IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v130y2023ics0168851023000398.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A critical analysis of national dementia care guidances

Author

Listed:
  • Vinay, Rasita
  • Biller-Andorno, Nikola

Abstract

Adopting an ethics and human rights lens, this paper provides a critical analysis of national dementia care guidance from countries ranked highly in providing quality of care towards the end-of-life, including Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Taiwan and the United Kingdom. The aim of this paper is to determine areas of consensus and disagreement among guidance and to understand current gaps in research. Overall, studied guidances showed consensus regarding patient empowerment and engagement, promoting independence, autonomy and liberty through; establishing person-centered care plans, providing ongoing care assessment, resources and support to individuals and their family/carers. Consensus was also seen in most end-of-life care issues; re-assessing care plans, rationalizing medication, and most importantly carer support and well-being. Disagreement could be found in criteria relating to decision-making after losing capacity, i.e. through appointment of case managers or a power of attorney, reducing barriers to equitable access of care, stigma and discrimination for minority and disadvantaged groups - including younger people with dementia, medicalized care strategies such as alternatives to hospitalization, covert administration, and assisted hydration and nutrition, and also in identifying an active dying phase. Potential for future development includes a greater emphasis on multidisciplinary collaborations, financial and welfare assistance, exploring the use of artificial intelligence technologies for testing and management, while also providing safeguards against such emerging technologies and therapies.

Suggested Citation

  • Vinay, Rasita & Biller-Andorno, Nikola, 2023. "A critical analysis of national dementia care guidances," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:130:y:2023:i:c:s0168851023000398
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104736
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851023000398
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104736?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Asher Mullard, 2021. "Landmark Alzheimer’s drug approval confounds research community," Nature, Nature, vol. 594(7863), pages 309-310, June.
    2. Ganna Leonenko & Emily Baker & Joshua Stevenson-Hoare & Annerieke Sierksma & Mark Fiers & Julie Williams & Bart Strooper & Valentina Escott-Price, 2021. "Identifying individuals with high risk of Alzheimer’s disease using polygenic risk scores," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wei Jiang & Ling Chen & Matthew J. Girgenti & Hongyu Zhao, 2024. "Tuning parameters for polygenic risk score methods using GWAS summary statistics from training data," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:130:y:2023:i:c:s0168851023000398. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.