IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v25y2016i1-2p70-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A qualitative study of key stakeholders’ perspectives on compassion in healthcare and the development of a framework for compassionate interpersonal relations

Author

Listed:
  • Rosie Kneafsey
  • Sarah Brown
  • Kim Sein
  • Carol Chamley
  • Joanne Parsons

Abstract

Aims and objectives To report findings from a qualitative study of key stakeholders’ perspectives on ‘compassion’ in the health care context. To present the ‘Framework for Compassionate Interpersonal Relations’. Background Although many research articles, health policies and health care strategies identify compassion as an underpinning value and key component of health care quality, identifying a unified definition of compassion is challenging. For Higher Education Institutions implementing ‘values‐based’ recruitment processes, a clearer understanding of this core concept is vital. Design Exploratory, qualitative design. Methods Academic staff, health care students, clinicians and service users (n = 45), participated in nine focus groups where they were asked to define compassion in the context of health care. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Results Four overarching themes were drawn from the data. The first theme centred on the participants’ definitions of compassion, while the second identified compassionate behaviours. The third theme related to the barriers and threats to compassionate practice and the fourth, focused on ways to support compassion in practice. Participants believed that the health care staff should be ‘consistently compassionate’, and were emphatic that compassion should not be substituted with a ‘care without engagement’ approach. Conclusions The findings concur with other research, which identifies the link between compassion and empathy and the importance of establishing meaningful connections with others. While participants in this study recognised the pressures of health care work and accepted that the expectation of ‘consistent compassion’ was not necessarily realistic, it was still seen as an important goal. Relevance to clinical practice Participants held clear expectations regarding practitioners’ communication skills and used these as a proxy for compassionate practice. The ‘Framework for Compassionate Inter‐personal Relations’ may be used to promote reflection on the implementation of compassionate practice. It may also be used to highlight areas of focus when conducting values‐based recruitment activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosie Kneafsey & Sarah Brown & Kim Sein & Carol Chamley & Joanne Parsons, 2016. "A qualitative study of key stakeholders’ perspectives on compassion in healthcare and the development of a framework for compassionate interpersonal relations," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1-2), pages 70-79, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:1-2:p:70-79
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12964
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12964
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12964?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joanne Durkin & Kim Usher & Debra Jackson, 2019. "Embodying compassion: A systematic review of the views of nurses and patients," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(9-10), pages 1380-1392, May.
    2. Eva Kahana, 2021. "Improving the End‐of‐Life Experience of Elderly Patients and Their Families: Policy and Practice Fall Short of Providing Comfort and Support," Journal of Elder Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), pages 1-29, March.

    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:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:1-2:p:70-79. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.