IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v21y2012i19pt20p2975-2984.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nurse–physician communication concerning artificial nutrition or hydration (ANH) in patients with dementia: a qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Els Bryon
  • Chris Gastmans
  • Bernadette Dierckx de Casterlé

Abstract

Aims and objectives. To explore nurses’ experiences with nurse–physician communication during artificial nutrition or hydration (ANH) decision‐making in hospitalised patients with dementia. Background. Artificial nutrition or hydration decision‐making often occurs in patients with dementia. Effective communication between professionals is extremely challenging in this population, because these patients are unable to communicate their treatment wishes. Design. Qualitative interview design. Methods. Between April 2008 and June 2009, we conducted 21 interviews with nurses from nine different hospitals geographically spread throughout Flanders (Belgium). Interviews were audiotaped and later transcribed. Data processing involved (1) simultaneous and systematic data collection and analysis, (2) constant forwards–backwards wave, (3) continuous dialogue with the data and (4) interactive team processes. Results. The interviews showed that communication with physicians is the central instrument the nurses used in their attempts to realise their perception of ‘the best possible care’. From the nurses’ perspective, we distinguished three mutually connected factors that affected the effectiveness of nurse–physician communication during artificial nutrition or hydration decision‐making: the physicians’ attitude towards the nurses, the nurses’ attitude towards the physicians and the forms of communication used by the nurses. The complex interaction between these three factors resulted in a range of nurses’ perceptions, varying from positive to negative. The direction of their perceptions depended on the extent to which they succeeded or failed to use nurse–physician communication as an instrument to realise the ‘best care’. Conclusion. Nurse–physician communication was the most important instrument determining whether nurses succeeded or failed to actively act as a patient’s representative and whether nurses achieved the best possible care in co‐operation with physicians. Relevance to clinical practice. To reach optimal care and nurse job satisfaction, nurse–physician communication during artificial nutrition or hydration decision‐making should be an open dialogue characterised by mutual respect and understanding.

Suggested Citation

  • Els Bryon & Chris Gastmans & Bernadette Dierckx de Casterlé, 2012. "Nurse–physician communication concerning artificial nutrition or hydration (ANH) in patients with dementia: a qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(19pt20), pages 2975-2984, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:21:y:2012:i:19pt20:p:2975-2984
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.04029.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.04029.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.04029.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tit‐Chai Tan & Huaqiong Zhou & Michelle Kelly, 2017. "Nurse–physician communication – An integrated review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 3974-3989, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:21:y:2012:i:19pt20:p:2975-2984. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.