Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research,University of Amsterdam,Amsterdam,The Netherlands.
Centre for Social Science and Global Health,University of Amsterdam,Amsterdam,The Netherlands.
Palliat Support Care. 2018 Aug;16(4):479-486. doi: 10.1017/S1478951517000645. Epub 2017 Jul 11.
ABSTRACTObjective:There are few studies on how professional caregivers apply the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) in nursing home care for people with dementia. Further, despite critiques in the United Kingdom, the LCP continues to be used in the Netherlands, while, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have been conducted since its implementation. The purpose of the present study was to analyze professional caregivers' experiences with the LCP in this context.
This article draws on an ethnographic study. Data collection was based on 4 months of ethnographic fieldwork in 2015 in 11 psychogeriatric units of a nursing home in a rural area of the Netherlands. Data collection included participant observation and 25 semistructured audiotaped interviews with specialist elderly care physicians, nursing staff, and a nurse practitioner.
We found that professional caregivers appreciate the LCP as a communication tool and as a reminder of care goals. However, the document was deemed too complicated and to cause duplication of work. It was also reported that the LCP did not cover the complexity of care needs that emerge in practice. Actual care needs were prioritized over the LCP, which calls its contribution into question.
Overall, the LCP does not match the context of dementia care in the nursing home. While it could be argued that the LCP does not intend to replace good care, its benefits as a reminder and a communication tool need continued consideration in relation to the amount of work it requires as a bureaucratic obligation.
摘要
关于专业护理人员在养老院痴呆症患者护理中应用利物浦照护路径(LCP)的研究较少。此外,尽管在英国受到批评,LCP 仍在荷兰使用,而据我们所知,自实施以来,尚无相关研究。本研究旨在分析专业护理人员在这种情况下使用 LCP 的经验。
本文借鉴了一项民族志研究。数据收集基于 2015 年在荷兰农村地区的一家养老院的 11 个精神科老年护理病房进行的为期 4 个月的民族志实地考察。数据收集包括参与观察和与老年护理专家医生、护理人员和护士从业者进行的 25 次半结构化录音访谈。
我们发现,专业护理人员将 LCP 视为一种沟通工具和护理目标的提醒。然而,该文件被认为过于复杂,导致工作重复。还报告称,LCP 没有涵盖实践中出现的护理需求的复杂性。实际的护理需求优先于 LCP,这对其贡献提出了质疑。
总体而言,LCP 与养老院痴呆症护理的背景不匹配。虽然可以说 LCP 不是为了取代良好的护理,但它作为提醒和沟通工具的好处需要在与作为官僚义务所需工作量相关的情况下继续考虑。