Toward a Fully Fledged Integration of Spiritual Care and Medical Care

Abstract

In this article, we aimed to set out current problems that hinder a fully fledged integration of spiritual and medical care, which address these obstacles. We discuss the following five statements: 1) spiritual care requires a clear and inclusive definition of spirituality; 2) empirical evidence for spiritual care interventions should be improved; 3) understanding patients' experiences of contingency is paramount to deliver effective spiritual care; 4) attention to spiritual needs of patients is a task for every health care practitioner; 5) courses on spirituality and spiritual care should be mandatory in the medical curriculum. Current problems might be overcome by speaking each other's language, which is crucial in interdisciplinary research and in good interdisciplinary collaboration. Using a clear and inclusive definition of spirituality and substantiating spiritual care using medical standards of evidence-based practice is a way to speak each other's language and to increase mutual understanding. Furthermore, including spirituality in the medical curriculum would raise awareness of medical practitioners for their task of attending to patients' spiritual needs and, subsequently, to better and more appropriate referral for spiritual care.

<p>A Survey on the Integration of Spiritual Care in Medical Schools from the German-Speaking Faculties</p>

“…On the contrary, the dialogic concept of spirituality encompasses this “scientific spirit” in physicians as well as in patients. All in all, in order to reach a “fully fledged” integration of SC, interdisciplinary research and SC courses should be mandatory in the medical curriculum 44. Undoubtedly, the concept of “transcendence” (ie, what is beyond the boundaries of our observed, controlled, and medically curable world) is still uncommon in medical research, however respected by a large part of health professionals 8.…”

Patients' and Caregivers' Contested Perspectives on Spiritual Care for Those Affected by Advanced Illnesses: A Qualitative Descriptive Study

“…46 "Spirituality" has evolved from a faith-based concept to a collective term representing transcendence of "ordinariness", and a widely shared definition of spiritual care remains necessary to develop research-based interventions. 36 Patient and caregiver acceptance of a shared definition may, however, be problematic. The integral domain of spiritual care in palliative care did not resonate with many participants in this study, which questions the view that "illness is a spiritual event" for everyone affected by a terminal illness.…”

“…The questions used in the interview framework also specifically focussed on care experiences in one Australian health service and a specific definition of spiritual care was used, whereas, definitions of spiritual care can vary internationally. 10,19,36 Also, views from people with same affiliations, including "no religion", are also not always shared. 59,60 Therefore, thematic findings were not saturated and caution is needed when considering them in relation to regional Australian and international contexts.…”

“…10,19,35 The multifaceted nature of spirituality definitions also renders it a difficult area to research. 36 This study aims to contribute an Australian perspective to the evolving international literature by exploring a cohort of patient and caregiver perspectives about experiencing and optimizing spiritual care in the context of advanced illness.…”

George Fitchett & Steve Nolan, (eds.). (2015). Spiritual Care in Practice. Case Studies in Healthcare Chaplaincy. An Analysis, Commentary and the Implications for Person-Centered Healthcare. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishing. ISBN 978-84905-976-3

“…It is true that a definitional consensus on how spirituality should be defined has yet to achieve international consensus [9][10][11] and it is likewise true that the field of complexity science in health is itself underdeveloped, though it is rapidly attracting greater interest and finding common ground with preceding theories [7,8,12]. But given the current epidemic of longterm co-and multimorbid, socially complex illnesses, identified not least by the WHO itself [13][14][15][16][17][18], and given that the importance of spiritual care as a dynamic part of modern approaches to the management of such conditions is increasingly acknowledged [19][20][21][22][23], a continued silence from the WHO on the need for a revision of its now essentially archaic definition of health remains difficult to understand. If the WHO maintains its inertia for definitional change in the face of scientific imperatives for revision, then it will be for other organisations -and individual academics -to push forward in its place.…”