patients requesting PAD, and a supportive environment for all healthcare providers across the moral spectrum. This study constituted a mixed methods design with a qualitative descriptive approach for the study's qualitative component. A total of 303 HCPs working in a tertiary care hospital completed an online survey and 64 HCPs working in hospital units with high mortality rates participated in 8 focus group discussions. Both focus group and survey data coalesced around several themes to support the implementation of PAD following the decriminalization of this practice: the importance of high quality care; honoring moral diversity; supporting values (such as autonomy, privacy, beneficence); and developing resources, including collaboration with palliative care, education, policies and a specialized team. This study provided the foundational evidence to support the development of the PAD program described in other papers in this collection, and can be a model for gathering evidence from stakeholders to inform the implementation of PAD in any healthcare organization.

Abstract Image

超越利弊:利益相关者对医院环境中医生协助死亡的需求评估结果。
本研究评估了2015- 2016年加拿大一家三级保健医院的医生和卫生专业人员对引入医师辅助死亡(PAD)的态度和需求。本研究旨在了解与处理PAD请求相关的利益相关者的愿望、关注和希望;确定卫生保健专业人员(HCP)需要什么支持/结构/资源,以确保要求PAD的患者获得高质量和富有同情心的护理,并为所有道德范围内的卫生保健提供者提供支持性环境。本研究采用混合方法设计,采用定性描述方法作为研究的定性成分。在三级保健医院工作的303名医务人员完成了在线调查,在死亡率高的医院单位工作的64名医务人员参加了8次焦点小组讨论。焦点小组和调查数据围绕以下几个主题进行整合,以支持在这种做法非刑事化之后实施PAD:高质量护理的重要性;尊重道德多样性;支持价值观(如自主、隐私、慈善);开发资源,包括与姑息治疗、教育、政策和专业团队合作。本研究为本文集中其他论文中描述的PAD项目的发展提供了基础证据,并且可以作为从利益相关者那里收集证据的模型,为任何医疗机构的PAD实施提供信息。
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
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
×
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