4.6 Article

Older people and their care partners' experiences of living with mental health needs: a focus on collaboration and cooperation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING
卷 26, 期 1-2, 页码 103-114

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13381

关键词

collaboration; ethnography; gerontology; mental health; nursing practice; older people

类别

资金

  1. Norwegian Research Council [213296]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims and objectives. To explore how older people living at home with mental health needs and their care partners experienced the practices of collaboration within and between services. Background. Many healthcare strategies for community mental health services for older people espouse a person-centred approach or principles that are similar in focus. Design. This study reports on the first stage of a three-year action research project that focused on improving mental health services for older people and their care partners living at home. Data were collected through individual interviews. Twenty people were interviewed. Data were analysed continuously and in parallel with data collection for the identification of themes. Results. We focus on two particular themes, 'acknowledgement, recognition and respect' and 'the prestige hierarchy of mental illness in older people'. We highlight how older people and their care partners experience discontinuities in their everyday interactions with nurses and care workers and that this impacts on their experience of person-centred care. Conclusions. Older people with mental health needs and their care partners need high levels of energy to express their needs and have them met in a way that reflects principles of partnership working. Relevance to clinical practice. Nurses and care workers need to consider how 'tasks' can be used as a vehicle for creating emotional connections with service users. Service managers and leaders need to consider the implications of discontinuities in care on service user, care partner, nurses and care workers experiences.

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

4.6
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