Staff and relatives' perspectives on the aggressive behaviour of older people with dementia in residential care: a qualitative study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Accessible summary Staff and relative perspectives on patient aggression in dementia care units are seriously under researched in the UK. We interviewed a number of nursing staff and relatives in four UK care homes in the North West of England. Using a combined approach of one‐to‐one interviews (for staff) and focus groups (for relatives) we explored their views as to the reasons for and ways of responding to aggressive behaviour. Using thematic analysis we found similar results from both staff and relatives and as such their views were categorized into two broad areas: causation and management. The results indicated that staff in the participating units embraced a person‐centred approach to aggression management. They predominantly respond to aggressive incidents with interpersonal strategies, such as distraction as opposed to medication or restraint. Relatives were clear in their perceptions of aggression as an interpersonal challenge, which is compounded or mediated by the illness of dementia. Consequently they were positive in their views of staff using non‐coercive interventions. Abstract Staff and relative perspectives on patient aggression in dementia care units are seriously under researched in theUK. Any work that has been conducted has relied upon quantitative studies. Qualitative research on aggression management in older peoples services are rare. In‐depth views that can offer insights into causation and management strategies are therefore under represented in the literature. In order to investigate this issue further we interviewed a number of nursing staff and relatives in fourUKcare homes in theNorthWest ofEngland. Using a combined approach of one‐to‐one interviews (for staff) and focus groups (for relatives) we explored their views as to the reasons for and ways of responding to aggressive behaviour. This was part of a larger study reported upon elsewhere. Using thematic analysis we found similar results from both staff and relatives and as such their views were categorized into two broad areas: causation and management. In regards to causation we noted three sub‐themes; internal, external and interpersonal factors which are further subdivided in the paper and for management two broad categories: the compassionate approach and ‘don't go in strong’. The results indicated that staff in the participating units embraced a person‐centred approach to aggression management. They predominantly respond to aggressive incidents with interpersonal strategies, such as distraction as opposed to medication or restraint. Overall they adopt a person centre approach to patient care. Relatives were clear in their perceptions of aggression as an interpersonal challenge, which is compounded or mediated by the illness of dementia. Consequently they were positive in their views of staff using non‐coercive interventions. While the results of this and our earlier study are promising suggesting a less invasive approach to this aspect of dementia care, given the limitations of a small sample, more research of a similar nature is warranted. Findings from multidimensional studies can then provide a sounder basis for health and social care education, and person centred informed practice to reduce the incidence of aggression through preventative strategies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».