"Fighting the system": Families caring for ventilator-dependent children and adults with complex health care needs at home

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>An increasing number of individuals with complex health care needs now receive life-long and life-prolonging ventilatory support at home. Family members often take on the role of primary caregivers. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of families giving advanced care to family members dependent on home mechanical ventilation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using qualitative research methods, a Grounded Theory influenced approach was used to explore the families' experiences. A total of 15 family members with 11 ventilator-dependent individuals (three children and eight adults) were recruited for 10 in-depth interviews.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The core category, "fighting the system," became the central theme as family members were asked to describe their experiences. In addition, we identified three subcategories, "lack of competence and continuity", "being indispensable" and "worth fighting for". This study revealed no major differences in the families' experiences that were dependent on whether the ventilator-dependent individual was a child or an adult.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These findings show that there is a large gap between family members' expectations and what the community health care services are able to provide, even when almost unlimited resources are available. A number of measures are needed to reduce the burden on these family members and to make hospital care at home possible. In the future, the gap between what the health care can potentially provide and what they can provide in real life will rapidly increase. New proposals to limit the extremely costly provision of home mechanical ventilation in Norway will trigger new ethical dilemmas that should be studied further.</p

Home mechanical ventilation and specialised health care in the community: Between a rock and a hard place

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Home mechanical ventilation probably represents the most advanced and complicated type of medical treatment provisioned outside a hospital setting. The aim of this study was both to explore the challenges experienced by health care professionals in community health care services when caring for patients dependent on home mechanical ventilation, continual care and highly advanced technology, and their proposed solutions to these challenges.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using qualitative research methods, a grounded theory influenced approach was used to explore the respondents' experiences and proposed solutions. A total of 34 multidisciplinary respondents from five different communities in Norway were recruited for five focus groups.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The core category in our findings was what health care professionals in community health care services experience as "between a rock and a hard place," when working with hospitals, family members, and patients. We further identified four subcategories, "to be a guest in the patient's home," "to be accepted or not," "who decides," and "how much can we take." The main background for these challenges seems to stem from patients living and receiving care in their private homes, which often leads to conflicts with family members. These challenges can have a negative effect on both the community health caregivers' work environment and the community health service's provision of professional care.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study has identified that care of individuals with complex needs and dependent on home mechanical ventilation presents a wide range of immense challenges for community health care services. The results of this study point towards a need to define the roles of family caregivers and health care professionals and also to find solutions to improve their collaboration. The need to improve the work environment for caregivers directly involved in home-care also exists. The study also shows the need for more dialogue concerning eligibility requirements, rights, and limitations of patients in the provision and use of ventilatory support in private homes.</p

Important outcomes of moral case deliberation: A Euro-MCD field survey of healthcare professionals' priorities

Background There is a lack of empirical research regarding the outcomes of such clinical ethics support methods as moral case deliberation (MCD). Empirical research in how healthcare professionals perceive potential outcomes is needed in order to evaluate the value and effectiveness of ethics support; and help to design future outcomes research. The aim was to use the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcome Instrument (Euro-MCD) instrument to examine the importance of various MCD outcomes, according to healthcare professionals, prior to participation. Methods A North European field survey among healthcare professionals drawn from 73 workplaces in a variety of healthcare settings in the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The Euro-MCD instrument was used. Results All outcomes regarding the domains of moral reflexivity, moral attitude, emotional support, collaboration, impact at organisational level and concrete results, were perceived as very or quite important by 76%-97% of the 703 respondents. Outcomes regarding collaboration and concrete results were perceived as most important. Outcomes assessed as least important were mostly about moral attitude. Better interactions with patient/family' emerged as a new domain from the qualitative analysis. Dutch respondents perceived most of the outcomes as significantly less important than the Scandinavians, especially regarding emotional support. Furthermore, men, those who were younger, and physician-respondents scored most of the outcomes as statistically significantly less important compared with the other respondents. Conclusions The findings indicate a need for a broad instrument such as the Euro-MCD. Outcomes related to better interactions between professionals and patients must also be included in the future. The empirical findings raise the normative question of whether outcomes that were perceived as less important, such as moral reflexivity and moral attitude outcomes, should still be included. In the future, a combination of empirical findings (practice) and normative reflection (theories) will contribute to the revision of the instrument