Feeding Dependency Issues in the Long-Term Care Environment

2001 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-24
Author(s):  
Carol Winchester ◽  
Cathy Pelletier ◽  
Pete Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Environment

scholarly journals Dignity in long-term care

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 744-751 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Kane ◽  
Kay de Vries
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
Aged Care ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Environment ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Common Thread

Background: The concept of dignity is recognised as a fundamental right in many countries. It is embedded into law, human rights legislation and is often visible in organisations’ philosophy of care, particularly in aged care. Yet, many authors describe difficulties in defining dignity and how it can be preserved for people living in long term care. Objectives: In this article, Nordenfelt’s ‘four notions of dignity’ are considered, drawing on research literature addressing the different perspectives of those who receive, observe or deliver care in the context of the long-term care environment. Methods: A review of the literature was undertaken using the terms ‘nursing homes’, ‘residential care’ or ‘long-term care’. The terms were combined and the term ‘human dignity’ was added. A total of 29 articles met the inclusion criteria from the United Kingdom (14), United States (2), Australia (1), Sweden (3), Hong Kong (2), Norway (3), Nordic (1), Taiwan (1), Netherlands (1). Ethical Considerations: Every effort has been made to ensure an unbiased search of the literature with the intention of an accurate interpretation of findings. Discussion: The four notions of dignity outlined by Nordenfelt provide a comprehensive description of the concept of dignity which can be linked to the experiences of people living in long-term care today and provide a useful means of contextualising the experiences of older people, their families and significant others and also of staff in long-term care facilities. Of particular interest are the similarities of perspectives of dignity between these groups. The preservation of dignity implies that dignity is a quality inherent in us all. This links directly to the exploration and conclusions drawn from the literature review. Conversely, promoting dignity implies that dignity is something that can be influenced by others and external factors. Hence, there are a number of implications for practice. Conclusion: We suggest that two of Nordenfelt’s notions, ‘dignity of identity’ and ‘dignity of Menschenwüde’, are a common thread for residents, family members and staff when conceptualising dignity within long-term care environments.

scholarly journals Management challenges faced by managers of New Zealand long-term care facilities

2000 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eshwar Madas ◽  
Nicola North
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
Postal Survey ◽  
Single Type ◽  
Continuing Care ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Health Care Environment ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Environment ◽  
Care Managers

This article reports on a postal survey of 78 long-term care managers in one region ofNew- Zealand, of whom 45 (58%) responded. Most long-term care managers (73.2%) weremiddle-aged females holding nursing but not management qualifications. Most long-termcare facilities (69%) tended to be stand-alone facilities providing a single type of care (resthome or continuing care hospital). The most prominent issues facing managers wereconsidered to be inadequate funding to match the growing costs of providing long-term careand occupancy levels. Managers believed that political/regulatory, economic and social factorsinfluenced these issues. Despite a turbulent health care environment and the challenges facingmanagers, long-term care managers reported they were coping well and valued networking.

Council of Australian Governments' (COAG) Initiative for Young People With Disability in Residential Aged Care: What Are the Issues for Acquired Brain Injury?

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 312-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Foster ◽  
Jennifer Fleming ◽  
Cheryl Tilse
Keyword(s):  
Brain Injury ◽  
Young People ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Acquired Brain Injury ◽  
Aged Care ◽  
Residential Aged Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Environment

AbstractPeople surviving severe acquired brain injury (ABI) may potentially benefit from the Council of Australian Governments' (COAG) 5-year initiative for young people with disability in residential aged-care facilities. Yet critical examination of this policy initiative for ABI population is warranted for 2 reasons. First, reliance on the disability sector to resolve the complexities of long-term care for people with ABI detracts attention from systemic failures at the health/disability sector interface, and notably, debate concerning the role of, and right to rehabilitation. Second, the COAG initiative is being pursued within an extraordinarily complex and variable contemporary care environment, involving multiple services and sectors, and historically, high unmet need. This raises questions as to the adequacy and sustainability of care provided under the responsibility of state-based disability services. In this article, it is argued that long-term care for young people with severe ABI is better served by incorporating a health and rehabilitation perspective alongside a disability support approach. Although the effectiveness of rehabilitation may be contested in some instances of very severe ABI, nevertheless the role of rehabilitation in seeking to reduce the number of young people at risk of entering residential aged care needs to be addressed in policy solutions. It is also suggested that provision of long time care in the contemporary care environment involves a number of challenges due to the complex and changing patterns of need, diverse funding arrangements and mix of government and nongovernment services, and the increasing demand for care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document