Search

Background: Family carers provide strong support for many older adults, often enabling older adults to remain at home. Little is known about the care recipients' perspectives of the role and contributions of family carers, particularly when hospital admissions occur as part of end of life care. Aim: This paper explores the meanings of family caring for care recipients by drawing on older adults' perspectives about the impact of hospital admission on established family caring relationships. Design: Exploratory semi-structured qualitative interviews. Key findings reported in this paper emerged from within the inductive research design. Setting: Interviews were conducted in older adults' place of residence in northwest England between June 2009 and July 2010. Participants: Participants were 27 older adults living with heart failure (n = 13) or lung cancer (n = 14), aged 69-89 years (mean 79 4.3 years) and considered by their health professionals to be in their last year of life. In 12 of the interviews, a family carer was also present and made contributions. Findings: For community-dwelling older adults, family carers are conceptualised as 'conductors'; making strong contributions to maintaining the rhythm of good care throughout the illness trajectory. Following older adults' hospital admission, family carers find themselves in the role of 'second fiddle', their ability to work with the individual and to make or influence decisions vastly reduced. Despite this, carers continue to invest considerable effort in maintaining continuity in the carer relationship to maximise the individual's wellbeing by identifying needs, filling gaps in provision and advocating on patients' behalf. Family carers act flexibly to provide continuity, support and take responsibility for older adults' wellbeing across settings. Conclusions: Nurses and family carers working together, and greater appreciation of the contribution and role of family carers by health professionals may contribute to improving the quality and continuity of care for older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An implementation gap exists between policy aspirations for provision and the delivery of self-management support in primary care. An evidence based training and support package using a whole systems approach implemented as part of a randomised controlled trial was delivered to general practice staff. The trial found no effect of the intervention on patient outcomes. This paper explores why self-management support failed to become part of normal practice. We focussed on implementation of tools which capture two key aspects of self-management support - education (guidebooks for patients) and forming collaborative partnerships (a shared decision-making tool). Objectives: To evaluate the implementation and embedding of self-management support in a United Kingdom primary care setting. Design: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with primary care professionals. Settings: 12 General Practices in the Northwest of England located within a deprived inner city area. Participants: Practices were approached 3-6 months after undergoing training in a selfmanagement support approach. A pragmatic sample of 37 members of staff - General Practitioners, nurses, and practice support staff from 12 practices agreed to take part. The analysis is based on interviews with 11 practice nurses and one assistant practitioner; all were female with between 2 and 21 years' experience of working in general practice. Methods: A qualitative design involving face-to-face, semi-structured interviews audio- recorded and transcribed. Normalisation Process Theory framework allowed a systematic evaluation of the factors influencing the work required to implement the tools. Findings: The guidebooks were embedded in daily practice but the shared decision- making tools were not. Guidebooks were considered to enhance patient-centredness and were minimally disruptive. Practice nurses were reluctant to engage with behaviour change discussions. Self-management support was not formulated as a practice priority and there was minimal support for this activity within the practice: it was not auditable; [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]