4.0 Article

Underneath the White Coat Risk and Protective Factors for Palliative Care Providers in Their Daily Work

期刊

JOURNAL OF HOSPICE & PALLIATIVE NURSING
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 108-114

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/NJH.0000000000000623

关键词

distress; health care professionals; Grounded Theory; moral distress; palliative care; qualitative; risk and protective factors

类别

资金

  1. Ricerca Corrente, funding scheme of Ministry of Health, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Palliative care practice is associated with risk factors linked to end-of-life, chronicity, personal, interpersonal, and work characteristics, as well as with protective factors, but how these are perceived by the health care providers themselves is not clear. This article aims to elaborate a theoretical framework explaining the risk and protective factors for palliative care providers in their daily practice. Nineteen providers (16 nurses, 3 physicians) working in a palliative care unit of a clinical-research institute in Northern Italy were interviewed. A Grounded Theory qualitative approach guided the data collection and analysis. From the interviews, 28 codes, subsequently organized into 11 interconnected categories, emerged. They described both stressors (emotion management regarding death/dying, conflicts, communication and relationship with patients/caregivers, discrepancies between patients' and caregivers' needs, communication of poor diagnosis/prognosis, decision making about treatment, and real-life and work interference) and protective factors (social support, positive approach and value of past experience, recognized value of/passion toward professional work, work-family balance). Experiencing these elements as positive or negative depends on the professionals' point of view, as well as their past and present experience. Understanding what dealing with life-limiting illnesses means may suggest tailored interventions to improve professionals' well-being by fostering the protective elements and combatting the risk factors.

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

4.0
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