The lived experience of dying for hospitalized patients waiting to be transferred to a palliative care unit
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background:Transitions in clinical care are often associated with changes in services and with care goals (Davidson, Dracup, Phillips, Padilla and Daly, 2007; Naylor, 2000). Although the transition from curative care to palliative care is recognized as a critical moment in the illness journey little is known about this potentially complicated transition (Schofield, Carey, Love, Nehill & Wein, 2006). More specifically, we understand little about the experience of hospitalized patients moving from acute care to palliative care. It is also not clear whether or not the notion of transition fully or accurately captures the lived experience of dying for individuals in this context. This interpretive phenomenology, influenced by the philosophy of Heidegger (1962) and the methodology of Benner (1984; 1994) sought to understand the lived experience of dying for hospitalized patients on acute care units waiting to be transferred to a palliative care ward for end of life care. Methods:An interpretive phenomenology was conducted in a tertiary care hospital situated in a multi-cultural urban center. Eleven participants were recruited and a total of 16 interviews were conducted. Participants were dying patients hospitalized on acute care wards waiting for a transfer to a palliative care unit within the same institution for end of life care. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews, observations captured in field notes and a reflexive journal. Data analysis was an iterative process in which interpretations occurred within the context of the hermeneutic circle and which emerged through frequent writing and immersion with the data. During the writing process and review of transcripts, development of summaries and phenomenological accounts, three parallel strategies were employed to guide the interpretive process: exemplars, paradigm cases and thematic analysis (Benner, Tanner & Chesla, 1996).Findings:The structure of the analysis was framed using the concepts of thrownness and situatedness (Withy, 2011) and are organized using the concepts of the situatedness of a contextual background, of a particular life and of the ‘here and now’. The main findings of this inquiry are 1) participants transitioned to an awareness that they were dying prior to being told that they were by their health care providers. The impending transfer to the palliative care unit was not critical for this awareness; 2) participants’ awareness of their own finitude was an experience imbued with a profound sense of aloneness; 3) the impending move to the palliative care unit was considered an opportunity for hope. At the same time, responses to the actual transfer to the palliative care unit were in part influenced by notions of control; 4) religious and spiritual beliefs offered hope and comfort but also had the potential to engender feelings of aloneness, and those participants who described themselves as non-religious found comfort in rationality and secular spirituality. Both religious and non-religious participants appear to find comfort in relinquishing control to a higher being; 5) an appreciation of embodiment is key to understanding the construct of dignity in the dying person.Conclusions:The findings of this inquiry offer a new way of understanding the lived experience of dying for hospitalized patients waiting to be transferred to a palliative care unit. These findings offer direction for future research and consideration for current theory. Clinical implications for nurses working with dying patients in acute care and palliative care settings are explored along with implications for nursing leaders and policy makers. Clinical implications for nurses could include supporting patients during the anticipated move to palliative care, creating a safe space to be with patients in their aloneness, and educating and supporting nurses to find ways of understanding and addressing the potential spiritual needs of patients.
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 | 0,006 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,017 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».