A concept analysis of dignity-protective continence care for care dependent older people in long-term care settings.
Concept analysis
Continence care
Dignity
Dignity-protective continence care
Long-term care
Person-centred care
Journal
BMC geriatrics
ISSN: 1471-2318
Titre abrégé: BMC Geriatr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968548
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 07 2020
29 07 2020
Historique:
received:
20
04
2020
accepted:
23
07
2020
entrez:
31
7
2020
pubmed:
31
7
2020
medline:
22
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although codes of conduct, guidelines and standards call for healthcare practitioners to protect patients' dignity, there are widespread concerns about a lack of attention to the dignity of older people who need assistance with toileting, incontinence or bladder or bowel care in health or social care settings that provide long-term care. Incontinence and care dependence threatens patient dignity. The aim of this research was to explore, describe and explain the concept of dignity as it relates to continence care for older people requiring long-term care. The first four steps of Rodgers evolutionary method of concept analysis were followed. First, a comprehensive and systematic search of databases and key guidelines about continence care was undertaken to identify empirical research about dignity and continence care in older people in facilities that provide permanent residential or inpatient care of older people for day-to-day living. Data were extracted on the authors, date, sample, country of origin, and key definitions, attributes, contexts and consequences from each included record. Findings were inductively analysed and grouped according to whether they were the key attributes and antecedents of dignity in relation to continence care or the consequences of undignified continence care. Of 625 articles identified, 18 were included in the final analysis. Fifty individual attributes were identified that were categorised in 6 domains (respect, empathy, trust, privacy, autonomy and communication). A further 15 were identified that related to the environment (6 physical and 9 social). Key consequences of undignified continence care were also identified and categorised into 3 levels of impact (resident/family member, staff or organisation). This research resulted in a conceptual understanding of dignity that can be used as a value or guiding principle in an ethic of care for older people who need assistance with toileting, incontinence or bladder or bowel care in long-term care settings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Although codes of conduct, guidelines and standards call for healthcare practitioners to protect patients' dignity, there are widespread concerns about a lack of attention to the dignity of older people who need assistance with toileting, incontinence or bladder or bowel care in health or social care settings that provide long-term care. Incontinence and care dependence threatens patient dignity. The aim of this research was to explore, describe and explain the concept of dignity as it relates to continence care for older people requiring long-term care.
METHODS
The first four steps of Rodgers evolutionary method of concept analysis were followed. First, a comprehensive and systematic search of databases and key guidelines about continence care was undertaken to identify empirical research about dignity and continence care in older people in facilities that provide permanent residential or inpatient care of older people for day-to-day living. Data were extracted on the authors, date, sample, country of origin, and key definitions, attributes, contexts and consequences from each included record. Findings were inductively analysed and grouped according to whether they were the key attributes and antecedents of dignity in relation to continence care or the consequences of undignified continence care.
RESULTS
Of 625 articles identified, 18 were included in the final analysis. Fifty individual attributes were identified that were categorised in 6 domains (respect, empathy, trust, privacy, autonomy and communication). A further 15 were identified that related to the environment (6 physical and 9 social). Key consequences of undignified continence care were also identified and categorised into 3 levels of impact (resident/family member, staff or organisation).
CONCLUSIONS
This research resulted in a conceptual understanding of dignity that can be used as a value or guiding principle in an ethic of care for older people who need assistance with toileting, incontinence or bladder or bowel care in long-term care settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32727481
doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01673-x
pii: 10.1186/s12877-020-01673-x
pmc: PMC7392826
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
266Références
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Oct 1;176(10):1557-1559
pubmed: 27479808
J Adv Nurs. 1989 Apr;14(4):330-5
pubmed: 2661622
J Clin Nurs. 2016 Sep;25(17-18):2528-41
pubmed: 27273341
Health Technol Assess. 2017 Aug;21(42):1-220
pubmed: 28805188
Nurs Ethics. 2013 Dec;20(8):861-80
pubmed: 23715554
J Holist Nurs. 2012 Mar;30(1):6-15
pubmed: 21772048
Accid Emerg Nurs. 2005 Oct;13(4):251-7
pubmed: 16298291
Int J Nurs Stud. 2016 Sep;61:136-41
pubmed: 27351830
J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2015 Apr 20;8:6
pubmed: 27350862
J Adv Nurs. 2007 Sep;59(6):635-43
pubmed: 17727405
Int J Older People Nurs. 2018 Jun;13(2):e12182
pubmed: 29218819
BMJ. 2003 Dec 20;327(7429):1419-20
pubmed: 14684633
Vital Health Stat 3. 2014 Jun;(36):1-33
pubmed: 24964267
Int J Nurs Pract. 2011 Aug;17(4):336-41
pubmed: 21781212
Scand J Caring Sci. 2012 Dec;26(4):761-72
pubmed: 22150795
Nurs Ethics. 2014 May;21(3):323-34
pubmed: 24077096
Nurs Stand. 2015 Oct 14;30(7):46-50
pubmed: 26463810
Health Soc Care Community. 2018 Jul;26(4):590-603
pubmed: 29516554
Geriatr Nurs. 2017 Nov - Dec;38(6):520-526
pubmed: 28442175
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 Jan;64(1):e1-7
pubmed: 26626408
Scand J Caring Sci. 2010 Dec;24 Suppl 1:21-31
pubmed: 21070310
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Jun;57(6):1099-1105.e3
pubmed: 30825511
Nurs Older People. 2002 Jun;14(4):19-21
pubmed: 12094515
J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2018 Apr 18;11:4
pubmed: 30258554
Int J Nurs Stud. 2004 Sep;41(7):735-44
pubmed: 15288796
Sch Inq Nurs Pract. 1996 Fall;10(3):253-77
pubmed: 9009821
Int J Nurs Stud. 2009 Jan;46(1):23-36
pubmed: 18790477
J Clin Nurs. 2018 Jun;27(11-12):2425-2437
pubmed: 29396885
BMC Public Health. 2013 Feb 18;13:150
pubmed: 23419015
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Sep;61(9):1473-81
pubmed: 23927875
Nurs Ethics. 2004 Nov;11(6):587-99
pubmed: 15597939
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2018 Jul;50(4):451-459
pubmed: 29689127
Nurs Ethics. 2006 Mar;13(2):130-46
pubmed: 16526148
BMC Geriatr. 2013 Aug 30;13:87
pubmed: 24119057
J Med Philos. 2007 Sep-Oct;32(5):483-94
pubmed: 17924273
Gerontologist. 2018 Jan 18;58(suppl_1):S10-S19
pubmed: 29361064
Soc Sci Med. 2002 Feb;54(3):433-43
pubmed: 11824919
Nurs Older People. 2009 Oct;21(8):22-9
pubmed: 19824522
J Adv Nurs. 2015 Jul;71(7):1464-83
pubmed: 25615885
Contemp Nurse. 2016 Apr-Jun;52(2-3):152-62
pubmed: 26058323
Int J Older People Nurs. 2010 Sep;5(3):235-44
pubmed: 20925707
J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Jun;21(3):410-8
pubmed: 25345355
J Med Ethics. 2003 Apr;29(2):103-8
pubmed: 12672891
Neurourol Urodyn. 2016 Mar;35(3):400-6
pubmed: 25597395
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2019 May;19(5):444-450
pubmed: 30811809
Int J Older People Nurs. 2020 Mar;15(1):e12275
pubmed: 31577389
Nurs Ethics. 2019 Nov-Dec;26(7-8):2016-2034
pubmed: 30799707
BMC Nurs. 2008 Jul 11;7:11
pubmed: 18620561
Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(2):167-78
pubmed: 11857671
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Sep 1;18(9):752-760.e1
pubmed: 28859818
Palliat Med. 2014 Mar 31;28(7):931-940
pubmed: 24685648
Int J Nurs Pract. 2001 Apr;7(2):119-25
pubmed: 11811314
Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 Mar;50(3):392-403
pubmed: 23083623
J Gerontol Nurs. 2018 Nov 1;44(11):10-19
pubmed: 30358886
Qual Health Res. 2003 Apr;13(4):543-56
pubmed: 12703415
Palliat Med. 2015 Sep;29(8):675-94
pubmed: 25802322
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Sep 1;18(9):750-751
pubmed: 28739491
Vital Health Stat 3. 2016 Feb;(38):x-xii; 1-105
pubmed: 27023287