We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
There are many recommended language-based strategies for effective communication with persons with dementia. What is unknown is whether effective language-based strategies are also person centered. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to examine whether language-based strategies for effective communication with persons with dementia overlapped with the following indicators of person-centered communication: recognition, negotiation, facilitation, and validation.
Methods:
Conversations (N = 46) between staff-resident dyads were audio-recorded during routine care tasks over 12 weeks. Staff utterances were coded twice, using language-based and person-centered categories. There were 21 language-based categories and 4 person-centered categories.
Results:
There were 5,800 utterances transcribed: 2,409 without indicators, 1,699 coded as language or person centered, and 1,692 overlapping utterances. For recognition, 26% of utterances were greetings, 21% were affirmations, 13% were questions (yes/no and open-ended), and 15% involved rephrasing. Questions (yes/no, choice, and open-ended) comprised 74% of utterances that were coded as negotiation. A similar pattern was observed for utterances coded as facilitation where 51% of utterances coded as facilitation were yes/no questions, open-ended questions, and choice questions. However, 21% of facilitative utterances were affirmations and 13% involved rephrasing. Finally, 89% of utterances coded as validation were affirmations.
Conclusions:
The findings identify specific language-based strategies that support person-centered communication. However, between 1 and 4, out of a possible 21 language-based strategies, overlapped with at least 10% of utterances coded as each person-centered indicator. This finding suggests that staff need training to use more diverse language strategies that support personhood of residents with dementia.
Social interactions in long-term care settings between staff and residents with dementia have been characterized as task-oriented, patronizing, and/or overly directive. Long-term care settings can be contexts that emphasize dependency and threaten the personal identity of older residents. Yet, leaders in the long-term care sector have acknowledged recently that dementia care must move beyond the completion of caregiving tasks and adopt a person-centered approach. This approach involves caregivers incorporating a resident's life history and preferences during interactions. The objectives of this study were to examine the extent to which staff–resident communication is person-centered and the extent to which staff miss opportunities to communicate with residents in a person-centered manner.
Methods:
Conversations (N = 46) of 13 staff–resident dyads were audio-recorded during routine care tasks over 12 weeks. Staff utterances within these conversations were coded for person-centered communication and missed opportunities where person-centered communication could have been used.
Results:
Findings revealed a common communication sequence where utterances coded as person-centered were followed by utterances coded as missed opportunities. This sequence suggests that the positive impact of person-centered communication may be undermined when such communication is followed by missed opportunities. Data also revealed that missed opportunities highlight the need for staff training.
Conclusion:
The findings underscore the importance of sustaining person-centered communication while completing routine care tasks.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.