A review and content analysis of U.S. Department of Corrections end-of-life decision making policies.

IF 1.1 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH International Journal of Prisoner Health Pub Date : 2022-06-02 Epub Date: 2021-12-27 DOI:10.1108/IJPH-06-2021-0060
Victoria Helmly, Marisol Garica, Brie Williams, Benjamin A Howell
{"title":"A review and content analysis of U.S. Department of Corrections end-of-life decision making policies.","authors":"Victoria Helmly, Marisol Garica, Brie Williams, Benjamin A Howell","doi":"10.1108/IJPH-06-2021-0060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>With a rapidly growing population of older adults with chronic illness in US prisons, the number of people who die while incarcerated is increasing. Support for patients' medical decision-making is a cornerstone of quality care for people at the end of life (EOL). This study aims to identify, describe, and analyze existing policies regarding EOL decision-making in U.S. Departments of Corrections.</p><p><strong>Design/methodology/approach: </strong>This study performed an iterative content analysis on all available EOL decision-making policies in US state departments of corrections and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>This study collected and reviewed available policies from 37 of 51 prison systems (73%). Some areas of commonality included the importance of establishing health-care proxies and how to transfer EOL decision documents, although policies differed in terms of which patients can complete advance care planning documents, and who can serve as their surrogate decision-makers.</p><p><strong>Practical implications: </strong>Many prison systems have an opportunity to enhance their patient medical decision-making policies to bring them in line with community standard quality of care. In addition, this study was unable to locate policies regarding patient decision-making at the EOL in one quarter of US prison systems, suggesting there may be quality-of-care challenges around formalized approaches to documenting patient medical wishes in some of those prison systems.</p><p><strong>Originality/value: </strong>To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first content analysis of EOL decision-making policies in US prison systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":45561,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Prisoner Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9013007/pdf/nihms-1794206.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Prisoner Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-06-2021-0060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: With a rapidly growing population of older adults with chronic illness in US prisons, the number of people who die while incarcerated is increasing. Support for patients' medical decision-making is a cornerstone of quality care for people at the end of life (EOL). This study aims to identify, describe, and analyze existing policies regarding EOL decision-making in U.S. Departments of Corrections.

Design/methodology/approach: This study performed an iterative content analysis on all available EOL decision-making policies in US state departments of corrections and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Findings: This study collected and reviewed available policies from 37 of 51 prison systems (73%). Some areas of commonality included the importance of establishing health-care proxies and how to transfer EOL decision documents, although policies differed in terms of which patients can complete advance care planning documents, and who can serve as their surrogate decision-makers.

Practical implications: Many prison systems have an opportunity to enhance their patient medical decision-making policies to bring them in line with community standard quality of care. In addition, this study was unable to locate policies regarding patient decision-making at the EOL in one quarter of US prison systems, suggesting there may be quality-of-care challenges around formalized approaches to documenting patient medical wishes in some of those prison systems.

Originality/value: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first content analysis of EOL decision-making policies in US prison systems.

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
美国惩教署临终决策政策回顾与内容分析。
目的:随着美国监狱中患有慢性疾病的老年人口迅速增长,在监禁期间死亡的人数也在增加。为患者的医疗决策提供支持是为生命末期(EOL)患者提供优质护理的基石。本研究旨在确定、描述和分析美国惩教部门有关生命末期决策的现行政策:本研究对美国各州惩教部门和联邦监狱局现有的所有临终关怀决策政策进行了反复的内容分析:本研究收集并审查了 51 个监狱系统中 37 个系统(73%)的现有政策。虽然在哪些患者可以填写预先护理规划文件以及谁可以作为其代理决策者方面,政策有所不同,但一些共同点包括建立医疗保健代理的重要性以及如何移交临终决策文件:实际意义:许多监狱系统都有机会改进其病人医疗决策政策,使之符合社区医疗质量标准。此外,本研究未能在四分之一的美国监狱系统中找到有关患者临终前决策的政策,这表明在一些监狱系统中,围绕记录患者医疗意愿的正式方法可能存在护理质量方面的挑战:据作者所知,这是首次对美国监狱系统的临终决策政策进行内容分析。
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
International Journal of Prisoner Health
International Journal of Prisoner Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
21.40%
发文量
56
期刊最新文献
Prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and related factors among female prisoners in Tehran, Iran. Looked after children in prison as adults: life adversity and neurodisability. Prevalence of and risk factors for HCV among incarcerated people at Great Tehran Prison: a cross-sectional study. Prevalence and characteristics of mental and physical disorders among female prisoners: a mixed-methods systematic review. Intensified pulmonary tuberculosis case finding among HIV-infected new entrants of a prison in Malaysia: implications for a holistic approach to control tuberculosis in prisons.
×
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