No abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate nurses' decisions about priorities in home-based nursing care. Qualitative research interviews were conducted with 17 nurses in home-based care. The interviews were analyzed and interpreted according to a hermeneutic methodology. Nurses describe clinical priorities in home-based care as rationing care to mind the gap between an extensive workload and staff shortages. By organizing home-based care according to tight time schedules, the nurses' are able to provide care for as many patients as possible. Furthermore, legal norms set boundaries for clinical priority decisions, resulting in marginalized care. Hence, rationing care jeopardizes important values in the nurse-patient relationship, in particular the value of individualized and inclusive nursing care. The findings are highly relevant for clinical practice, since they have major implications for provision of nursing care. They revive debates about the protection of values and standards of care, and nurses' role and responsibility when resources are limited.

The carers in home care services need competence to identify and meet the needs of care partners. The implementation of person-centred values in home care services can contribute to meet the needs of care partners to a greater extent than today. Future research on the needs of care partners of older people with mental health problems needs to be undertaken.

The purpose of the study was to investigate nurses' priority decisions and the provision of home-based nursing care services. Interviews were conducted with 17 nurses in various positions in this service. The data were interpreted and analyzed according to interpretive hermeneutic methodology. The authors particularly address the nurses' descriptions of the role of the patient and his or her family members for the provision of home-based care. Cooperative patients and family members represent an important resource for care and can make it possible for nurses to provide services for all the patients on an egalitarian basis and to prioritize those who live alone. However, demanding and resourceful patients and family members may "rule" the service at the expense of other patients who also have legitimate care needs--a practice that the nurses describe as unfair. In this article, the authors discuss how a fair and impartial distribution of common benefits can be achieved without some parties being unjustly treated.

There is no agreed minimum standard with regard to what is considered safe, competent nursing care. Limited resources and organizational constraints make it challenging to develop a minimum standard. As part of their everyday practice, nurses have to ration nursing care and prioritize what care to postpone, leave out, and/or omit. In developed countries where public healthcare is tax-funded, a minimum level of healthcare is a patient right; however, what this entails in a given patient’s actual situation is unclear. Thus, both patients and nurses would benefit from the development of a minimum standard of nursing care. Clarity on this matter is also of ethical and legal concern. In this article, we explore the case for developing a minimum standard to ensure safe and competent nursing care services. Any such standard must encompass knowledge of basic principles of clinical nursing and preservation of moral values, as well as managerial issues, such as manpower planning, skill-mix, and time to care. In order for such standards to aid in providing safe and competent nursing care, they should be in compliance with accepted evidence-based nursing knowledge, based on patients’ needs and legal rights to healthcare and on nurses’ codes of ethics. That is, a minimum standard must uphold a satisfactory level of quality in terms of both professionalism and ethics. Rather than being fixed, the minimum standard should be adjusted according to patients’ needs in different settings and may thus be different in different contexts and countries.