What Does the Staff Think?: Factors Associated With Clinical Staff Perceptions of What Constitutes High-Quality Dying and Death at a Tertiary Pediatric Hospital

The perspective of professional caregivers working in generalist palliative care on 'good dying': An integrative review

In today's industrial societies, many people die receiving professional care. Although specialist palliative and hospice care have often been identified as ideal care approaches to promote good dying, more people die receiving generalist palliative care. This integrative review examines how professional caregivers providing generalist palliative care in hospitals, nursing or private homes define good dying. Furthermore, through comparative analysis of existing empirical studies, it explores conceptual aspects in researching good dying that better reflect the social complexity of this phenomenon. Three databases (Scopus, MEDLINE, and CINAHL) were searched for peer-reviewed studies published between January 2000 and April 2020. Studies were selected if they presented original empirical findings from qualitative or quantitative studies on the perspective of professional caregivers in generalist palliative care (nurses, physicians, surgeons, clergy, and other staff) on good dying or related concepts (e.g., good death, dignity in dying, or quality of life at the end of life). 42 studies were included in the review. They identified good dying as expected, accepted and prepared dying, as free from pain and suffering, as socially embedded, as being at peace with one's life and situation, as supported with individualised and holistic care, as based upon professional cooperation and communication, and as in a peaceful and private environment. The paper concludes that the perspective of professional caregivers in generalist palliative care shares many elements of good dying with societal and specialist palliative care discourses around good dying. Through comparing the different studies, the review found that studies that explicated who benefitted from ideals and practices of good dying, questioned the dichotomous categorisation of good/bad dying, or discussed the compatibility of elements of good dying, provided more nuanced perspectives on this topic. Thus, the review calls for a more systematic analysis of these aspects in research of good dying.

Patients' Dying Process From the Point of View of Family and Hospice Team: A Qualitative Exploration of Family Member and Hospice Team Experiences With Hospice in Korea

The aims of this study is to analyze the experiences of family members and hospice teams regarding hospice care in Korea where culture and institution for well-dying is in the early stage. The study was conducted through in-depth interviews based on the grounded theory method. The participants were 12 individuals, 5 family members and 7 individuals from the hospice team. 133 concepts, 34 subcategories, and 11 categories were derived. The core phenomenon was "maintaining balance by becoming a ballast in the journey toward death". From the analysis of paradigm model, this phenomenon was caused to the medical-centered hospice service, the negative social and cultural context of death. It was strategically responded to the scope and contents of the interventions by the hospice team. Systematic, policy, and implementation plans that could improve the quality of hospice care were discussed.

Palliative Care Patients’ Quality of Dying and Circumstances of Death—Comparison of Informal Caregivers’ and Health-Care Professionals’ Estimates

Background:

Patient-reported outcomes are usually considered to be the gold standard assessment. However, for the assessment of quality of dying and death, ratings of informal caregivers (ICGs) or health-care professionals (HCPs) must be considered for ethical and methodological reasons. This article aims to present results of ICGs’ and HCPs’ estimates of the questionnaire, quality of dying and death (QoDD) on patients who died in PCUs and to compare the level of agreement of both ratings/raters.

Methods:

The parent validation study to this analysis assessed the ICG and HCP versions of the QoDD. Descriptive statistics are presented for each item in both versions. T tests for the estimation of differences between ICG and HCP were performed. Case-related absolute differences between estimates were analyzed regarding the extent of agreement and deviation.

Results:

Two hundred fifteen matched ICG and HCP ratings were analyzed. The ratings in all 6 QoDD dimensions were high; single items scored low. Mean absolute difference between both ratings was 0.33 (standard deviation [SD]: 3.08; median 0.05) on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale and ranges between −8.24 (higher rating of ICGs compared to HCPs) and 9.33 (higher rating of HCPs compared to ICGs).

Conclusions:

The findings appear to show a high satisfaction with quality of dying and death as rated by ICGs and HCPs, but we suspect this might be indicative of a methodological challenge, that is, a ceiling effect in both assessments. Single low scoring items may provide important clues for improvement in end-of-life care. Although descriptive data show comparable mean values and standard deviations, the actual congruence of ratings is low. In summary, replacing one rating by another cannot be recommended.