Search

Background: In Taiwan, the Patients' Right to Autonomy Act was enacted in 2019. However, advance care planning (ACP) implementation rates remain low in long-term care facilities., Aim: This study explored the barriers to initiate a discussion about ACP among older Taiwanese residents of nursing homes and their families., Methods: A descriptive qualitative design was used. Face-to-face interviews were individually conducted with 38 participants (residents: 18; family members: 20), and data were analyzed through content analysis., Results: Five themes were identified: (1) having cultural or spiritual concerns (both groups), (2) prioritizing the bigger picture (family) (both groups), (3) waiting for the right time (both groups), (4) feeling unsure (residents), and (5) following the pace of the residents (family members)., Conclusion: The results indicate that discussing ACP with Chinese people and their families clashes with traditional Chinese culture. To implement ACP in long-term care facilities based in regions with ethnically Chinese populations, medical professionals must ensure that the residents and their family members understand advance directives and their role in ensuring a good death and must act as a bridge between residents and their family members to assist them in making consensual end-of-life-care decisions with residents., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: When older nursing home residents and their families are faced with end-of-life care decisions in Taiwan, they make them in the context of traditional cultural norms and socioeconomic changes. Both parties (residents and their family members) are often unwilling to broach the topic, leading to a decisional impasse. The aim of this study was to understand difficult-to-raise issues related to end-of-life care by investigating the perspectives of older nursing home residents and their family members., Methods: This qualitative descriptive study was conducted using content analysis based on the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research. Purposive sampling was used to select the participants, and sampling continued until data saturation. Data were collected using semi structured interviews, and related analyses were conducted using an inductive approach., Results: Ten residents and twelve family members were interviewed individually. Six main themes were identified: (1) the inevitability of a goodbye; (2) a good death; (3) going with or against traditional culture; (4) better a good death than a bad life; (5) abiding by the residents' decisions; and (6) being willing but unable to take care of residents., Conclusion: Nursing home residents and their family members' thoughts on end-of-life care shifted toward the concept of a good death, and they even regarded death as a form of liberation. Health care providers may serve as mediators to counsel a resident and their family members separately, enabling them to speak up and understand each other's thoughts on end-of-life care before a decision is made so that neither party has regrets., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

This study aimed to clarify the experiences of family members of older adult residents regarding the signing of an advance directive in the context of a Chinese culture. Twenty family members of older residents in a long-term care facility participated in face-to-face interviews, and the researchers conducted a thematic analysis of observation field notes and interview transcripts. A content analysis of the interviews revealed 4 themes concerning the refusal to sign advance directives: resident decision, group decision, not entitled to decide, and random decision. Health providers may serve as mediators and pass on the residents' views regarding their end-of-life care to their families after holding discussions with residents and their families separately to ensure that an agreeable decision regarding the modes and objectives of EOL care is reached and that such a decision respects the right of the patient to choose., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)