IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/eldpol/v2y2022i2p141-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trust Between Physicians and Family Caregivers: Qualitative Insights from Three Family‐Centered Academic Medical Centers

Author

Listed:
  • Ruchira Rao
  • Minakshi Raj

Abstract

Family caregivers increasingly support health care tasks but are not meaningfully integrated into the health care setting in consistent or standard way. Previous literature has established the importance of trust in patient‐clinician relationships; yet, little is known about family caregiver‐clinician trust, and further, how and when to integrate family caregivers into health care teams so they can better support their relative. This study examined a) how physicians assess and perceive trust with family caregivers, b) the role of culture in trust dynamics, and c) facilitators and barriers to integrating caregivers into health care teams. We conducted twenty qualitative interviews with physicians in geriatrics (n=9) and oncology/hematology (n=11) between January–March 2021. Physicians assess caregivers' competence, reliability/dependability, and fidelity. They assess caregivers' engagement (e.g., asking questions, verbal and non‐verbal cues) to determine whether caregivers trust them. Physicians in our study trust other physicians more than caregivers in certain situations (e.g., for objective information, data) while they trust caregivers more than other physicians for information that requires familiarity and time with the patient (e.g., observations in the home environment). When supporting patients from diverse cultural backgrounds, physicians often rely upon caregivers to provide contextual information about relevant cultural norms. Integrating caregivers into the care team early—when the patient‐caregiver relationship is strong—can be critical to providing effective patient care. Technology can facilitate the trust‐building process to further support caregiver integration. Building trust‐driven partnerships between physicians and family caregivers could be critical for effective communication of important information to support patient care. Guidelines and policies related to telehealth, discussions between physicians and caregivers, tools to screen caregivers for skills and caregiver burden, and reimbursements for partnering with caregivers are important priorities for supporting caregivers and patient care. Los cuidadores familiares apoyan cada vez más las tareas de atención de la salud, pero no están integrados de manera significativa en el entorno de atención de la salud de manera uniforme o estándar. La literatura previa ha establecido la importancia de la confianza en las relaciones médico‐paciente; sin embargo, se sabe poco sobre la confianza entre el cuidador familiar y el médico y, además, sobre cómo y cuándo integrar a los cuidadores familiares en los equipos de atención médica para que puedan apoyar mejor a su familiar. Este estudio examinó a) cómo los médicos evalúan y perciben la confianza con los cuidadores familiares, b) el papel de la cultura en la dinámica de la confianza, yc) los facilitadores y las barreras para integrar a los cuidadores en los equipos de atención médica. Realizamos veinte entrevistas cualitativas con médicos en geriatría (n=9) y oncología/hematología (n=11) entre enero y marzo de 2021. Los médicos evalúan la competencia, confiabilidad/confianza y fidelidad de los cuidadores. Evalúan el compromiso de los cuidadores (p. ej., hacer preguntas, señales verbales y no verbales) para determinar si los cuidadores confían en ellos. Los médicos de nuestro estudio confían más en otros médicos que en los cuidadores en ciertas situaciones (p. ej., para obtener información objetiva, datos), mientras que confían más en los cuidadores que en otros médicos para obtener información que requiera familiaridad y tiempo con el paciente (p. ej., observaciones en el entorno del hogar). Al apoyar a pacientes de diversos orígenes culturales, los médicos a menudo confían en los cuidadores para que proporcionen información contextual sobre las normas culturales relevantes. La integración temprana de los cuidadores en el equipo de atención, cuando la relación entre el paciente y el cuidador es sólida, puede ser fundamental para brindar una atención eficaz al paciente. La tecnología puede facilitar el proceso de creación de confianza para apoyar aún más la integración del cuidador. La creación de asociaciones impulsadas por la confianza entre médicos y cuidadores familiares podría ser fundamental para la comunicación eficaz de información importante para apoyar la atención del paciente. Las pautas y políticas relacionadas con la telesalud, las discusiones entre médicos y cuidadores, las herramientas para evaluar las habilidades y la carga del cuidador y los reembolsos por asociarse con los cuidadores son prioridades importantes para apoyar a los cuidadores y la atención del paciente. 家庭护理人员越来越多地支持医疗保健任务,但并未以一致或标准的方式有意义地融入医疗保健环境。以往研究已经确立了信任在医患关系中的重要性;不过,研究不足的是,家庭护理人员与临床医生之间的信任,以及如何与何时将家庭护理人员融入医疗团队,以便其更好地支持他们的亲属。本研究分析了 a) 医生如何评估和感知其与家庭护理人员的信任,b) 文化在信任动态中的作用,以及 c) 将家庭护理人员融入医疗团队一事的促进因素和障碍。我们在2021年1月至3月期间对老年病学(n=9)和肿瘤学/血液学(n=11)的医生进行了 20 次定性访谈。医生评估了家庭护理人员的能力、可靠性和忠诚度。他们评估了护理人员的参与度(例如提问、口头和非口头提示),以确定护理人员是否信任他们。本研究中的医生在某些情况下(例如:客观信息和数据方面)更信任其他医生而不是护理人员,但当其获取需要熟悉病人和花时间与病人接触才能获得的信息时(例如:在家庭环境中的观察), 其更信任护理人员而不是其他医生。在为来自不同文化背景的患者提供支持时,医生通常依靠护理人员提供有关相关文化规范的背景信息。当患者与护理人员的关系牢固时,及早将护理人员融入护理团队对于提供有效的患者护理而言至关重要。技术能促进信任建立的过程,以进一步支持护理人员的融入。在医生和家庭护理人员之间建立信任驱动的伙伴关系,对于有效传播重要信息以支持患者护理一事至关重要。与远程医疗相关的指南和政策、医生和护理人员之间的讨论、用于筛选护理人员技能和负担的工具、以及与护理人员合作的报销,是支持护理人员和患者护理一事的重要优先事项。

Suggested Citation

  • Ruchira Rao & Minakshi Raj, 2022. "Trust Between Physicians and Family Caregivers: Qualitative Insights from Three Family‐Centered Academic Medical Centers," Journal of Elder Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 141-166, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:eldpol:v:2:y:2022:i:2:p:141-166
    DOI: 10.18278/jep.2.2.5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.18278/jep.2.2.5
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18278/jep.2.2.5?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. Wilk, Adam S. & Platt, Jodyn E., 2016. "Measuring physicians' trust: A scoping review with implications for public policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 75-81.
    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. Doblytė, Sigita, 2022. "The vicious cycle of distrust: Access, quality, and efficiency within a post-communist mental health system," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    2. Groenewegen, Peter P. & Hansen, Johan & de Jong, Judith D., 2019. "Trust in times of health reform," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 281-287.
    3. Ingmar Leijen & Hester van Herk, 2021. "Health and Culture: The Association between Healthcare Preferences for Non-Acute Conditions, Human Values and Social Norms," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Chih-Cheng Lo & Chun-Hsien Wang & Yi-Wen Lin, 2021. "Professional or Interpersonal Trust? Effect of Social Network on the Intention to Undergo Cosmetic Procedures," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, August.

    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:wly:eldpol:v:2:y:2022:i:2:p:141-166. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (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.