4.4 Article

Staff perception of obstacles and facilitators when providing end of life care in critical care units of two teaching hospitals: A survey design

Journal

INTENSIVE AND CRITICAL CARE NURSING
Volume 53, Issue -, Pages 8-14

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2019.04.003

Keywords

Critical care; End-of-life care; Facilitators; Jordan; Obstacles; Nurses; Physicians

Categories

Funding

  1. University of Jordan, Jordan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine perceptions of Jordanian critical care staff about obstacles and facilitators to end-of-life care. Research methodology: The National Survey of Critical Care Nurses' Perceptions of End-of-Life Care was adapted and distributed to 143 critical care nurses (n = 110) and physicians (n = 33) in two Jordanian hospitals. Nurses and physicians completed items about perceived obstacles to end-of-life care. Nurses only completed items about facilitators to end-of-life care. Results: The overall response rate was 72.7% (n = 104/143). Seventy-six nurses (69.1%) and 28 physicians (84.5%) responded. Nurses and physicians agreed that the highest scoring obstacles were: family members who do not understand what life-saving measures mean' and the 'poor design of critical care units'. Other highly scoring obstacles related to clinicians' behaviours, characteristics and attitudes. Nurses perceived the highest scoring facilitator was 'family members who accepted that the patient was dying'. Conclusion: There is a need to further explore the issues underlying perceptions about clinicians' behaviours, which were perceived to be key barriers to quality end-of-life care and to find acceptable solutions that fit with Islamic culture. It is the first time that the survey has been used to gather perceptions of doctors and nurses in a non-western culture. Crown Copyright (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available