姑息治疗中患者和亲人的精神对话模型:一项验证研究

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1136/bmjspcare-2022-003569
Marc Haufe, Carlo Leget, Tina Glasner, Saskia Teunissen, Marieke Potma
{"title":"姑息治疗中患者和亲人的精神对话模型:一项验证研究","authors":"Marc Haufe, Carlo Leget, Tina Glasner, Saskia Teunissen, Marieke Potma","doi":"10.1136/bmjspcare-2022-003569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In palliative care, validated tools for professionals that facilitate day-to-day spiritual conversations with patients and loved ones are scarce. The objective of this study was to validate the Diamond spiritual conversation model across different palliative care settings as well as professional and educational levels.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online survey was filled in by 387 professionals providing palliative care for patients in hospice, home care, hospital and nursing home settings. The five polarities of the Diamond model: holding on-letting go, doing-undergoing, remembering-forgetting, me-the other and believing-knowing were operationalised and evaluated on reported occurrence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In conversations with patients, palliative care professionals reported <i>letting go of loved ones</i> (81.8%)<i>, dealing with pain and suffering</i> (88.1%)<i>, dealing with issues from the past</i> (67.2%)<i>, dealing with own versus loved one's wishes</i> (69.4%) and <i>giving meaning to death</i> (66.7%) as themes occurring regularly to very often. In conversations with loved ones, this was 70.8%, 78.5%, 55.4%, 68,8% and 62%, respectively. Respondents working in hospices reported these themes significantly more than those working in home care settings, nursing homes or hospitals. Nurse assistant respondents reported the themes significantly less than nurses or chaplains.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>From the perspective of professionals providing palliative care in different palliative care settings, the Diamond model offers a validated framework for addressing relevant spiritual themes for patients and loved ones.</p>","PeriodicalId":9136,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","volume":"1 1","pages":"462-469"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Spiritual conversation model for patients and loved ones in palliative care: a validation study.\",\"authors\":\"Marc Haufe, Carlo Leget, Tina Glasner, Saskia Teunissen, Marieke Potma\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjspcare-2022-003569\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In palliative care, validated tools for professionals that facilitate day-to-day spiritual conversations with patients and loved ones are scarce. The objective of this study was to validate the Diamond spiritual conversation model across different palliative care settings as well as professional and educational levels.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online survey was filled in by 387 professionals providing palliative care for patients in hospice, home care, hospital and nursing home settings. The five polarities of the Diamond model: holding on-letting go, doing-undergoing, remembering-forgetting, me-the other and believing-knowing were operationalised and evaluated on reported occurrence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In conversations with patients, palliative care professionals reported <i>letting go of loved ones</i> (81.8%)<i>, dealing with pain and suffering</i> (88.1%)<i>, dealing with issues from the past</i> (67.2%)<i>, dealing with own versus loved one's wishes</i> (69.4%) and <i>giving meaning to death</i> (66.7%) as themes occurring regularly to very often. In conversations with loved ones, this was 70.8%, 78.5%, 55.4%, 68,8% and 62%, respectively. Respondents working in hospices reported these themes significantly more than those working in home care settings, nursing homes or hospitals. Nurse assistant respondents reported the themes significantly less than nurses or chaplains.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>From the perspective of professionals providing palliative care in different palliative care settings, the Diamond model offers a validated framework for addressing relevant spiritual themes for patients and loved ones.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"462-469\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2022-003569\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2022-003569","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的在姑息治疗中,为专业人员提供的促进与患者和亲人日常精神对话的有效工具很少。本研究的目的是在不同的姑息治疗环境以及专业和教育水平下验证Diamond精神对话模型。方法对387名在临终关怀、家庭护理、医院和疗养院为患者提供姑息治疗的专业人员进行在线调查。钻石模型的五极性:坚持——放手、做——经历、记住——忘记、我——另一个和相信——知道,在报告的事件中得到了操作和评估。结果在与患者的对话中,姑息治疗专业人员报告说,放下亲人(81.8%)、处理疼痛和痛苦(88.1%)、处理过去的问题(67.2%)、处理自己与亲人的愿望(69.4%)和赋予死亡意义(66.7%)是经常发生的主题。在与亲人的对话中,这一比例分别为70.8%、78.5%、55.4%、68.8%和62%。在收容所工作的受访者报告这些主题的人数明显多于在家庭护理机构、疗养院或医院工作的受访者。护士助理受访者报告的主题明显少于护士或牧师。结论从专业人员在不同姑息治疗环境中提供姑息治疗的角度来看,Diamond模型为解决患者和亲人的相关精神主题提供了一个有效的框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Spiritual conversation model for patients and loved ones in palliative care: a validation study.

Objectives: In palliative care, validated tools for professionals that facilitate day-to-day spiritual conversations with patients and loved ones are scarce. The objective of this study was to validate the Diamond spiritual conversation model across different palliative care settings as well as professional and educational levels.

Methods: An online survey was filled in by 387 professionals providing palliative care for patients in hospice, home care, hospital and nursing home settings. The five polarities of the Diamond model: holding on-letting go, doing-undergoing, remembering-forgetting, me-the other and believing-knowing were operationalised and evaluated on reported occurrence.

Results: In conversations with patients, palliative care professionals reported letting go of loved ones (81.8%), dealing with pain and suffering (88.1%), dealing with issues from the past (67.2%), dealing with own versus loved one's wishes (69.4%) and giving meaning to death (66.7%) as themes occurring regularly to very often. In conversations with loved ones, this was 70.8%, 78.5%, 55.4%, 68,8% and 62%, respectively. Respondents working in hospices reported these themes significantly more than those working in home care settings, nursing homes or hospitals. Nurse assistant respondents reported the themes significantly less than nurses or chaplains.

Conclusion: From the perspective of professionals providing palliative care in different palliative care settings, the Diamond model offers a validated framework for addressing relevant spiritual themes for patients and loved ones.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
170
期刊介绍: Published quarterly in print and continuously online, BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care aims to connect many disciplines and specialties throughout the world by providing high quality, clinically relevant research, reviews, comment, information and news of international importance. We hold an inclusive view of supportive and palliative care research and we are able to call on expertise to critique the whole range of methodologies within the subject, including those working in transitional research, clinical trials, epidemiology, behavioural sciences, ethics and health service research. Articles with relevance to clinical practice and clinical service development will be considered for publication. In an international context, many different categories of clinician and healthcare workers do clinical work associated with palliative medicine, specialist or generalist palliative care, supportive care, psychosocial-oncology and end of life care. We wish to engage many specialties, not only those traditionally associated with supportive and palliative care. We hope to extend the readership to doctors, nurses, other healthcare workers and researchers in medical and surgical specialties, including but not limited to cardiology, gastroenterology, geriatrics, neurology, oncology, paediatrics, primary care, psychiatry, psychology, renal medicine, respiratory medicine.
期刊最新文献
Better end-of-life care in surgical patients: Veterans Affairs Bereaved Family Survey - a qualitative analysis. Airflow rates and breathlessness recovery from submaximal exercise in healthy adults: prospective, randomised, cross-over study. Oregon Death with Dignity Act access: 25 year analysis. Spiritual conversation model for patients and loved ones in palliative care: a validation study. Symptom assessment in the dying: family members versus healthcare professionals.
×
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