The nature of, and reasons for, ‘inappropriate’ hospitalisations among patients with palliative care needs: A qualitative exploration of the views of generalist palliative care providers

Author:

Gott Merryn1,Frey Rosemary1,Robinson Jackie2,Boyd Michal3,O’Callaghan Anne4,Richards Naomi5,Snow Barry6

Affiliation:

1. School of Nursing, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

2. Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand; School of Nursing, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

3. Waitemata District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand; Freemasons’ Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; School of Nursing, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

4. Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand; Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

5. School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

6. Adult Health Service Group, Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand; School of Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract

Background: Recent studies have concluded that there is significant potential to reduce the extent of ‘inappropriate’ hospitalisations among patients with palliative care needs. However, the nature of, and reasons for, inappropriate hospitalisations within a palliative care context is under-explored. Aim: To explore the opinions of ‘generalist’ palliative care providers regarding the nature of, and reasons for, inappropriate admissions among hospital inpatients with palliative care needs. Design: Qualitative study with data collected via individual interviews and focus groups. Setting/participants: Participants (n = 41) comprised ‘generalist’ palliative care providers working in acute hospital and community settings. Setting: One District Health Board in an urban area of New Zealand. Results: The majority of participants discussed ‘appropriateness’ in relation to their own understanding of a good death, which typically involved care being delivered in a ‘homely’ environment, from known people. Differing attitudes among cultural groups were also evident. The following reasons for inappropriate admissions were identified: family carers being unable to cope, the ‘rescue culture’ of modern medicine, the financing and availability of community services and practice within aged residential care. Conclusions: On the basis of our findings, we recommend a shift to the term ‘potentially avoidable’ admission rather than ‘inappropriate admission’. We also identify an urgent need for debate regarding the role of the acute hospital within a palliative care context. Interventions to reduce hospital admissions within this population must target societal understandings of death and dying within the context of medicalisation, as well as take into account cultural and ethnic diversity in attitudes, if they are to be successful.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,General Medicine

Reference40 articles.

1. Broad J, Gott M, Boyd M, Where people die: an international comparison of the use of hospitals and residential aged care at the end of life. Int J Public Health, http://www.springerlink.com/content/cv2110828m48nn67/?MUD=MP Epub ahead of print 15 August 2012. DOI: 10.1007/s00038-012-0394-5.

2. The Palliative Care Council of New Zealand. National health needs assessment for palliative care. Report for palliative care needs assessment. http://www.cancercontrolnz.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Needs%20Assesst%20Report.pdf, June 2011. Wellington, New Zealand: Cancer Control New Zealand.

3. NHS End of Life Care Programme. What do we know now that we didn’t know a year ago? New intelligence on end of life care in England, http://www.endoflifecare-intelligence.org.uk/resources/publications/what_we_know_now.aspx (8 May 2012, accessed 10 December 2012).

4. Hospital and emergency department use in the last year of life: a baseline for future modifications to end‐of‐life care

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