An examination of relational dynamics of power in the context of supported (assisted) decision‐making with older people and those with disabilities in an acute healthcare setting

Author:

O′Donnell Deirdre1ORCID,Davies Carmel1,Christophers Lauren1,Ní Shé Éidín2,Donnelly Sarah3,Kroll Thilo1

Affiliation:

1. UCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems (IRIS), School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems University College Dublin Dublin Ireland

2. Graduate School of Healthcare Management Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Dublin Ireland

3. School of Social Policy, Social Work and Social Justice University College Dublin Dublin Ireland

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionSupported (assisted) healthcare decision‐making (ADM) focuses attention on how people with disabilities, including cognitive impairments, can be best supported to make decisions about their health and social care on an equitable basis with others. Meaningful implementation of legal frameworks for ADM challenges long‐held presumptions about who has access to valued decision‐making resources, influence and power within a particular socio‐cultural setting. This study aims to explore the relational power dynamics around ADM with older people in acute care settings.MethodsThis study adopts a critical hermeneutic approach to qualitatively explore the lived experience of ADM from the perspectives of Health and Social Care Professionals (N = 26). This is supported by an exploration of the experiences of older people (N = 4), older people with a diagnosis of dementia (N = 4) and family carers (N = 5).ResultsWe present three themes of data analysis that represent three spaces where the relational aspects of power in ADM are manifested. The first space, centralising decision‐making power within multidisciplinary teams identified the privileging of physicians in traditional hierarchical leadership models that may lead to the implicit exclusion of family carers and some Health and Social Care Professionals in the ADM process. Privileging cognitive and communication competence identified a tendency to attribute decision‐making autonomy to those with cognitive and communication competency. The final space, balancing the duty of care and individual autonomy, recognises acute care settings as typically risk‐averse cultures that limit autonomy for decisions that carry risk, especially for those with cognitive impairment.ConclusionFindings indicate the need to address cultural sources of power operating through social norms premised on ageist and ableist ideologies. It is necessary to challenge institutional barriers to meaningful ADM including positional power that is associated with hierarchies of influence and protectionism. Finally, meaningful ADM requires resistance to the disempowerment created by structural, economic and social circumstances which limit choices for decision‐making.Patient or Public ContributionA public and patient involvement panel of older people were consulted in the development of the grant application (HRB: APA‐2016‐1878). Representatives from Alzheimer's Society Ireland and Family Carers Ireland were steering committee members guiding design and strategy.

Funder

Health Research Board

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Reference34 articles.

1. United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities;2007.

2. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015: what it is and why it matters

3. Promoting assisted decision-making in acute care settings for care planning purposes: Study protocol

4. JamesK WattsL. Understanding the lived experiences of supported decision‐making in Canada. Law Commission of Ontario; 2014.

5. Early implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in health and social care

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Unravelling elder abuse through a human rights lens: a case study;British Journal of Nursing;2024-09-05

2. Towards a ‘Social Model’ of Mental Capacity for Social Work;The British Journal of Social Work;2023-11-15

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3