Children's and parents' experiences of home care provided by hospital staff: A scoping review

Author:

Beisland Elisabeth Grov1ORCID,Drageset Jorunn12ORCID,Blindheim Mari Gaupås3,Jorem Gøril Tvedten1,Moi Asgjerd Litleré1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Faculty of Health and Caring Sciences Western Norway University of Applied Sciences Bergen Norway

2. Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care University of Bergen Bergen Norway

3. Faculty of Health Studies VID Specialized University Bergen Norway

Abstract

AbstractAimsTo describe what is known from existing scientific literature on children's and parents’ experiences of hospital‐based home care and to identify future research areas.DesignThe scoping review design used adheres to the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley, and to the PRISMA‐ScR checklist.Review MethodsA systematic search was conducted, and peer‐reviewed scientific papers were screened through the application of Rayyan software. Data were extracted and presented in table and synthesised thematically as narrative text.Data SourcesSearches were carried out November 2021 and updated November 2022 in the CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, Academic Search Elite, and Amed databases and Google Scholar.ResultsA total of 1950 studies were screened and assessed for eligibility. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria by reporting on parents' experiences, whereas five out of these eight studies also reported on the experiences of children. Parents of children with cancer and preterm children reported feeling more in control, being empowered, and being more connected to their children's care team when their children were receiving hospital‐based home care. The family's own resources were activated, and they felt more involved in their children's care compared to being in an inpatient setting.Children with cancer, acute infection, chronic disease, and/or a syndrome reported feeling safer and more comfortable in their home environment and experienced better interaction with their care providers. Some aspects of the children's health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) were improved.ConclusionThe identified studies indicate that hospital‐based home care is a valued alternative to traditional inpatient care by both parents and children. The mode of care has no crucial negative effects. Future studies should encompass the experiences of children with different diagnoses and syndromes and compare patients treated in a traditional hospital setting with those in a hospital‐based home‐care programme.Relevance to Clinical PracticeChildren's and parents’ experiences of HBHC indicate that it offers a good solution if parents are well prepared and feel in control. In addition, certain structural conditions must be in place before this type of care can be established: there must be a certain number of patients and the hospital must not be too far away. In the field of neonatal home care, professionals should be more responsive to fathers’ needs and tailor support by focusing on their individual experiences and needs. Our findings may guide and inform best practice for present and future providers of HBHC.Implications for the Profession and/or Patient CareHospital‐based home care can offer families a greater degree of autonomy, more flexible care options, improved family functioning, improved communication with care providers, and more control over the child's care. When certain structural conditions are met, such as a certain number of patients, the hospital not being too far away, and parents being well prepared and feeling in control, then hospital‐based home care is valued as an alternative to traditional inpatient care. Specific aspects of children's HRQOL may improve, and the psychosocial burden on the family does not increase.ImpactHBHC provides a valued alternative to traditional inpatient care and allows families to receive care in the comfort of their own home. Our findings may guide and inform best practice for present and future providers of hospital‐based home care.Reporting MethodIn this scoping review, we have adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.Patient or Public ContributionThere has been no direct patient or public contribution to the review.Trial and Protocol RegistrationNot required.

Publisher

Wiley

Cited by 1 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

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