Perception, knowledge and attitudes on advance medical directives among hospital staff: Using mixed methodology

Abstract

Background: It is necessary to examine the level of perception, knowledge and attitudes of the medical staff for advance medical directives, which are practical alternatives to good practice for end-of-life care in the actual medical field.Purpose: This study was conducted to determine the degree of perception, knowledge and attitude of cancer hospital medical staff about advance medical directives, and to confirm the relationship between them. It also explored their experiences with advance medical directives. Methods: This study used a convergent design to collect quantitative and qualitative data separately in the mixed methodology. This design adheres to the STROBE guidelines. Participants were a total of 140 subjects (70 doctors and 70 nurses) with more than 3 years and considered to have sufficient experience related to the study purpose. Focus group participants were a total 19 persons (9 doctors and 10 nurses). Results: Mean score for perception was 35.40, which indicates lower perception when compared to the median value (37.50 points). Perception of advance medical directives had significant, positive relations with attitude of advance medical directives (p = .032). The perception on attitude of advance medical directives factor was significantly influencing (p = .021). As a result of the analysis based on qualitative research questions, six subjects and 11 categories were created by deriving meaningful sentences from the statements. Conclusion: This study suggests that the perception of medical professionals about advance medical directives has a positive correlation with attitudes, as well as a causal relationship. Relevance to clinical practice: Based on the finding from this study, concrete strategies and interventions to improve the perception of advance medical directives among cancer hospital medical staff are needed.

Knowledge, Attitudes and Nursing Stress Related to Life-Sustaining Treatment among Oncology Nurses

“…This was followed by a score of 4.20 for conflict with an LST patient's family, and 4.07 for the burden of operating LST equipment. These results align with previous studies [12,29],…”

“…This was followed by a score of 4.20 for conflict with an LST patient’s family, and 4.07 for the burden of operating LST equipment. These results align with previous studies [ 12 , 29 ], suggesting that nurses experience the most stress when their patients are in challenging situations due to their empathetic nature. Furthermore, it appears that oncology nurses face more stress factors.…”

Influences of Nursing Professionalism, Empathy, and Clinical Decision-Making Ability on Shared Decision-Making Awareness among Hemodialysis Nurses

“…Tis is thought to be due to the result that the independence area of nursing was the lowest in the subcategories of nursing professionalism. Tis is because the relationship between doctors and nurses in the medical feld is not a horizontal one, but a hierarchical relationship, which limits the ability of nurses to independently make decisions and fulfll their roles [8,11,16]. However, when nursing professionalism is established, patients can actively exercise their right to self-determination in the decision-making process during treatment by ensuring the patients' right to know and autonomy in the shared decision-making process [26,27].…”

“…Te complexity and criticality of the current healthcare system require shared mental models to enhance safe and efective patient/ client care [8,9]. Each member's action can have an advantage in terms of efciency, function, and strategy by using clear communication and guidance among team members in the shared decision-making process, and by sharing an understanding of goals and expectations towards a better quality of life for the patient [7,[9][10][11]. In a previous study [6], it was mentioned that the role of nurses in the shared decisionmaking process included being a health educator, spokesman, data collector, symptom and side efect manager, information sharer, and psychological supporter.…”