Family caregiver views on patient‐centred care at the end of life
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient-centredness of community palliative care from the perspective of family members who were responsible for the care of a terminally ill family member. METHOD: A survey questionnaire was mailed to families of a deceased family member who had been designated as palliative and had received formal home care services in the central west region of the Province of Ontario, Canada. Respondents reported on service use in the last four weeks of life; the Client-Centred Care Questionnaire (CCCQ) was used to evaluate the extent to which care was patient-centred. The accessibility instrument was used to assess respondent perception of access to care. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for data analyses. RESULTS: Of the 243 potential participants, 111 (46.0%) family caregivers completed the survey questionnaire. On average, respondents reported that they used five different services during the last four weeks of the care recipient's life. When asked about programme accessibility, care was also perceived as largely accessible and responsive to patients' changing needs (M = 4.3 (SD = 1.04)]. Most respondents also reported that they knew what service provider to contact if they experienced any problems concerning the care of their family member. However, this service provider was not consistent among respondents. Most respondents were relatively positive about the patient-centred care they received. There were however considerable differences between some items on the CCCQ. Respondents tended to provide more negative ratings concerning practical arrangement and the organization of care: who was coming, how often and when. They also rated more negatively the observation that service providers were quick to say something was possible when it was not the case. Bivariate analyses found no significant differences in CCCQ or accessibility domain scores by caregiver age, care recipient age, income, education and caregiver sex. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centred care represents a service attribute that should be recognized as an important outcome to assess the quality of service delivery. This study demonstrates how this attribute can be evaluated in the provision of care.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».