The Effects of South Korean Social Workers' Professional Resources on their Understanding of a Patient's Right to End‐of‐Life Care Decisions in Long‐term Care Facilities

Abstract

The aims of this study were to examine South Korean social workers' understanding of a patient's right to end-of-life care decisions (EOLCD) in long-term care facilities and to explore the effectiveness of their professional resources in their understanding of this issue. A survey was conducted of 297 social workers from multiple long-term care facilities in South Korea using structured questionnaires and face-to-face interviews. A multiple regression model was used, controlling for gender and religion. The participants' professional resources were measured by years of work, license type, number of beds, knowledge of advanced directives, experience in the EOLCD process, and training. The results demonstrated that South Korean social workers' understanding of a patient's right to EOLCD was moderate (mean 3.46), and their general (b = 0.576, P < 0.001) and medical knowledge (b = 0.117, P < 0.001) of advance directives, experience in the EOLCD process (b = 0.222, P < 0.001), and training (b = 0.028, P < 0.001) positively and significantly increased their understanding of patient rights (R 2 = 0.449, P < 0.001). The findings suggested that the development of academically supported and legally enforced standards and regulations for an EOLCD practice manual for long-term-care social workers would be beneficial.

Social workers’ involvement in advance care planning: a systematic narrative review

“…The majority of social workers (73%) had conversations about ADs during care meetings [24]. They were often involved in educating patients and/or families about ACP options, providing information about ACP, and documenting ADs [20, 42–44, 48]. A facility-specific form regarding ADs were routinely provided to the residents in 40% of nursing facilities [24].…”

“…Of the included studies, twenty-six were conducted in the US and the remaining five were conducted in South Korea [ 19 , 20 ], Singapore [ 21 ], and Israel [ 22 , 23 ], respectively. Twenty studies used cross-sectional surveys, three used qualitative interviews [ 24 – 26 ], and the remaining eight were interventional studies [ 27 – 34 ].…”

“…Twenty studies used cross-sectional surveys, three used qualitative interviews [ 24 – 26 ], and the remaining eight were interventional studies [ 27 – 34 ]. Sixteen descriptive studies included a sample of only social workers [ 11 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 35 – 44 ]. Of them, four included social workers recruited from hospitals, additional four included social workers from nursing homes, two included social worker students, and the remaining six included a mixed sample of social workers (Table 1 ).…”

“… • 40% of social workers indicated that they provide a facility-specific form to residents regarding ADs, and additional 40% noted that no AD forms are provided at all [ 24 ]. • 55.3% of the social workers (in South Korea) had experience aiding elderly patients and/or family members by providing information about ADs [ 20 ]. • 83.3% of the social workers (in South Korea) reported that they did not have any experience working with terminally ill patients; only 2.8% reported that they had ever provided AD planning [ 19 ].…”

“…An earlier study indicated that 31% of social workers in the US were never or almost never involved in asking patients about their wishes [ 22 ], but later studies suggested that over 90% of health care social workers were involved in ACP practice, mainly at admission to care settings or in long-term care facilities [ 42 – 44 ], even though only one-third of social workers stated that they initiated ACP conversations [ 24 ].The majority of social workers (73%) had conversations about ADs during care meetings [ 24 ]. They were often involved in educating patients and/or families about ACP options, providing information about ACP, and documenting ADs [ 20 , 42 – 44 , 48 ]. A facility-specific form regarding ADs were routinely provided to the residents in 40% of nursing facilities [ 24 ].…”