Vulnerable older people's views on proactive care planning - a qualitative interview study in primary care.

IF 2.5 Q2 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE BJGP Open Pub Date : 2024-10-02 DOI:10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0167
Lisa Kastbom, Anna Olaison, Annette Sverker, Anna Segernäs
{"title":"Vulnerable older people's views on proactive care planning - a qualitative interview study in primary care.","authors":"Lisa Kastbom, Anna Olaison, Annette Sverker, Anna Segernäs","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients in old age often have complex care needs due to multimorbidity and polypharmacy. This qualitative study is part of a larger ongoing Swedish intervention trial <i>Secure And Focused primary care for older pEople</i> (SAFE), including shorter care agreements based on person-centred patient goals.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore, in a primary care setting, the views of older and vulnerable patients on a more systematic, proactive approach to care planning, including establishing and documenting care agreements based on person-centred goals.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Individual semi-structured interviews with patients (n 25) aged>75 years from 12 intervention primary health care centres.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Qualitative content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three categories, with 10 sub-categories, were found: <i>I would like to live in the present, so why plan ahead? Let me decide vs. they know best,</i> and <i>Care agreements usually went unnoticed</i>. The latent theme, <i>The ambivalence of care planning in the fourth age,</i> was created to give a deeper meaning to the content of the categories.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study emphasises that older, vulnerable persons have varying attitudes towards participation in proactive care planning. This ambivalence may originate from the individuals' desire to have their autonomy respected on the one hand and to avoid or postpone end-of-life conversations and care planning on the other hand. Patients also expressed a desire to be more actively involved in care planning. Although care agreements have the potential to increase patient involvement in proactive care planning, they often went unnoticed. The conversation itself was essential.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients in old age often have complex care needs due to multimorbidity and polypharmacy. This qualitative study is part of a larger ongoing Swedish intervention trial Secure And Focused primary care for older pEople (SAFE), including shorter care agreements based on person-centred patient goals.

Aim: To explore, in a primary care setting, the views of older and vulnerable patients on a more systematic, proactive approach to care planning, including establishing and documenting care agreements based on person-centred goals.

Design & setting: Individual semi-structured interviews with patients (n 25) aged>75 years from 12 intervention primary health care centres.

Method: Qualitative content analysis.

Results: Three categories, with 10 sub-categories, were found: I would like to live in the present, so why plan ahead? Let me decide vs. they know best, and Care agreements usually went unnoticed. The latent theme, The ambivalence of care planning in the fourth age, was created to give a deeper meaning to the content of the categories.

Conclusion: This study emphasises that older, vulnerable persons have varying attitudes towards participation in proactive care planning. This ambivalence may originate from the individuals' desire to have their autonomy respected on the one hand and to avoid or postpone end-of-life conversations and care planning on the other hand. Patients also expressed a desire to be more actively involved in care planning. Although care agreements have the potential to increase patient involvement in proactive care planning, they often went unnoticed. The conversation itself was essential.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
弱势老年人对前瞻性护理规划的看法--基层医疗机构的定性访谈研究。
背景:由于多病和多药并存,老年患者通常有复杂的护理需求。这项定性研究是瑞典正在进行的一项大型干预试验 "老年人安全和重点初级护理(SAFE)"的一部分,包括根据以人为本的患者目标达成较短的护理协议。目的:在初级护理环境中,探讨老年和弱势患者对更系统、更积极的护理规划方法的看法,包括根据以人为本的目标建立和记录护理协议:设计与环境:对来自 12 个干预性初级医疗中心、年龄大于 75 岁的患者(25 人)进行个人半结构式访谈:方法:定性内容分析:结果:共发现三个类别,10 个子类别:我愿意活在当下,为什么要提前计划?让我来决定 vs. 他们最清楚,护理协议通常不被注意。为了给这些类别的内容赋予更深层次的含义,我们创建了 "第四个年龄段护理规划的矛盾性 "这一潜在主题:本研究强调,弱势老年人对参与主动护理规划的态度各不相同。这种矛盾的态度可能源于患者一方面希望自己的自主权得到尊重,另一方面又希望避免或推迟临终对话和护理规划。患者也表达了希望更积极地参与护理规划的愿望。尽管护理协议有可能提高患者对积极护理规划的参与度,但它们往往不被重视。谈话本身至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BJGP Open
BJGP Open Medicine-Family Practice
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
181
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
General practice characteristics associated with pay-for-performance in the UK: a systematic review. How do GPs communicate the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway to patients? A qualitative study of GP-patient consultations. Could a behaviour change intervention be used to address under-recognition of work-related asthma in primary care? A systematic review. Editorial: Global health inequity and primary care. Clinical decision making and risk appraisal using electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) for cancer diagnosis: A qualitative study of GP experiences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1