13.07.2015 Views

Improving Quality of Life for Older People in Long-Stay Care ...

Improving Quality of Life for Older People in Long-Stay Care ...

Improving Quality of Life for Older People in Long-Stay Care ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

8.2 Promot<strong>in</strong>g AutonomyThis category brought together the elements <strong>of</strong> the care environment whichdeterm<strong>in</strong>ed the extent to which residents could exercise choice and autonomy<strong>in</strong> their daily life. Aspects <strong>of</strong> autonomy were discussed <strong>in</strong> the previous chapter,particularly <strong>in</strong> relation to gett<strong>in</strong>g up <strong>in</strong> the morn<strong>in</strong>g and go<strong>in</strong>g to bed at night.With<strong>in</strong> the study site data, this was explored through focus<strong>in</strong>g on two keyaspects <strong>of</strong> autonomy: <strong>in</strong>volvement <strong>in</strong> decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g and exercis<strong>in</strong>g choice.8.2.1 Involvement <strong>in</strong> Decision-Mak<strong>in</strong>gStaff respondents identified the <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>of</strong> residents <strong>in</strong> decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g as animportant aspect <strong>of</strong> quality care <strong>for</strong> older people and some described ways <strong>in</strong> whichresidents were <strong>in</strong>cluded. They suggested that residents’ op<strong>in</strong>ions about care weresought and their care was based on these. Resident respondents also describedsituations when their op<strong>in</strong>ion had been sought. Most relatives were not sure if theirrelative was consulted about their care or not. Some suggested that the illness <strong>of</strong>their relative made consultation difficult.In many sites resident <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>in</strong> decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g appeared to be ad hoc ratherthan part <strong>of</strong> the ethos. Some staff respondents, because they had worked <strong>in</strong> thefacility <strong>for</strong> some time, felt that they knew a resident’s likes and dislikes and could,there<strong>for</strong>e, make appropriate choices <strong>for</strong> them. In some facilities, residents felt theneed to fit <strong>in</strong> and do what they were told; some <strong>of</strong> them suggested that theremight be consequences <strong>for</strong> them if they did not.153A few facilities had <strong>for</strong>mal resident committees and sought residents’ views <strong>in</strong>relation to many aspects <strong>of</strong> day-to-day life with<strong>in</strong> the facility. Others had suggestionboxes <strong>for</strong> residents to use. One public facility had set up an activities committee whichwas chaired by a resident and was charged with organis<strong>in</strong>g and plann<strong>in</strong>g out<strong>in</strong>gs.Some resident respondents differentiated between residents who had been<strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the decision to enter <strong>in</strong>to long-term care and those who had not. Theyhad noticed that residents, whose families had made the decision <strong>for</strong> them to enterlong-term care, were less likely to feel settled, did not really participate <strong>in</strong> life with<strong>in</strong>the facility and generally appeared more unhappy.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!