4.1 Article

Emotional Distress and Compassionate Responses in Palliative Care Decision-Making Consultations

期刊

JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 579-584

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2013.0551

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Palliative Care Research Center
  2. Greenwall Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Seriously ill hospitalized patients and their loved ones are frequently faced with complex treatment decisions laden with expressions of emotional distress during palliative care (PC) consultations. Little is known about these emotional expressions or the compassionate responses providers make and how common these are in PC decision-making conversations. Objectives: To describe the types and frequency of emotional distress that patients and loved ones express and how providers respond to these emotions during PC decision-making consultations with seriously ill hospitalized patients. Methods: We used a quantitative descriptive approach to analyze 71 audio-recorded inpatient PC decision-making consultations for emotional distress and clinicians' responses to those emotions using reliable and established methods. Results: A total of 69% of conversations contained at least one expression of emotional distress. The per-conversation frequency of expressions of emotional distress ranged from 1 to 10. Anxiety/fear were the most frequently encountered emotions (48.4%) followed by sadness (35.5%) and anger/frustration (16.1%). More than half of the emotions related to the patient's feelings (53.6%) and 41.9% were related to the loved ones' own emotions. The majority of emotions were moderate in intensity (65.8%) followed by strong (20.7%) and mild (13.5%). Clinicians responded to a majority of emotions with a compassionate response (75.7%) followed by those with medical content (21.9%) and very few were ignored (1.3%). Conclusions: Expressions of emotional distress are common during PC consultations and are usually met with compassionate responses by the clinician.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据