Research Article

Knowledge and views about coordinated individual planning from the perspective of active older adults

Ingela Jobe, Asa Engstrom and Birgitta Lindberg*

Published: 06/05/2019 | Volume 3 - Issue 1 | Pages: 017-026

Abstract

Background: Today’s older adults are often well informed and want to participate in decision-making processes. The coordinated individual planning process offers them active involvement in deciding and owning how their care will be managed.

Aim: The aim of the study was to explore active older adult's knowledge and views regarding coordinated individual planning

Methods: The study has an exploratory inductive approach. Five focus-group discussions were conducted with 40 participants from different organizations and associations. A qualitative interpretive description framework was used, and the analysis resulted in four unique themes.

Results: The four themes resulting from the analysis are collaboration and continuity, participation and involvement in decision, individual need for support, and access to information and service. Collaboration between different levels of the healthcare system and between professionals is crucial. Older adults wanted to be participating actors in their healthcare. They worried about the lack of continuity and thought that services were not responsive or did not meet individual's needs.

Conclusion: Older adults want their views and preferences to be taken into consideration, and they want to be actively engaged in the decision-making process regarding their care.

Read Full Article HTML DOI: 10.29328/journal.cjncp.1001012 Cite this Article

References

  1. von Bültzingslöwen I, Eliasson G, Sarvimäki A, Mattsson B, Hjortdahl P. Patients' views on interpersonal continuity in primary care: A sense of security based on four core foundations. Fam Pract. 2005; 23: 210–219. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2JVMn4k
  2. Papastavrou E, Efstathiou G, Tsangari H, Karlou C4, Patiraki E. et al. Patients’ decisional control over care: A cross‐national comparison from both the patients’ and nurses’ points of view. Scand J Caring Sci. 2016; 30: 26–36. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2WI9YLH
  3. Bernabeo E, Holmboe ES. Patients, providers, and systems need to acquire a specific set of competencies to achieve truly patient-centered care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013; 32: 250–258. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2WnbFPD
  4. Joseph-Williams N, Elwyn G, Edwards A. Knowledge is not power for patients: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2014; 94: 291–309. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2EVDdBV
  5. Walker MT. Adopting year of care planning. Practice Nursing. 2009; 20: 571–574. Ref.: http://bit.ly/2WntnCi
  6. World Health Organization. World report on ageing and health. World Health Organization. 2015; Ref.:  http://bit.ly/2Xr5Gp9
  7. Dunér A, Nordström M. Intentions and strategies among elderly people: Coping in everyday life. Journal of Aging Studies, 2005, 19 437–451. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2WjQCNM
  8. Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. Coordinated individual plan, SIP. Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. 2019. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2EN0mI8
  9. SFS 2017:612 Law (2017: 612) on collaboration on discharge from closed health and medical care. The collaboration at discharge from hospital Act]. Stockholm, Sweden: Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, the Swedish Government; 2017. 2019; Ref.: https://bit.ly/2HUY6Oo
  10. Min plan [My Plan]. Region. Norrbotten [Norrbotten County Council]. 2017. 2019. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2IjVFDQ
  11. Thorne S. Kirkham SR, O'Flynn-Magee K. The analytic challenge in interpretive description. Int J Qual Methods. 2004; 3: 1–11. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2IjXyAq
  12. Thorne S. Interpretive description: Qualitative research for applied practice. Taylor & Francis Group, New York, Routledge. 2016; Ref.: https://bit.ly/2ERuIGS
  13. Hunt MR. Strengths and challenges in the use of interpretive description: Reflections arising from a study of the moral experience of health professionals in humanitarian work. Qual Health Res. 2009; 19: 1284–1292. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2Wg35wR
  14. Kitzinger J. Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995; 311: 299-302. https://bit.ly/2KqMpkj
  15. World Medical Association (WMA). The Declaration of Helsinki. 2018; Ref.: http://bit.ly/2QJDBHp
  16. Meranius MS, Josefsson K. Health and social care management for older adults with multimorbidity: a multiperspective approach. Scand J Caring Sci. 2017; 31: 96-103. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2WsBMoo
  17. Björkelund C, Maun A, Murante AM, Hoffman K, De Maeseneer J, et al. Impact of continuity on quality of primary care: From the perspective of citizens' preferences and multimorbidity-position paper of the European forum for primary care. Qual Prim Care. 2013; 21: 193–204. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2WsAjhS
  18. Uijen AA, Schers HJ, Schellevis FG, van den Bosch WJ. How unique is continuity of care? A review of continuity and related concepts. Fam Pract. 2011; 29: 264–271. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2wAsh6S
  19. Waibel S, Henao D, Aller MB, Vargas I, Vázquez ML. What do we know about patients' perceptions of continuity of care? A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Int J Qual Health Care. 2011; 24: 39–48. Ref.: http://bit.ly/2W8QrQl
  20. Berglund H, Dunér A, Blomberg S, Kjellgren K. Care planning at home: a way to increase the influence of older people? Int J Integr Care. 2012; 12: 1-12. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2Wg1WFz
  21. Kajonius PJ, Kazemi A. Structure and process quality as predictors of satisfaction with elderly care. Health Soc Care Community. 2016; 24: 699–707. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2QITJbY
  22. Thórarinsdóttir K, Kristjánsson K. Patients’ perspectives on person-centred participation in healthcare: A framework analysis. Nurs Ethics. 2014; 21: 129–147. Ref.: https://bit.ly/314mxRb
  23. Vermunt NP, Westert GP, Olde Rikkert MG, Faber MJ. Assessment of goals and determinants across 11 countries. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2018; 36: 80-88. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2EQM6M6
  24. Moore L, Britten N, Lydahl D, Naldemirci Ö, Elam M, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of person‐centred care in different healthcare contexts. Scand J Caring Sci. 2017; 31: 662-673. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2XoilJN
  25. Themessl-Huber M, Hubbard G, Munro P. Frail older people's experiences and use of health and social care services. J Nurs Manag 2007; 15: 222-229. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2WKqGKG
  26. de Carvalho A, Epping-Jordan J, Pot AM, Kelley E, Toro N, et al. Organizing integrated health-care services to meet older people’s needs. Bull World Health Organ. 2017; 95: 756-763. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2HVWhAV
  27. Sixsmith J, Sixsmith A, Fänge AM, Naumann D, Kucsera C. et al. Healthy ageing and home: The perspectives of very old people in five European countries. Soc Sci Med. 2014; 106: 1–9. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2WPwGSw
  28. Vamstad J. Exit, voice and indifference–older people as consumers of Swedish home care services. Ageing & Society. 2016; 36: 163–2181. Ref.: https://bit.ly/319nbg0
  29. Wiles JL, Leibing A, Guberman N, Reeve J, Allen RE. The meaning of “aging in place” to older people. Gerontologist. 2012; 52: 357–366. Ref.: http://bit.ly/2MsqkEF
  30. Esmaeili M, Cheraghi MA2, Salsali M. Cardiac patients' perception of patient‐centred care: a qualitative study. Nurs Crit Care. 2016; 21: 97-104. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2Mowntz
  31. Olsson T, Samuelsson U, Viscovi D. At risk of exclusion? Degrees of ICT access and literacy among senior citizens. Information, Communication & Society. 2019; 22: 55-72. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2WDFw5H
  32. Levine DM, Lipsitz SR1, Linder JA. Trends in seniors’ use of digital health technology in the United States 2011-2014. JAMA. 2016; 316: 538–540. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2MoxV6R
  33. Baxter K, Glendinning C. Making choices about support services: disabled adults’ and older people’s use of information. Health & Social Care in the Community. 2011; 19: 272-279. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2QLkuMN
  34. Wahlstedt E, Ekman B. Patient choice, Internet-based information sources, and perceptions of health care: Evidence from Sweden using survey data from 2010 and 2013. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016; 16: 325. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2WLsH9l
  35. Fjordside S, Morville A. Factors influencing older people′ s experiences of participation in autonomous decisions concerning their daily care in their own homes: A review of the literature. Int J Older People Nurs. 2016; 11: 284–297. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2ESw8B7
  36. Ulin K, Olsson LE, Wolf A, Ekman I. Person-centred care–An approach that improves the discharge process. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2016; 15: e19-e26. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2Mtb2iU
  37. McCance T, McCormack B, Dewing J. An exploration of person-centredness in practice. Online J Issues Nurs. 2011; 16: 1. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2WmYCxt
  38. Petersson P1, Springett J, Blomqvist K. Telling stories from everyday practice, an opportunity to see a bigger picture: A participatory action research project about developing discharge planning. Health Soc Care Community. 2009; 17: 548–556. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2Z7lWwg
  39. World Values Survey 2015. 2019; Ref.: http://bit.ly/2HS4vd4
  40. Mair CA, Quiñones AR2, Pasha MA. Care preferences among middle-aged and older adults with chronic disease in Europe: Individual health care needs and national health care infrastructure. Gerontologist. 2015; 56: 687–701. Ref.: https://bit.ly/2KrJR5w