An inquiry into what organised difficult advance care planning conversations in a Scottish residential care home using institutional ethnography

Abstract

Aim

This paper provides an institutional ethnographic analysis of how advance care planning discussions, which included advance decisions about serious illness, hospital admission and Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) forms, were systematically placed into the hands of senior social care workers (SSCWs) in a residential care home (RCH). RCHs are care settings where there are no on-site nurses, and access to hospital and/or community doctors and nurses is limited.

Methods

The paper traces the organising features of day-to-day work gathered from interviews with SSCWs (n = 4) and others (n = 6) whose (well-intentioned) work shaped what happened in the RCH.

Results

It shows how the experience of SSCWs was socially organised to happen as it did as they (and others) complied with powerful organising texts such as national and local policy documents, care plans and audit forms. The paper concludes that although SSCWs decision-making conversations were out of alignment with the national DNACPR policy, they cannot simply be described as poor practice. This is because they were socially organised by a complex web of institutional practices related to the occupancy rate in the RCH, the inspection process of the care home scrutiny body, the quality assurance process of the RCH company, the funding of palliative care education, and powerful political and fiscal drives to reduce spending on over-75s. These practices had little to do with the actual care needs of RCH residents or the actual support needs of RCH staff.

Conclusions

The paper points towards necessary policy changes. It also highlights how ‘competent’ work driven by ideological institutional practices can result in ethically troubling situations in day-to-day working life. This emphasises the importance of carefully examining the social organisation of situations typically described as poor practice if we are to understand how they are (re)produced. It also offers a different account of care home deaths than is typically presented in the professional literature.