IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0184750.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bereavement support for family caregivers: The gap between guidelines and practice in palliative care

Author

Listed:
  • Samar M Aoun
  • Bruce Rumbold
  • Denise Howting
  • Amanda Bolleter
  • Lauren J Breen

Abstract

Background: Standards for bereavement care propose that support should be matched to risk and need. However, studies in many countries demonstrate that palliative care services continue to adopt a generic approach in offering support to bereaved families. Objective: To identify patterns of bereavement support in palliative care services based upon the experience of bereaved people from a population based survey and in relation to clinical practice guidelines. Design: An anonymous postal survey collected information from clients of six funeral providers in four Australian states (2014–15), 6 to 24 months after the death of their family member or friend, with 1,139 responding. Responses from 506 bereaved relatives of people who had terminal illnesses were analysed. Of these, 298 had used palliative care services and 208 had not. Results: More people with cancer (64%) had received palliative care in comparison to other illnesses such as heart disease, dementia and organ failure (4–10%). The support for family caregivers before and after their relative’s death was not considered optimal. Only 39.4% of the bereaved reported being specifically asked about their emotional/ psychological distress pre-bereavement, and just half of the bereaved perceived they had enough support from palliative care services. Half of the bereaved had a follow up contact from the service at 3–6 weeks, and a quarter had a follow-up at 6 months. Their qualitative feedback underlined the limited helpfulness of the blanket approach to bereavement support, which was often described as “not personal” or “generic”, or “just standard practice”. Conclusions: Timeliness and consistency of relationship is crucial to building rapport and trust in the service’s ability to help at post-bereavement as well as a focus on the specific rather than the generic needs of the bereaved. In light of these limitations, palliative care services might do better investing their efforts principally in assessing and supporting family caregivers during the pre-bereavement period and developing community capacity and referral pathways for bereavement care. Our findings suggest that bereavement support in Australian palliative care services has only a tenuous relationship with guidelines and assessment tools, a conclusion also drawn in studies from other countries, emphasizing the international implications of our study.

Suggested Citation

  • Samar M Aoun & Bruce Rumbold & Denise Howting & Amanda Bolleter & Lauren J Breen, 2017. "Bereavement support for family caregivers: The gap between guidelines and practice in palliative care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-15, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0184750
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184750
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0184750
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0184750&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0184750?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0184750. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.