Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

A critical analysis of national dementia care guidances


Vinay, Rasita; Biller-Andorno, Nikola (2023). A critical analysis of national dementia care guidances. Health Policy, 130:104736.

Abstract

Adopting an ethics and human rights lens, this paper provides a critical analysis of national dementia care guidance from countries ranked highly in providing quality of care towards the end-of-life, including Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Taiwan and the United Kingdom. The aim of this paper is to determine areas of consensus and disagreement among guidance and to understand current gaps in research. Overall, studied guidances showed consensus regarding patient empowerment and engagement, promoting independence, autonomy and liberty through; establishing person-centered care plans, providing ongoing care assessment, resources and support to individuals and their family/carers. Consensus was also seen in most end-of-life care issues; re-assessing care plans, rationalizing medication, and most importantly carer support and well-being. Disagreement could be found in criteria relating to decision-making after losing capacity, i.e. through appointment of case managers or a power of attorney, reducing barriers to equitable access of care, stigma and discrimination for minority and disadvantaged groups - including younger people with dementia, medicalized care strategies such as alternatives to hospitalization, covert administration, and assisted hydration and nutrition, and also in identifying an active dying phase. Potential for future development includes a greater emphasis on multidisciplinary collaborations, financial and welfare assistance, exploring the use of artificial intelligence technologies for testing and management, while also providing safeguards against such emerging technologies and therapies.

Abstract

Adopting an ethics and human rights lens, this paper provides a critical analysis of national dementia care guidance from countries ranked highly in providing quality of care towards the end-of-life, including Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Taiwan and the United Kingdom. The aim of this paper is to determine areas of consensus and disagreement among guidance and to understand current gaps in research. Overall, studied guidances showed consensus regarding patient empowerment and engagement, promoting independence, autonomy and liberty through; establishing person-centered care plans, providing ongoing care assessment, resources and support to individuals and their family/carers. Consensus was also seen in most end-of-life care issues; re-assessing care plans, rationalizing medication, and most importantly carer support and well-being. Disagreement could be found in criteria relating to decision-making after losing capacity, i.e. through appointment of case managers or a power of attorney, reducing barriers to equitable access of care, stigma and discrimination for minority and disadvantaged groups - including younger people with dementia, medicalized care strategies such as alternatives to hospitalization, covert administration, and assisted hydration and nutrition, and also in identifying an active dying phase. Potential for future development includes a greater emphasis on multidisciplinary collaborations, financial and welfare assistance, exploring the use of artificial intelligence technologies for testing and management, while also providing safeguards against such emerging technologies and therapies.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics

Altmetrics

Downloads

55 downloads since deposited on 01 Mar 2023
48 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Scopus Subject Areas:Health Sciences > Health Policy
Uncontrolled Keywords:Health Policy
Language:English
Date:1 April 2023
Deposited On:01 Mar 2023 16:34
Last Modified:30 Mar 2024 02:34
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0168-8510
OA Status:Hybrid
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104736
PubMed ID:36796180
  • Content: Published Version
  • Language: English
  • Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)