Nurses’ perceived barriers to the delivery of person‐centred care to complex patients: A qualitative study using theoretical domains framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To determine nurses' perceived barriers to the delivery of person-centred care to complex patients with multiple chronic conditions in acute care settings. BACKGROUND: Complex patients have multiple physical and mental health problems, and their life is also greatly affected by sociocultural and economic determinants of health. These patients require person-centred care, but nurses often find it challenging to provide effective care to these patients due to their complex health needs. DESIGN: A descriptive qualitative design was used. The COREQ guidelines were followed for reporting. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 19 nurses in two hospitals. Data were analysed using deductive thematic analysis guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework, which entails 14 domains about factors affecting behaviours. RESULTS: The key barriers were identified under environmental context and resources, social influences, emotions, knowledge and skills domains. Deep-rooted social issues delay patients' health-seeking and nurses' abilities to understand patients' needs and discern appropriate care. Interpersonal hostility influenced nurse-patient-families interactions, and doctor-nurses conflicts affected collaborative efforts towards optimal care. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses' perceived barriers to care were intertwined with the deep-rooted social and cultural beliefs about nurses' image, patients' expectations and families' preference for home remedies over specialised nursing care. These barriers to person-centred care demonstrate an intricate interplay of personal, social and organisational issues and power struggles. Multifaceted implementation strategies targeting environmental context and resources, social influences, emotions, knowledge and skills domains may be beneficial to enable nurses to provide better person-centred care to complex patients. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Designing implementation facilitation teams, organising person-centred care grand rounds, and allocation of stress management resources to address hostility, social-cultural influences, and organisational barriers is essential. Nurses could focus on their self-awareness and collaborative skills to address emotional and interprofessional conflicts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".