4.1 Article

Nurses' models of spiritual care: A cross-sectional survey of American nurses

期刊

PALLIATIVE & SUPPORTIVE CARE
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1478951523000676

关键词

Nurse; Spiritual care models; Phenomenography; Competence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to describe the different ways that nurses understand their spiritual care role. Four qualitatively different understandings were found: active management of the patient's experience, responsive facilitation of patient's wishes, accompaniment on the patient's dying journey, and empowering co-action with the patient. These findings can be used to assess and develop competence in spiritual care.
ObjectivesDespite there being many models for how spiritual care should be provided, the way nurses actually provide spiritual care often differs from these models. Based on the premise that the way a person enacts their work role is related to how they understand that role, this study aims to describe the qualitatively different ways that nurses understand their spiritual care role. MethodsA convenience sample of 66 American nurses completed an anonymous, online questionnaire about what spiritual care means for them and what they generally do to provide spiritual care. Their responses were analyzed phenomenographically. ResultsFour qualitatively different ways of understanding emerged: active management of the patient's experience, responsive facilitation of patient's wishes, accompaniment on the patient's dying journey, and empowering co-action with the patient. Each understanding was found to demonstrate a specific combination of 5 attributes that described the spiritual care role: nurse directivity, the cues used for spiritual assessment, and the nurse's perception of intimacy, the patient, and the task. Significance of resultsThe findings of this study may explain why nurses vary in their spiritual care role and can be used to assess and develop competence in spiritual care.

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