...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of clinical nursing >Response to Kendall GE & Tallon M (2011) Commentary on Shields (2010) questioning family-centred care. Journal of Clinical Nursing 20, 1788-1790.
【24h】

Response to Kendall GE & Tallon M (2011) Commentary on Shields (2010) questioning family-centred care. Journal of Clinical Nursing 20, 1788-1790.

机译:对Kendall GE和Tallon M(2011)关于盾牌的评论(2010)的质疑,质疑以家庭为中心的护理。临床护理杂志20,1788-1790。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Kendall and Tallon (2011) have written an erudite commentary on my article (Shields 2010). I find little to disagree with in their comments and support what they have said. We must, though, look closely at their points. They are right in saying that a large gap exists between theory about family-centred care (FCC) and the practice of it. In fact, this is the essence of my original argument for it to be questioned. It is pointless, inefficient and essentially detrimental to both children and families, and health services, to continue to implement a model for which no evidence of its effectiveness exists. Kendall and Tallon (2011) correctly cite the basis of FCC as the presence of the family during a stressful event of hospital admission because individual children and their families cannot be separated and that responsibility for the child must remain with the family, not the health professional.
机译:Kendall和Tallon(2011)在我的文章(Shields 2010)上写了一篇博学的评论。我发现他们的意见并支持他们所说的话无异。但是,我们必须仔细研究他们的观点。他们说的对,以家庭为中心的护理(FCC)理论与实践之间存在很大差距。实际上,这是我最初提出质疑的本质。继续实施一个没有证据表明其有效性的模型是毫无意义的,效率低下的,并且对儿童和家庭以及卫生服务基本上是有害的。肯德尔和塔隆(Kendall and Tallon,2011)正确引用了FCC作为住院期间压力大的家庭存在的基础,因为单个孩子及其家庭不能分开,对孩子的责任必须由家庭而不是医疗专业人员承担。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号