Valuing the individual - evaluating the Dignity Care Intervention.
Annika Söderman, Carina Werkander Harstäde, Maria Hälleberg Nyman, Karin Blomberg
Author Information
Annika Söderman: Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, 6233Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. ORCID
Carina Werkander Harstäde: Centre for Collaborative Palliative Care, Department of Health and Caring Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden.
Maria Hälleberg Nyman: Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden; Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, 6233Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Karin Blomberg: Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, 6233Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
BACKGROUND: Palliative care needs in older persons can endanger their dignity. To provide dignity-conserving care to older persons, the Swedish Dignity Care Intervention (DCI-SWE) can be used. The DCI-SWE is built on Chochinov's dignity model and the original version, developed and tested in UK and Scotland. AIM: To describe older persons' and their relatives' experiences of dignity and dignity-conserving care when using the DCI-SWE in municipal health care. RESEARCH DESIGN: A mixed method study with convergent parallel design. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: The DCI-SWE was used and evaluated in a Swedish municipality health care context. Older persons' (=17) dignity-related distress and quality of life were assessed after the intervention. Interviews with older persons (=10) and their relatives (=8) were analysed using thematic analysis. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The study followed the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the Regional Ethical Review Board in Uppsala, Sweden (Reg No. 2014/312) and the National Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Reg. No. Ö 10-2019). Informed consent was collected from older persons and their relatives. FINDINGS: The older persons' dignity-related distress did not significantly change over time ( 0.44) neither was their overall quality of life ( = .64). Only psychological quality of life was decreased significantly ( 0.01). The older persons and their relatives emphasized the importance of valuing the individual. CONCLUSIONS: The DCI-SWE provides a forum to talk about dignity issues, but relevant competence, continuity and resources are needed. Psychological care actions and health care professionals' communication skills training are important. To fully evaluate, the DCI-SWE a larger sample and validated instruments are necessary.
