As migrant populations age, the care system is confronted with the question how to respond to care needs of an increasingly diverse population of older adults. We used qualitative intersectional analysis to examine differential preferences and experiences with care at the end of life of twenty-five patients and their relatives from Suriname, Morocco and Turkey living in The Netherlands. Our analysis focused on the question how–in light of impairment–ethnicity, religion and gender intersect to create differences in social position that shape preferences and experiences related to three main themes: place of care at the end of life; discussing prognosis, advance care, and end-of-life care; and, end-of-life decision-making. Our findings show that belonging to an ethnic or religious minority brings forth concerns about responsive care. In the nursing home, patients’ minority position and the interplay thereof with gender make it difficult for female patients to request and receive responsive care. Patients with a strong religious affiliation prefer to discuss diagnosis but not prognosis. These preferences are at interplay with factors related to socioeconomic status. The oversight of this variance hampers responsive care for patients and relatives. Preferences for discussion of medical aspects of care are subject to functional impairment and faith. Personal values and goals often remain unexpressed. Lastly, preferences regarding medical end-of-life decisions are foremost subject to religious affiliation and associated moral values. Respondents’ impairment and limited Dutch language proficiency requires their children to be involved in decision-making. Intersecting gendered care roles determine that mostly daughters are involved. Considering the interplay of aspects of social identity and their effect on social positioning, and pro-active enquiry into values, goals and preferences for end-of-life care of patients and their relatives are paramount to achieve person centred and family-oriented care responsive to the needs of diverse communities.
DOCUMENT
In case of a major cyber incident, organizations usually rely on external providers of Cyber Incident Response (CIR) services. CIR consultants operate in a dynamic and constantly changing environment in which they must actively engage in information management and problem solving while adapting to complex circumstances. In this challenging environment CIR consultants need to make critical decisions about what to advise clients that are impacted by a major cyber incident. Despite its relevance, CIR decision making is an understudied topic. The objective of this preliminary investigation is therefore to understand what decision-making strategies experienced CIR consultants use during challenging incidents and to offer suggestions for training and decision-aiding. A general understanding of operational decision making under pressure, uncertainty, and high stakes was established by reviewing the body of knowledge known as Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM). The general conclusion of NDM research is that experts usually make adequate decisions based on (fast) recognition of the situation and applying the most obvious (default) response pattern that has worked in similar situations in the past. In exceptional situations, however, this way of recognition-primed decision-making results in suboptimal decisions as experts are likely to miss conflicting cues once the situation is quickly recognized under pressure. Understanding the default response pattern and the rare occasions in which this response pattern could be ineffective is therefore key for improving and aiding cyber incident response decision making. Therefore, we interviewed six experienced CIR consultants and used the critical decision method (CDM) to learn how they made decisions under challenging conditions. The main conclusion is that the default response pattern for CIR consultants during cyber breaches is to reduce uncertainty as much as possible by gathering and investigating data and thus delay decision making about eradication until the investigation is completed. According to the respondents, this strategy usually works well and provides the most assurance that the threat actor can be completely removed from the network. However, the majority of respondents could recall at least one case in which this strategy (in hindsight) resulted in unnecessary theft of data or damage. Interestingly, this finding is strikingly different from other operational decision-making domains such as the military, police and fire service in which there is a general tendency to act rapidly instead of searching for more information. The main advice is that training and decision aiding of (novice) cyber incident responders should be aimed at the following: (a) make cyber incident responders aware of how recognition-primed decision making works; (b) discuss the default response strategy that typically works well in several scenarios; (c) explain the exception and how the exception can be recognized; (d) provide alternative response strategies that work better in exceptional situations.
DOCUMENT
In the decision-making environment of evidence-based practice, the following three sources of information must be integrated: research evidence of the intervention, clinical expertise, and the patient’s values. In reality, evidence-based practice usually focuses on research evidence (which may be translated into clinical practice guidelines) and clinical expertise without considering the individual patient’s values. The shared decision-making model seems to be helpful in the integration of the individual patient’s values in evidence-based practice. We aim to discuss the relevance of shared decision making in chronic care and to suggest how it can be integrated with evidence-based practice in nursing. We start by describing the following three possible approaches to guide the decision-making process: the paternalistic approach, the informed approach, and the shared decision-making approach. Implementation of shared decision making has gained considerable interest in cases lacking a strong best-treatment recommendation, and when the available treatment options are equivalent to some extent. We discuss that in chronic care it is important to always invite the patient to participate in the decision-making process. We delineate the following six attributes of health care interventions in chronic care that influence the degree of shared decision making: the level of research evidence, the number of available intervention options, the burden of side effects, the impact on lifestyle, the patient group values, and the impact on resources. Furthermore, the patient’s willingness to participate in shared decision making, the clinical expertise of the nurse, and the context in which the decision making takes place affect the shared decision-making process. A knowledgeable and skilled nurse with a positive attitude towards shared decision making – integrated with evidence-based practice – can facilitate the shared decision-making process. We conclude that nurses as well as other health care professionals in chronic care should integrate shared decision making with evidence- based practice to deliver patient-centred care.
DOCUMENT
