4.1 Article

Parents' lived experience of living with and caring for their burn-injured child in a home setting

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17482631.2023.2216032

Keywords

Burns; home care; lived experience; needs; pediatric; parents; phenomenology; qualitative research; ricoeur; support

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to explore the experiences of parents caring for a burn-injured child at home after discharge. The findings revealed that parents often lacked necessary skills, they felt grief over the loss of the past and fear for the unknown future, and they longed for support and contact from healthcare professionals.
Purpose When a burn injured child is discharged from hospital to its home, the responsibility for the after-care treatment is transferred to the parent(s). A knowledge gap exists concerning how parents experience caring for a burn-injured child at home after discharge. The aim is to gain an in-depth understanding of parents' lived experience of living with and caring for their burn-injured child in a home setting. Methods Twenty-four parents of burn-injured children treated at a Norwegian burn centre were interviewed 74 to 195 days after the burn accident (June 2017 to November 2018). A phenomenological hermeneutic approach was chosen, using a Ricoeur-inspired textual in-depth analysis method. NVivo 12 Plus and COREQ were used. Results Four themes emerged. The parents' experienced feelings had been embodied and would stay forever. They felt left alone to continue the medical treatment at home without having the necessary skills. The parents grieved over the lost past and feared the unknown future. They longed to meet or be contacted by staff members who knew them and their life situation. Conclusions Healthcare professionals should see returning home as part of the course of illness and that right support during the hospital can prevent challenges after discharge.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available