Search

Scand J Caring Sci; 2013; 27; 3-12 Discharge-planning for long-term care needs: the values and priorities of older people, their younger relatives and health professionals Discharge-planning decisions about long-term care (LTC) can be difficult and distressing for older people, families and discharge-planning health professionals. Retrospective research suggests that despite good intentions and a shared focus on the best interests of the older person, stakeholders may hold very different values about good outcomes and how to decide them. We aimed to compare the opinions and values of frail elders living at home, younger relatives and health professionals experienced in discharge-planning, prospectively: before, not after, a LTC decision. We interviewed three types of stakeholders (10 older people, 8 relatives and 18 health professionals) using a hypothetical vignette about a frail elder leaving hospital. In a mixed methods design, we quantitatively compared the discharge plans and decision-makers that stakeholders suggested, and qualitatively analysed the 36 interview transcripts for participants' articulation of underlying values during these discussions. Older participants often suggested safe restrictive options (residential care, proxy decision-making) for the hypothetical frail elder, while advocating autonomy for themselves. Younger people generally endorsed autonomous decision-making and less restrictive discharge options especially if the elder was mentally competent, but reported difficult ethical tensions between safety and autonomy. Individual personality and preferences, mental capacity, and the importance of personal care in supporting autonomy were central themes consistent with the Ecological Theory of Aging. Accordingly, discharge planners can usefully articulate the balance of safety and autonomy, conceptualizing home care as maintaining independence rather than accepting dependence. Ethical training should incorporate sophisticated models of practice specifying both psychological and physical safety as components of beneficence. Few elders adopt a consumer approach to LTC: health professionals can encourage mid-life adults to consider later care needs when planning for retirement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Aims Decisions on whether and how to 'schedule' drugs (i.e. to determine their legal status and penalties to be applied for sale or possession) are often heavily criticized. We sought to assess more comprehensively the results of such decisions for newly emerging drugs. Methods Through analysis of legislation and secondary sources, we identified 63 substances that have emerged since 1971, including all that have been added to the most restrictive schedule by the United Nations, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and/or New Zealand. Measurements For each jurisdiction we recorded whether, when, and how the substance was scheduled and note what decisions engendered substantial criticism or controversy within the international treaties' framework of balancing medical benefits with risk of abuse. Findings (i) The rate of emergence of new drugs has been fairly steady. (ii) There is broad cross-national agreement on what should be scheduled. (iii) The United States often acts first. (iv) Temporary bans that delay final decisions by 12-18 months can sometimes allow final decisions to be grounded on a substantially expanded research base. (v) It appears that no more than seven of the decisions reached by the United States with respect to the 63 substances are candidates for being considered errors, and arguably the United States has committed at most one serious Type I and one serious Type II error. Results for other countries are broadly similar. Conclusions The process for determining the legal status of new psychoactive substances appears to function reasonably well, within the framework of international treaty obligations. Most criticisms relate to one or a few substances (e.g. 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) and/or complaints that the decisions discount benefits that are not recognized by the treaties (e.g. recreational or religious use). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the potential problems with management decision errors and their consequences in the monitoring of environmental flow regimes (EFR) in Australia. Effectiveness of the hypothesis-testing framework in monitoring programs for the stream ecology in the region; Constraints in determining the balance between Type 1 and Type II error rates in the program; Details of the decision-making framework for EFR.