An examination of the perspectives of Canadian hospice workers regarding medical aid/ assistance in dying
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background:The modern hospice movement and assisted dying both aim to provide end-of-life patients with a good death. The modern hospice movement has historically opposed assisted dying. It has asserted that its conceptualization of a good death provides patients and families with benefits at the end-of-life while avoiding the harms of assisted dying. As such, hospice communities have been hesitant to integrate assisted dying into the care they provide, often citing conflict with its commitment to neither hasten nor prolong death. However, the good deaths offered by hospice communities and assisted dying have the common aim of providing patients with control over the dying process, and are rooted in the values of patient dignity and the relief of suffering. Proponents of assisted dying and some end-of-life scholars have argued that given these common aims and values, some form of co-operation between hospice communities and assisted dying could improve patient choice for a dignified death. In Canada, the 2016 legalization of medical aid or assistance in dying (MAID) has created a new reality for Canadian hospices in which MAID is now a healthcare option for many end-of-life patients, including for those in hospice care. Literature on hospices in jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal highlighted that legalization has created new challenges for these hospices to navigate, many of which have arisen from the shared and conflicting aims and values between the hospice community and assisted dying. There have been no academic studies exclusively examining how the legalization of MAID has impacted Canadian hospices, including how shared aims and values between the two could create opportunities for these hospices. Aim:This study was designed to understand the new reality in which Canadian hospices find themselves by identifying the challenges and opportunities hospice workers think MAID brings to a hospice.Methods:This qualitative descriptive study included four focus groups and four semi structured interviews with Canadian hospice workers at two hospice sites, one in Alberta and another in Quebec. The Alberta hospice site allows MAID, while the Quebec one does not. A total of 23 staff members were recruited, from professions including managers, physicians, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and resident care aides. Participants were asked to discuss the opportunities and challenges MAID brings to hospice practice. Using the theoretical framework of hospice as a place as a sensitizing concept, thematic analysis was used to generate themes that explained these challenges and opportunities. Results:We constructed five themes: 1) The availability of MAID on-site challenges a hospice’s identity; 2) Hospice staff struggle to understand patient interest in MAID given staff beliefs in the abilities of hospice care; 3) The availability of MAID for hospice patients results in challenging clinical situations involving hospice patients and families; 4) Differing hospice responses to the legalization of MAID creates unique challenges; and 5) Allowing MAID on-site provides opportunities for a hospice to improve the end-of-life experience of patients and families.Discussion and Conclusions:The results of this study provide insight into the new situations and possibilities faced by Canadian hospices since the legalization of MAID. These results, in combination with existing literature, suggest that for hospices navigating their new reality, allowing MAID on-site with the understanding that it is not a part of hospice care could be beneficial to patients, while also allowing a hospice to maintain its unique identity. It is hoped that the results of this study will provide guidance to Canadian hospices, while also laying the groundwork for future research
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 | 0,012 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,075 | 0,018 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 ».