Kaye L W, Davitt J K
Graduate School of Social Work & Social Research, Bryn Mawr College, PA 19010-1697, USA.
Hosp J. 1998;13(3):1-20. doi: 10.1080/0742-969x.1998.11882897.
This study examined the degree to which national samples of hospice and non-hospice home health care agencies (N = 154) present different organizational profiles and grapple with different patient capacity issues when delivering technology-enhanced services to incapacitated elderly. Hospice agencies employ more part-time staff, make more in-home visits, see more high-tech patients, and provide a wider range of high-tech services than non-hospice providers. Factor analysis of index data confirms that hospice staff have more experience (p < .05) addressing the legal/ethical dimensions of care. Specifically, hospices deal with "right to die" issues more often (p < .05), but not with "delegation of authority" and "patient rights" issues. More agencies of both types have policies for handling decisions about life-sustaining treatment than for dealing with patients having questionable decision-making capacity. Needed agency policies for dealing with limited patient decision-making capacity in hospice and non-hospice home care agencies are reviewed.
本研究调查了临终关怀和非临终关怀家庭保健机构的全国样本(N = 154)在为失能老年人提供技术增强型服务时呈现出不同组织概况并应对不同患者容量问题的程度。与非临终关怀机构相比,临终关怀机构雇佣更多兼职员工,进行更多家访,接待更多高科技患者,并提供更广泛的高科技服务。对指标数据的因子分析证实,临终关怀机构的工作人员在处理护理的法律/伦理层面方面经验更丰富(p < .05)。具体而言,临终关怀机构更频繁地处理“死亡权利”问题(p < .05),但不处理“权力委托”和“患者权利”问题。与处理决策能力存疑的患者相比,这两类机构中更多机构制定了处理维持生命治疗决策的政策。本文对临终关怀和非临终关怀家庭护理机构处理患者决策能力受限所需的机构政策进行了综述。