Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund: Spiritualität am Arbeitsplatz wird international im Managementbereich zunehmend diskutiert. Die Sichtweise von Führungskräften im Gesundheitswesen ist aber noch kaum erforscht, obwohl Spiritualität und Spiritual Care (SC) in diesem Setting aufgrund der Versorgung von verletzlicher Klientel noch relevanter als in anderen Branchen sind.
Ziele: Durch zwei Fokusgruppendiskussionen mit Führungskräften aus dem Gesundheitswesen sollte eruiert werden, welche Bedeutung Spiritualität und SC für die Einrichtung aus der Perspektive der Führungskräfte haben und inwiefern ggf. Implementierungsansätze für SC in der eigenen Einrichtung gesehen werden.
Ergebnisse: Führungskräfte aus Einrichtungen, in denen Spiritualität in einem weit gefassten Verständnis bereits in der Unternehmenskultur verankert ist, erleben Spiritualität und SC als relevant und wertvoll, aber auch als herausfordernd für ihre Führungstätigkeit. Sie sehen Zusammenhänge in den Kontexten Organisation, Mitarbeitende, Klientel der Einrichtung und mit ihrer Führungsrolle. Seelsorge wird als Querschnittsthema betrachtet.
Diskussion: Die Auseinandersetzung mit Spiritualität und SC kann für Führungskräfte wertvolle Hinweise für ihr Handeln in Gesundheitseinrichtungen geben. Zentrales Element ist der Umgang mit Werten.
Background: The “Holistic Care Program for Elderly Patients to Integrate Spiritual Needs, Social Activity and Self-Care into Disease Management in Primary Care” (HoPES3) examines the implementation of a spiritual history (SH) as part of a multifaceted intervention in German general practices. While the effectiveness of the interventions was evaluated in a cluster-randomized trial, this article investigates the patients’ views concerning the acceptability of the SH and its effects. Methods: A mixed-methods study was conducted in which 133 patients of the intervention group filled in a standardized questionnaire after the intervention. Later, 29 of these patients took part in qualitative semi-standardized interviews. Results: According to the survey, 63% (n = 77) of patients found the SH helpful. In the interviews, however, many indicated that they either kept the conversation brief or declined the offer to talk about spirituality. Contents of longer conversations referred to difficult life events, personal sources of strength, and experiences with religious institutions. Many patients who had a longer conversation about spirituality reported that their relationship with their general practitioner (GP) had improved. Almost all patients recommended integrating a personal conversation of this kind into primary care. Conclusions: The SH seems to be a possible ‘door opener’ for a trusting doctor-patient relationship, which can then be built upon.
To understand if GPs’ spiritual competence, their personal spirituality and attitude towards enquiring about spirituality in practice interrelate, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of 30 German GPs regarding issues of SC. We found correlations between GPs’ personal spirituality, their spiritual competence and their attitudes towards SC. The ability to perceive spiritual needs of patients was the competence most strongly related to GPs’ attitude towards SC. The competence with the strongest correlation to personal spirituality was Self-awareness and Proactive opening. No correlation was found between affiliation to a spiritual community and GPs’ attitude towards SC. The results show that GPs’ personal spirituality and spiritual competence are indeed related to addressing spirituality with their patients. To foster SC, training programmes should raise awareness for one’s personal spirituality and encourage one to reflect on spiritual competence.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.