Search

Background: Person‐centred care is a growing imperative in healthcare, but the documentation of person‐centred care is challenging. According to the Gothenburg Framework of Person‐centred Care, care should be documented in continuously revised care plans and based on patients' personally formulated goals and resources to secure a continuous partnership. Objectives: This study aimed to examine care plans produced within a randomised controlled trial that tested a person‐centred care intervention in older people with acute coronary syndrome. Nurses with training in the theory and practice of person‐centred care had written the care plans. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of care plans developed in a randomised controlled trial for assessing person‐centred care in patients with acute coronary syndrome (Myocardial Infarct [MI] or unstable angina pectoris). The study sample included 84 patients, with three care plans for each patient from inpatient (T1), outpatient (T2) and primary care (T3), that is, a total of 252 care plans. We conducted a descriptive quantitative content analysis of the care plans to examine the reported patients' life‐world and medical/health resources and goals. Results: The analysis illustrates the differences and overlaps between life‐world and medical/health goals and resources. The documented goals and resources change over time: life‐world goals and resources decreased with time as medical/health goals and resources documentation increased. Conclusions: This paper illustrates that in the setting of a randomised controlled trial, nurses with training in person‐centred care recorded fewer life‐world and more medical/health goals over time. Placing life‐world goals at the top of the goal hierarchy enables alignment with medical/health goals. Further research should explore whether the goals and resources documented in care plans accurately reflect patients' wishes as they transition along the care chain. Trial registration: Swedish registry, Researchweb.org, ID NR 65 791. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, the ‘tenacious assumptions’ of biomedicine regarding the neutrality and universality of its knowledge claims have been significantly challenged by the growth of new collaborative and patient-focused models of Healthcare delivery. In this article, we discuss and critically reflect upon one such alternative Healthcare model developed at the University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care in Sweden. This centre uses three clinical routines of narrative, partnership and documentation to provide Healthcare to people recognized as unique individuals rather than patients. Person-centred care in Gothenburg and more broadly is based on the assumption that a person is independently capable of reasoning and verbal expression and willing to provide clear and genuine narratives and cooperate with Healthcare professionals. However, we argue that by emphasizing individual capabilities of reasoning and verbal expression, an unnecessarily limited conception of personhood risks being imposed on these routines. Drawing upon semi-structured interviews with researchers in three very different Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care research projects – about healthy ageing in migrant communities, neurogenic communication disorders, and psychosis – we highlight that how persons are recognized as unique and capable varies significantly in practice across different Healthcare settings. Thus, we assert that person-centred care’s own potentially tenacious assumptions about the attributes of personhood risk distracting attention away from the variety of creative ways that professionals and persons promisingly find for translating the ideal of person-centred care into practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Person-centred care ( PCC) is increasingly advocated as a new way of delivering health care, but there is little evidence that it is widely practised. The University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care ( GPCC) was set up in 2010 to develop and implement person-centred care in clinical practice on the basis of three routines. These routines are based on eliciting the patient's narrative to initiate a partnership; working the partnership to achieve commonly agreed goals; and using documentation to safeguard the partnership and record the person's narrative and shared goals. Objective In this paper, we aimed to explore professionals' understanding of PCC routines as they implement the GPCC model in a range of different settings. Methods We conducted a qualitative study and interviewed 18 clinician-researchers from five health-care professions who were working in seven diverse GPCC projects. Results Interviewees' accounts of PCC emphasized the ways in which persons are seen as different from patients; the variable emphasis placed on the person's goals; and the role of the person's own resources in building partnerships. Conclusion This study illustrates what is needed for health-care professionals to implement PCC in everyday practice: the recognition of the person is as important as the specific practical routines. Interviewees described the need to change the clinical mindset and to develop the ways of integrating people's narratives with clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]