4.6 Article

The experience of advance care planning discussion among older residents in a long-term care institution: A qualitative study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING
卷 28, 期 19-20, 页码 3451-3458

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14936

关键词

advance care planning; communication; long-term care; nursing; older adults; qualitative study

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims and objectives To explore the experiences and processes of advance care planning (ACP) discussions in older residents of a long-term care institution. Background Advance care planning can facilitate discussion about end-of-life care and help to identify individual's views, wishes and beliefs about dying at a time when they have the cognitive capacity to reflect on and/or make such decisions. Design A qualitative study was conducted. Methods Twenty-eight older adults in a long-term care institution participated in person-to-person interviews using an ACP booklet, which included topics such as life review, healthy habits and behaviours, and end-of-life care issues and information. The discussions were recorded, and thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) checklist was followed. Results Three themes were identified. First, participants identified that ACP could help to ensure that they achieved their view of a good death. Second, the process of ACP bought up difficult decisions that many participants expressed uncertainty about making. Third, participants' ability and willingness to plan for end of life were shaped by considerations about their family members' needs, views and potential role as their future carer. Conclusions The ACP process involved not only personal ideas about good death but also families' concerns. Uncertainty and lack of information created difficult barriers. Relevance to clinical practice Healthcare professionals could address the concept of good death, deliver information for their concerns and promote communication with family members.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据