IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v29y2020i21-22p4116-4127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perspectives about dignity during acute care for older people and their relatives: A qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Debra Kerr
  • Rosie Crone
  • Trisha Dunning

Abstract

Aims and objectives The aim of the study was to enhance understanding about dignified care from older peoples' and their carers' perspectives. The information will contribute to the development of a tool to measure older peoples’ dignity during hospitalisation. Background Older people are a vulnerable cohort at risk of loss of dignity during acute hospitalisation arising from environmental, behavioural and patient factors. It is not clear how older people and their relatives define dignified care in acute care settings. Design An interpretative descriptive method was used. Methods A purposive sample of older people (at least 65 years) who had been hospitalised in acute care and subsequently transferred to sub‐acute care, and their relatives, were invited to participate. The study was undertaken in one sub‐acute ward in a regional healthcare organisation in Victoria, Australia. Individual interviews were audio‐recorded then transcribed. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis. The COREQ checklist was used to document reporting of the study. Results Individual interviews were conducted: 24 patients and 12 relatives. Three main themes were identified: “Involve me in decisions about my care and treatment,” “Keep me safe when I am vulnerable” and “Treat me as an individual and with respect.” Older people want to be involved in decisions about their care and treatment and to receive adequate, suitable information. They feel vulnerable during hospitalisation and want to feel safe when speaking up about concerns. Individual acknowledgement is an important aspect of dignity. Conclusions Older people and their relatives identified specific elements of care that uphold or threaten dignity during acute hospitalisation. Nurses play a major role in upholding dignity for older people in hospital. Relevance to clinical practice Clinicians may benefit from systematic dignity‐related training. Specific strategies to enhance older persons’ dignity, including communication skills training and continence management need to be developed, implemented and evaluated.

Suggested Citation

  • Debra Kerr & Rosie Crone & Trisha Dunning, 2020. "Perspectives about dignity during acute care for older people and their relatives: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(21-22), pages 4116-4127, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:21-22:p:4116-4127
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15438
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15438?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. Marcelle Tauber‐Gilmore & Gulen Addis & Zainab Zahran & Sally Black & Lesley Baillie & Sue Procter & Christine Norton, 2018. "The views of older people and health professionals about dignity in acute hospital care," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1-2), pages 223-234, January.
    2. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    3. Zainab Zahran & Marcelle Tauber & Holly Howe Watson & Phoebe Coghlan & Sarah White & Sue Procter & Gulen Addis & Christine Norton, 2016. "Systematic review: what interventions improve dignity for older patients in hospital?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3-4), pages 311-321, February.
    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. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    2. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    3. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    4. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    5. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    6. Mei-Chun Cheung & Derry Law & Joanne Yip & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2022. "Adolescents’ Experience during Brace Treatment for Scoliosis: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-10, August.
    7. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    8. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    9. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    10. Vivek Goel & Carol A. Sawka & Elaine C. Thiel & Elaine H. Gort & Annette M. O’Connor, 2001. "Randomized Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Surgical Treatment for Breast Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 1-6, February.
    11. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    12. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    13. Yoko Ueno & Mayumi Kako & Mitsuko Ohira & Hitoshi Okamura, 2020. "Shared decision‐making for women facing an unplanned pregnancy: A qualitative study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 1186-1196, December.
    14. Sjaak Molenaar & Mirjam A.G. Sprangers & Fenna C.E. Postma-Schuit & Emiel J. Th. Rutgers & Josje Noorlander & Joop Hendriks & Hanneke C.J.M. De Haes, 2000. "Interpretive Review : Feasibility and Effects of Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 112-127, January.
    15. Shosh Shahrabani & Amiram Gafni & Uri Ben-Zion, 2008. "Low Flu Shot Rates Puzzle—Some Plausible Behavioral Explanations," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 52(1), pages 66-72, March.
    16. Våga, Bodil Bø & Moland, Karen Marie & Evjen-Olsen, Bjørg & Blystad, Astrid, 2014. "Reflections on informed choice in resource-poor settings: The case of infant feeding counselling in PMTCT programmes in Tanzania," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 22-29.
    17. Antonius Schneider & Magdalena Wübken & Klaus Linde & Markus Bühner, 2014. "Communicating and Dealing with Uncertainty in General Practice: The Association with Neuroticism," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-7, July.
    18. Jonathan J. Rolison & Kinga Morsanyi & Ellen Peters, 2020. "Understanding Health Risk Comprehension: The Role of Math Anxiety, Subjective Numeracy, and Objective Numeracy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(2), pages 222-234, February.
    19. Öhlén, Joakim & Balneaves, Lynda G. & Bottorff, Joan L. & Brazier, Alison S.A., 2006. "The influence of significant others in complementary and alternative medicine decisions by cancer patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(6), pages 1625-1636, September.
    20. Peek, Monica E. & Odoms-Young, Angela & Quinn, Michael T. & Gorawara-Bhat, Rita & Wilson, Shannon C. & Chin, Marshall H., 2010. "Race and shared decision-making: Perspectives of African-Americans with diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 1-9, July.

    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:29:y:2020:i:21-22:p:4116-4127. 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: 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.