IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v27y2022i2p236-250.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preparing End-of-Life Talks in Palliative Care: Exploratory Remarks on a Social Process

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandre Cotovio Martins

    (Polytechnic Institute of Portalegre, Portugal)

  • Michel Binet

    (CLISSIS, Portugal)

  • David Monteiro

    (Polytechnic Institute of Portalegre, Portugal)

  • Oriana Brás

    (CICS.NOVA, Portugal)

Abstract

In this article, we develop an exploratory analysis of some of the interactional strategies developed by palliative care (PC) professionals in order to prepare end-of-life (EoL) talks with patients and their families, namely in the frame of specifically social problem-solving work which they develop on a daily basis. In this sense, our object of analysis is not EoL talks in themselves, but the broader social processes that tend to precede them in PC, that is, all the work both of approaching the patient and his or her family and of coordination within the teams that PC professionals routinely do in order to propitiate EoL talk. In this way, we don’t envisage EoL talks as a conversation between two parties, with a patient on one side and a doctor on the other side, but as a wider social process which relies upon strong and previous professional engagement. The analysis conducted herein was carried out on data collected under the projects ETIC – Managing EoL trajectories in palliative care: a study on the work of healthcare professionals (Ref. PTDC/SOC-SOC/30092/2017) and Building paths towards death: an analysis of everyday work in palliative care (Ref. PTDC/CS-SOC/119621/2010), both financed by the Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation (FCT); in particular the data obtained through 17 months (12 in the first project and 5 in the second one, still in progress) of ethnographic observation carried out at two hospital internment units providing PC in Mainland Portugal and 42 (37 in the first project and 5 in the second one, still in progress) in-depth interviews to professionals in PC – physicians, nurses, and social workers. As main results, we present several theoretical and empirical elements relevant to the analysis of the field of EoL communication in the context of interactions between healthcare professionals, patients and their families. Following earlier studies on the same theme, we show how the work of preparing EoL conversations refers to a broader social process preceding those conversations. We believe that our findings may contribute to elucidating this dimension of the intervention of PC professionals, thus being instrumental for the future definition of systematised guidelines and recommendations in the framework of PC.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandre Cotovio Martins & Michel Binet & David Monteiro & Oriana Brás, 2022. "Preparing End-of-Life Talks in Palliative Care: Exploratory Remarks on a Social Process," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 27(2), pages 236-250, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:27:y:2022:i:2:p:236-250
    DOI: 10.1177/1360780421997839
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1360780421997839
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1360780421997839?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McNamara, Beverley, 2004. "Good enough death: autonomy and choice in Australian palliative care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(5), pages 929-938, March.
    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. Chabot, Boudewijn E. & Goedhart, Arnold, 2009. "A survey of self-directed dying attended by proxies in the Dutch population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 1745-1751, May.
    2. Lang, Alexander & Frankus, Elisabeth & Heimerl, Katharina, 2022. "The perspective of professional caregivers working in generalist palliative care on ‘good dying’: An integrative review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 293(C).
    3. Paolo Rossi & Matteo Crippa & Gianlorenzo Scaccabarozzi, 2021. "The Relationship between Practitioners and Caregivers during a Treatment of Palliative Care: A Grounded Theory of a Challenging Collaborative Process," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-15, July.
    4. Ana Patrícia Hilário & Fábio Rafael Augusto, 2022. "Pathways for a ‘Good Death’: Understanding End-of-Life Practices Through An Ethnographic Study in Two Portuguese Palliative Care Units," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 27(2), pages 219-235, June.
    5. Kirby, Emma & Broom, Alex & MacArtney, John & Lewis, Sophie & Good, Phillip, 2021. "Hopeful dying? The meanings and practice of hope in palliative care family meetings," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    6. Collier, Aileen & Broom, Alex, 2021. "Unsettling Place(s) at the end of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 288(C).
    7. Broom, Alex & Cavenagh, John, 2010. "Masculinity, moralities and being cared for: An exploration of experiences of living and dying in a hospice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(5), pages 869-876, September.
    8. Zivkovic, Tanya, 2021. "About face: Relationalities of ageing and dying in Chinese migrant families," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    9. Olson, Rebecca E. & Smith, Alexandra & Good, Phillip & Neate, Emily & Hughes, Cody & Hardy, Janet, 2021. "Emotionally reflexive labour in end-of-life communication," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).

    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:sae:socres:v:27:y:2022:i:2:p:236-250. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.