Patient autonomy and participation in end-of-life decision-making: An interpretive-systemic focus group study on perspectives of Asian healthcare professionals

Oindrila Dutta, P. Lall, P. V. Patinadan, J. Car, C. Low, W. Tan, A. Ho
{"title":"Patient autonomy and participation in end-of-life decision-making: An interpretive-systemic focus group study on perspectives of Asian healthcare professionals","authors":"Oindrila Dutta, P. Lall, P. V. Patinadan, J. Car, C. Low, W. Tan, A. Ho","doi":"10.1017/S1478951519000865","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives Asia's first national advance care planning (ACP) program was established in Singapore in 2011 to enhance patient autonomy and self-determination in end-of-life (EoL) care decision-making. However, no known study has examined the extent to which ACP in Singapore successfully met its aims. The purpose of the current study was to examine the attitudes of local healthcare professionals on patients’ autonomy in decision-making at the EoL since they strongly influence the extent to which patient and family wishes are fulfilled. Methods Guided by the Interpretive-Systemic Framework and Proctor's conceptual taxonomy of implementation research outcomes, an interview guide was developed. Inquiries focused on healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards ACP, their clinical experiences working with patients and families, and their views on program effectiveness. Sixty-three physicians, nurses, medical social workers, and designated ACP coordinators who were actively engaged in ACP facilitation were recruited from seven major hospitals and specialist centers in Singapore through purposive sampling. Twelve interpretive-systemic focus groups were conducted, recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic analysis. Results The extent to which patients in Singapore can exert autonomy in EoL care decision-making is influenced by five themes: (i) collusion over truth-telling to patient, (ii) deferment of autonomy by patients, (iii) negotiating patient self-determination, (iv) relational autonomy as the gold standard and (v) barriers to realization of patient choices. Significance of results Healthcare practitioners in Asian communities must align themselves with the values and needs of patients and their family and jointly make decisions that are consistent and congruent with the values of patients and their families. Sensitivity towards such cross-cultural practices is key to enhancing ACP awareness, discourse, and acceptability in Asian communities.","PeriodicalId":19953,"journal":{"name":"Palliative and Supportive Care","volume":"8 1","pages":"425 - 430"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative and Supportive Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951519000865","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Abstract Objectives Asia's first national advance care planning (ACP) program was established in Singapore in 2011 to enhance patient autonomy and self-determination in end-of-life (EoL) care decision-making. However, no known study has examined the extent to which ACP in Singapore successfully met its aims. The purpose of the current study was to examine the attitudes of local healthcare professionals on patients’ autonomy in decision-making at the EoL since they strongly influence the extent to which patient and family wishes are fulfilled. Methods Guided by the Interpretive-Systemic Framework and Proctor's conceptual taxonomy of implementation research outcomes, an interview guide was developed. Inquiries focused on healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards ACP, their clinical experiences working with patients and families, and their views on program effectiveness. Sixty-three physicians, nurses, medical social workers, and designated ACP coordinators who were actively engaged in ACP facilitation were recruited from seven major hospitals and specialist centers in Singapore through purposive sampling. Twelve interpretive-systemic focus groups were conducted, recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic analysis. Results The extent to which patients in Singapore can exert autonomy in EoL care decision-making is influenced by five themes: (i) collusion over truth-telling to patient, (ii) deferment of autonomy by patients, (iii) negotiating patient self-determination, (iv) relational autonomy as the gold standard and (v) barriers to realization of patient choices. Significance of results Healthcare practitioners in Asian communities must align themselves with the values and needs of patients and their family and jointly make decisions that are consistent and congruent with the values of patients and their families. Sensitivity towards such cross-cultural practices is key to enhancing ACP awareness, discourse, and acceptability in Asian communities.
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
患者自主和参与临终决策:亚洲医疗保健专业人员视角的解释性系统焦点小组研究
亚洲首个国家临终关怀计划(ACP)于2011年在新加坡成立,旨在增强患者在临终关怀决策中的自主权和自决权。然而,没有已知的研究调查了新加坡ACP成功实现其目标的程度。本研究的目的是探讨本地医护人员对病人自主决策的态度,因为他们在很大程度上影响病人和家属的愿望得到满足。方法以解释-系统框架和Proctor的实施研究成果概念分类法为指导,编制访谈指南。调查的重点是卫生保健专业人员对ACP的态度,他们与患者和家属一起工作的临床经验,以及他们对项目有效性的看法。通过有目的抽样,从新加坡的七家主要医院和专科中心招募了63名积极参与ACP促进工作的医生、护士、医务社会工作者和指定的ACP协调员。进行了12个解释系统焦点小组,记录,转录并使用主题分析进行分析。结果新加坡患者在EoL护理决策中行使自主权的程度受到五个主题的影响:(i)串通告知患者真相,(ii)患者延迟自主,(iii)协商患者自决,(iv)关系自主作为金标准,以及(v)实现患者选择的障碍。结果的意义亚洲社区的医疗保健从业人员必须与患者及其家庭的价值观和需求保持一致,共同做出与患者及其家庭价值观一致的决定。对这种跨文化实践的敏感是提高ACP在亚洲社区的意识、话语和可接受性的关键。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Examining public stigma and expectations of grief following medical aid and dying in the US: A vignette-based experiment. Bedbound. Shores of acceptance Light of the setting sun PAX volume 20 issue 6 Cover and Front matter
×
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