Medical decision-making in hospices from the viewpoint of physicians: results from two qualitative studies

Author:

Walker Andreas,Breitsameter Christof

Abstract

Abstract Background Physicians who practice in a hospice are responsible for working with patients and nursing staff to develop a medication plan, monitor symptoms and pain, and adjust medication if necessary. In inpatient hospices in Germany, physicians are part of a multi-professional approach, but not part of the hospice team itself. However, there is no, or hardly any, literature on medical practice in a hospice setting. Therefore, we wanted to know how physicians reflect upon their role in hospice within a multi-professional setting, how they communicate with patients, relatives, nursing staff and other physicians, and what the limitations of these communication processes are. Methods By means of two qualitative studies we explored how physicians classify their activities as part of the hospice organization. The study design followed Grounded Theory procedures. Results The physicians named an appropriate interpretation of the patient's wishes as the challenge of everyday practice which can lead to differences of perspective with those involved: with nursing staff, who would prefer an alternative form of medication, with relatives, who do not accept that the patient refuses nutrition, with other physicians, who have a different opinion about appropriate treatment. For physicians, this is all the more challenging as communication with the patient becomes increasingly uncertain due to the patient’s illness. Again and again, medical measures have to be negotiated on several levels. Conclusion Multi-professional organizations that have to deal with differences in perspective handle them by clearly distinguishing areas of responsibility, an aspect that physicians also claim for themselves. For physicians the question arises repeatedly whether they have correctly interpreted the wishes of the patient. They must continuously reassure themselves of the patient's wishes and this presents them with communication challenges not only with the patient, but also with the nursing staff and relatives and, more recently, with their colleagues.

Funder

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

General Medicine

Reference22 articles.

1. Radbruch L, Payne S. Board of Directors of the EAPC. White Paper on standards and norms for hospice and palliative care in Europe: part 1. Recommendations from the European Association for Palliative Care. Eur J Palliative Care. 2009;16(6):278–89.

2. Marquard S, Garthaus M, Wendelstein B, et al. Konflikte am Lebensende. Erfahrungen in Pflegebeziehungen aus der Sicht schwer kranker und sterbender Menschen. Zeitschrift für Palliativmedizin. 2018;19(2):110–5.

3. Lindena G, Leiske M, Neuwöhner K, et al. Die Mitarbeiter- und Angehörigenzufriedenheit mit der Palliativversorgung Sterbender – Befragung im Rahmen der Hospiz- und Palliativ-Erfassung HOPE. Zeitschrift für Palliativmedizin. 2017;18(01):36–43.

4. von Schmude A, Kern M. Zufriedenheit von Mitarbeitern in Hospizarbeit und Palliativversorgung – eine quantitative Studie. Zeitschrift für Palliativmedizin. 2017;18(06):305–9.

5. Gray D, Hood H, Haworth G, Smyth C, et al. Hospital doctors’ experiences of caring for dying patients. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2018;48(4):299–303.

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