1 / 14

Culturally Appropriate End-of-Life Care for Māori

Culturally Appropriate End-of-Life Care for Māori. Central Regional Palliative Care Education Forum, July 2012 Lesley Batten & Maureen Holdaway. Research partners. Research Centre for Māori Health & Development, Massey University National LCP Office Arohanui Hospice

derica
Télécharger la présentation

Culturally Appropriate End-of-Life Care for Māori

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Culturally Appropriate End-of-Life Care for Māori Central Regional Palliative Care Education Forum, July 2012 Lesley Batten & Maureen Holdaway

  2. Research partners • Research Centre for Māori Health & Development, Massey University • National LCP Office • Arohanui Hospice • Te Wakahuia Manawatu Trust History to this project • Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (LCP) • Cultural goals

  3. Research project aims Over 3 years to: A. Investigate if / how the ‘cultural goals’ in the LCP guide the delivery of culturally appropriate end-of-life care for adult Māori within the MidCentral DHB region B. Explore the experiences and perspectives of end-of-life care of whānau whose relatives have received care guided by the LCP since the inclusion of the cultural goals C. In partnership with Māori communities, stakeholders, and providers, develop and pilot a culturally appropriate New Zealand version of the LCP pathway

  4. Research overview

  5. Chart audit • 100 LCPs (25 each from hospice, home care, aged residential care, and hospital) • Audited if and how the following were documented: • Ethnicity • Cultural assessment • Cultural care • Demographic details - age, sex, diagnoses, care location at LCP commencement and conclusion

  6. Selected findings • 39% of LCPs had no ethnicity recorded • (60% hospital; 24% hospice; 56% ARC; Home care 16%) • 2% of charts for Māori or Pacific Peoples • Minimal variationbetween LCP ethnicity and NHI • Minimal cultural needs documentation • Very few variances recorded • (1% of 1360 responses, but in V11 documents ‘no’ elicited 20% of 122 responses) • Minimal variance documentation

  7. Incidental findings • Incomplete, inconsistent documents • Selection of ‘Achieved’ when relatives absent • 84% of LCPs used for 65+ year olds • Even split between malignant/non-malignant diagnoses, but differences across sites • Hospital & ARC non-malignant • Hospice & home care malignant diagnoses

  8. Stakeholder interviews • Forty interviewed or participated in hui, 50% Māori • Extended throughout the North Island • Clinical, cultural support, policy roles • Focused on investigating: • The developmental history of the cultural goals • How the goals influence culturally appropriate care for Māori • The goals’ utility, comprehensiveness and cultural appropriateness for Māori

  9. Selected findings Development of the cultural goals • Organic process – local to national adoption • Consensus that ‘culture’ needed to be overt • Challenge of maintaining LCP integrity • Some consultation with Māori Goals and culturally appropriate care for Māori? • Goals important for all cultural groups, useful as ‘prompts’ • Multiple challenges external the goals • Significant organisational structural, cultural, professional barriers • Clinical staff with divergent understandings/beliefs about dying • What does an assessment of ‘cultural’ needs entail?

  10. Utility, comprehensiveness, cultural appropriateness? • Facilitated regional/local Māori consultation • Goals reflected extant practices, but making overt • Culture sometimes a ‘block’, cultural goals as ‘more difficult’ • Concerns about variance/minimalist reporting • Other barriers external to the cultural goals • Fern frond / ponga picture • Title

  11. Early recommendations Building on regional/local best practices for clinical education and support Standardised ethnicity question Translated resources Clearer guidelines to organisations changing the LCP Prompts, resources, mentorship regarding cultural needs assessment and culturally appropriate care Reconsideration of variance reporting for cultural goals

  12. Next steps Revised phase 1c underway • Related to the findings from phase 1a (chart audit) – all LCP records for 2011 being audited for ethnicity recording across the same 4 sites

  13. Phase 2 underway • Modified phase 1c (whānau interviews) • Hui with Maori communities, service providers • MDHB, Wairarapa, and Whanganui Connection with other projects throughout New Zealand e.g. • Māori health literacy • Advanced care planning

  14. Access to findings • All technical reports completed to date and feedback pamphlets available on the National LCP Office website: www.lcpnz.org.nz/ • For further information contact: Maureen Holdaway M.A.Holdaway@massey.ac.nz, 06 356 9099 ext. 81681 Or Lesley Batten L.Batten@massey.ac.nz, 06 356 9099 ext. 81687

More Related