‘I wasn't made to feel like a nut case after all’: A qualitative story completion study exploring healthcare recipient and carer perceptions of good professional caregiving relationships

Author:

Feo Rebecca12ORCID,Young Jessica A.1,Urry Kristi13ORCID,Lawless Michael12ORCID,Hunter Sarah C.12ORCID,Kitson Alison12ORCID,Conroy Tiffany12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. College of Nursing and Health Sciences Flinders University Adelaide South Australia Australia

2. Caring Futures Institute Flinders University Adelaide South Australia Australia

3. School of Psychology University of Adelaide Adelaide South Australia Australia

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundProfessional caregiving relationships are central to quality healthcare but are not always developed to a consistently high standard in clinical practice. Existing literature on what constitutes high‐quality relationships and how they should be developed is plagued by dyadic conceptualisations; discipline, context and condition‐specific research; and the absence of healthcare recipient and informal carer voices. This study aimed to address these issues by exploring how healthcare recipients and carers conceptualise good professional caregiving relationships regardless of discipline, care setting and clinical condition.DesignA qualitative story completion approach was used. Participants completed a story in response to a hypothetical stem that described a healthcare recipient (and, in some instances, carer) developing a good relationship with a new healthcare provider. Stories were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.ParticipantsParticipants were 35 healthcare recipients and 37 carers (n = 72 total).ResultsParticipants' stories were shaped by an overarching discourse that seeking help from new providers can elicit a range of unwanted emotions for both recipients and carers (e.g., anxiety, fear, dread). These unwanted emotions were experienced in relation to recipients' presenting health problems as well as their anticipated interactions with providers. Specifically, recipient and carer characters were fearful that providers would dismiss their concerns and judge them for deciding to seek help. Good relationships were seen to develop when healthcare providers worked to relieve or minimise these unwanted emotions, ensuring healthcare recipients and carers felt comfortable and at ease with the provider and the encounter. Participants positioned healthcare providers as primarily responsible for relieving recipients' and carers' unwanted emotions, which was achieved via four approaches: (1) easing into the encounter, (2) demonstrating interest in and understanding of recipients' presenting problems, (3) validating recipients' presenting problems and (4) enabling and respecting recipient choice. Participants' stories also routinely oriented to temporality, positioning relationships within recipients' and carers' wider care networks and biographical and temporal contexts.ConclusionThe findings expand our understanding of professional caregiving relationships beyond dyadic, static conceptualisations. Specifically, the findings suggest that high‐quality relationships might be achieved via a set of core healthcare provider behaviours that can be employed across disciplinary, context and condition‐specific boundaries. In turn, this provides a basis to support interprofessional education and multidisciplinary healthcare delivery, enabling different healthcare disciplines, specialties, and teams to work from the same understanding of what is required to develop high‐quality relationships.Patient or Public ContributionThe findings are based on stories from 72 healthcare recipient and carer participants, providing rich insight into their conceptualisations of high‐quality professional caregiving relationships.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cited by 3 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. The magic ingredient;British Journal of General Practice;2024-07-25

2. Care biography: A concept analysis;Nursing Philosophy;2024-07

3. Reflections on ‘common’ genetic medical history questions: Time to examine the what, why, and how;Patient Education and Counseling;2024-05

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