The purpose of this study was to explore the beliefs of key decision makers about deficits in older persons who are declared legally incompetent and placed under guardianship. Grounded theory was used for qualitative data generation and analysis. Three focus group discussions were held with a total of twenty participants (seven legal professionals; seven health and social services professionals; and six family caregivers) who had been involved in guardianship proceedings for persons 65 years old and older Deficits identified were in self-care, safety, cognition, changes in self, emotion, physical status, interpersonal relationships, trust, social isolation, social nuisance, and context.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Wood E: Toward a barrier-free courthouse: Equal access to justice for persons with physical disabilities in Wood E, Dooley J, Karp N (eds.): Court-related needs of the elderly persons with disabilities: A blueprint for the future. Washington, DC, American Bar Association, 1991
3. U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment: Losing a million minds: confronting the tragedy of Alzheimer's Disease and other dementias. OTA-BA-323, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987
4.
4. Schmidt W: The evolution of a public guardianship program. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 1984;3:349-372
5.
5. Ibid.
6.
6. Wood E, Dooley J., Karp N: Court-related needs of the elderly persons with disabilities: A blueprint for the future. Washington, DC, American Bar Association, 1991
7.
7. Schmidt W: op cit.
8.
8. Anderer SJ: A model for determining competency in guardianship proceedings. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 1990;11:107-111
9.
9. Kapp MB: Evaluating decision making capacity in the elderly: A review of recent literature. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 1990,2 (3/4):15-27
10.
10. Roth L, Meisel A, Lidz C: Tests of competency to consent to treatment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1977;134:279-283
11.
11. Juretic M, Martin D, Taffet G, Gregory P, Wilson N, Luchi R: Improving physician input into guardianship cases involving the elderly: A record review. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Geriatrics Society, Atlanta, Ga., 1990, May
12.
12. Quinn M: Probate conservatorships and guardianships: Assessment and curative aspects. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 1989;1(1): 91-101
13.
13. Keith P, Wacker R: Implementation of recommended guardianship practices and outcomes of hearings for older persons. The Gerontologist, 1993;33(1): 81-87
14.
14. Morgan DL: Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications, 1988
15.
15. Krueger R: Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park, CA, Sage Pub., 1988
16.
16. Gray-Vickery P: Gerontological research: Use and application of focus groups. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 1993; 19(5): 21-27
17.
17. Kingry M, Tiedje L, Friedman L: Focus groups: A research technique for nursing. Nursing Research, 1990; 39(2):124-125
18.
18. Gray-Vickery P: op cit.
19.
19. Kingry M, Tiedje L, Friedman L. op cit.
20.
20. Gray-Vickery P: op cit.
21.
21. Krueger R: op cit.
22.
22. Weisensee MG, Kjervik DK, Anderson JB: Retrospective analysis of guardians' perceptions of cognitively impaired elderly. Journal of Professional Nursing, 1992; 8(2):73-79
23.
23. Weisensee MG, Kjervik DK: Dilemmas in decision making for cognitively impaired elderly persons. Journal of Professional Nursing, 1988; 5(4):186-191
24.
24. Strauss A: Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, University Press, 1987
25.
25. Glaser B, Strauss A: The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, Aldine, 1967
26.
26. Polit D, Hungler B: Nursing Research: Principles and methods. (4 ed.). New York, Lippincott, 1991
27.
27. Gray-Vickrey P: op cit.
28.
28. Strauss A, Corbin J: Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedure and techniques. Newbury Park, N.J., Sage Publications, 1990
29.
29. Beck CT: Qualitative research: The evaluation of its credibility, fittingness and auditability. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 1993;15(2): 263-266
30.
30. Pepper C: Abuses in guardianship of the elderly and infirm: A national disgrace. A report by the chain nan of the Subcommittee on Health and Long-term care of the Select Committee on Aging, House of Representatives. (Comm. Pub. No. 100-169), Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987
31.
31. Collopy BJ: Autonomy in long term care: Some crucial distinctions. The Gerontologist, 1988; 28 (Supp): 10-17
32.
32. Wood E, Dooley J, Karp N: op cit.
33.
33. Schmidt W: op cit.
34.
34. Anderer SJ: op cit.
35.
35. Kapp MB: op cit.
36.
36. Roth L, Meisel A, Lidz C: op cit.
37.
37. Hafemeister T, Sales B: Interdisciplinary evaluations for guardianships and conservatorships. Law and Human Behavior, 1984; 8(3/4):335-354
38.
38. Kapp MB: op cit.
39.
39. Ibid.
40.
40. Kuhlman GJ, Wilson HS, Hutchinson SA, Wallhagen M: Alzheimer's disease and family caregiving; Critical synthesis of the literature and research agenda. Nursing Research, 1991;40(6):331-337
