Abstract
Background:
In Greece it is quite common for family members to provide informal unpaid care for another family member during hospitalization, alongside healthcare professionals. Understaffing and lack of nursing personnel, due to austerity measures implemented in Greece during the last eight years, force families to provide informal care during hospitalization. The aim of the research was to study the role of informal caregivers (IC) during a family’s member hospitalization, factors affecting their presence and patient’s needs that were met by them.
Material and methods:
This cross-sectional study was conducted in five medical wards of a tertiary general hospital in big city of Northern Greece, during 14 weeks using a questionnaire with demographics, clinical data, and type and frequency of interventions performed by ICs. Patient/nurse ratio was also recorded.
Results:
On the total, 210 ICs participated (63.42% response rate). The vast majority of ICs were females, married, close relatives and in their late forties. More than half of them (58.1%, n=122) stayed by their patient bedside for more than 17 hours per day, as it was found that 13.8 patients were allocated to each nurse. Less than one quarter of ICs reported that their patient’s status was not serious at all and according to them, one third of the patients were totally dependent and one fifth were totally self-sufficient and able to take care of themselves. Nineteen out of the twenty three interventions performed by caregivers were interventions of basic nursing care.
Conclusion:
The GHS administration officials are called to consider nursing understaffing in order to provide adequate and safe care. As new personnel is very difficult to be hired, family members could be trained, through structured programs, in basic nursing skills and interventions, so that they could participate in their family member’s care and provide continuity of care at home.
Keywords: caregivers, family members, hospitalization, nursing interventions
1. INTRODUCTION
Family, a major source of social support, is closely related to self-care (1). Quite often, family plays a key role in supporting and caring for the ill member, as unpaid caregivers. The unpaid care provided by non-healthcare professionals/family members is called informal care and can be found in various cultures and civilizations where family bonds are strong. Informal caregivers provide daily care at home and, often, when hospitalization is required, alongside healthcare professionals.
In Greece, over the last seven years, in the midst of economic turmoil, literature has revealed a number of negative effects for the population as well as the healthcare system in general. Despite that, it seems that Greeks still withstand. This paradox phenomenon is attributed to the “strong traditional bonds of family and social solidarity within the Greek society that have prevented the onset of a widespread humanitarian crisis” (2).
In the beginning of the 1980s, the current Greek Healthcare System (GHS) was established, based on the UK National Health System (NHS), with some variations. It consists of a mixture of public and private hospitals/clinics and private doctors, funded by population taxes, public sickness funds and private insurance agencies, and, quite often, out-of-pocket money from healthcare consumers. During the years of austerity, dramatic reductions in salaries and pensions, unemployment and consequent extreme financial inability and social exclusion are leading people, which previously could afford to visit private clinics and doctors, back to public hospital (3).
It has been argued that understaffing and lack of nursing personnel is a phenomenon attributed to economic crisis and austerity measures. A more in depth Greek literature research, can show that even in the 1960s and 1970s there have been requests for increases in the number of employed nurses (4-6). Understaffing is causing increased patient/nurse ratio resulting in lower quality of delivered care. Over the decades, this care deficit convinced Greek population that patients, during hospitalization, must be accompanied by a family member which will support every need (7).
Meanwhile, public hospitals have to overcome under funding, reduced budgets, lack and freeze in recruitment of personnel due to the enforcement of economic measures, making difficult to meet the increased needs (8-9). Due to these financial difficulties, quite often, Greek hospitals have to cut down on equipment, consumable materials and medications or replace these with others less expensive. While public healthcare system is facing increased demands for services, inevitably it is going to offer lower quality and quantity of healthcare services. Within this context, it was decided to study the role of informal caregivers in a tertiary hospital. The aim of the present research was to study the factors affecting the coming and staying of informal caregivers during a close relative’s hospitalization. Furthermore, the mapping of needs that were met by informal caregivers during their stay by the patient’s bedside was researched also.
2. MATERIAL & METHODS
2.1. Setting and Sample
A cross-sectional study was conducted in five wards of the medical services of a tertiary general hospital in a big Northern Greece city. In order to participate, caregivers had to be at the bedside of his/her relative continuously, day and night, to speak Greek and give his/her written informed consent. The patient had to be hospitalized for at least five days. On the total, 210 informal caregivers, from the initial 302, agreed to participate in the study (response rate 63.42%). Anonymity of their personal data was kept. Approval of the hospital’s and the health prefecture’s ethics committee was obtained after providing the necessary documents.
2.2. Procedure
Data collection lasted for 14 weeks, during summertime of 2016. Data were collected in one different day per week, in order to gather holistic information. Caregivers were approached and asked to fill in the questionnaire in one hour. The researcher, keeping a record of the exact time of questionnaire administration, returned to collect it at exactly one hour. For elder participants with eye-sight problems, the researcher completed the questionnaire during an interview.
2.3. Research Instruments
A questionnaire measuring the level of informal caregiving in hospitalized patients (7) was used, after obtaining permission by the researchers. The specific questionnaire was divided into five parts with five-point Likert scale questions (1=totally disagree to 4=totally agree), including patients’ and caregivers’ demographics, data about hospitalization and caregivers’ interventions performed. In addition, data on the patient/nurse ratio on the day of the interview and on the specific ward for each shift were recorded.
2.4. Data Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Version 21.0. For nominal-qualitative variables relative and absolute frequencies for each group were calculated. For continuous variables measures of central tendency and variability were estimated. Normality test, with Kolmogorov-Smirnov, was conducted and non-parametric tests were used. Statistical significant level was determined at 5% (p=0.05).
3. RESULTS
3.1. Demographic characteristics
The majority of the informal caregivers were females caring for mainly male patients (55.7%, n=117). The mean age of caregivers was almost ten years younger than the patients (Table 1). More details on caregivers’ characteristics regarding family status, residence and presence by the patient’s bedside are presented in Table 2. More than half of the caregivers stayed by the bedside of their patient for more than 17 hours/day for at least 9.3 (±10.4) days, even though most of them resided in the same city/town with the hospital and could easily/quickly come to the hospital if needed. Moreover, more than one third of the caregivers (35.7%, n=75) reported that their patient’s clinical status was extremely serious and only 22.9% (n=48) of the patients were totally self-sufficient and able to take care themselves.
Table 1. Caregivers’ and patients’ demographic characteristics.
| Caregivers | Patients | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 48.7 (±14.8) | 58.6 (±18.3) | |
| Gender | Male | 25.2% (n=53) | 55.7% (n=117) |
| Female | 74.8% (n=157) | 44.3% (n=93) | |
| Educational status | Il-literal | 1.9% (n=4) | 4.8% (n=10) |
| Elementary school | 12.9% (n=27) | 24.8% (n=52) | |
| High School | 15.2% (n=32) | 15.7% (n=33) | |
| Lyceum | 23.8% (n=50) | 20.5% (n=43) | |
| Vocational school | 15.2% (n=32) | 12.9% (n=27) | |
| Applied University | 13.8% (n=29) | 3.8% (n=8) | |
| University | 10.5% (n=22) | 6.7% (n=14) | |
| Post-graduate | 5.7% (n=12) | 1.9% (n=4) | |
| Do not answer | 1.0% (n=2) | 3.8% (n=8) | |
| Professional status | Civil servant | 16.2% (n=43) | 12.9% (n=27) |
| Private employee | 14.8% (n=31) | 11.4% (n=24) | |
| Free-lance professional | 18.1% (n=38) | 16.2% (n=34) | |
| Farmer | 7.6% (n=16) | 7.1% (n=15) | |
| Laborer | 6.7% (n=14) | 7.1% (n=15) | |
| Pensioner | 13.3% (n=28) | 27.6% (n=58) | |
| Unemployed | 21.0% (n=44) | 13.8% (n=29) | |
| Do not answer | 2.4% (n=5) | 3.8% (n=8) | |
Table 2. Frequency of interventions provided by informal caregiver.
| Never | 1-2 Times/day | 3-4 times/week | 5-6 times/week | Daily | Do not answer | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | |
| I help the patient to take his/her oral medication | 59 | 28,1 | 9 | 4,3 | 2 | 1 | 17 | 8,1 | 120 | 57,1 | 3 | 1,4 |
| I help the patient to take his/her rectal administered medication | 167 | 79,5 | 11 | 5,2 | 11 | 5,2 | - | - | 16 | 7,6 | 5 | 2,4 |
| Blood glucose calculation and administration of insulin | 149 | 71 | 8 | 3,8 | 9 | 4,3 | 12 | 5,7 | 26 | 12,4 | 6 | 2,9 |
| Take his/her temperature | 109 | 51,9 | 15 | 7,1 | 6 | 2,9 | 21 | 10 | 55 | 26,2 | 4 | 2 |
| Change the urine bag | 177 | 84,3 | 8 | 3,8 | 5 | 2,4 | 1 | 0,5 | 15 | 7,1 | 4 | 2 |
| Administer the bed-pan | 115 | 54,8 | 11 | 5,2 | 6 | 2,9 | 14 | 6,7 | 58 | 27,6 | 6 | 2,8 |
| Help him/her change positions in bed | 50 | 23,8 | 10 | 4,8 | 16 | 7,6 | 26 | 12,4 | 106 | 50,5 | 2 | 1 |
| Provide massage to him/her | 49 | 23,3 | 7 | 3,3 | 19 | 9 | 21 | 10 | 111 | 52,9 | 3 | 1,5 |
| Encourage him/her to perform his/her exercises provided by the physiotherapist | 76 | 36,2 | 10 | 4,8 | 15 | 7,1 | 17 | 8,1 | 89 | 42,4 | 3 | 1,5 |
| Watch the flow of the iv drip or blood | 63 | 30 | 15 | 7,1 | 8 | 3,8 | 9 | 4,3 | 111 | 52,9 | 4 | 1,8 |
| Help with his/her morning toilet (face and teeth washing, hair combing) | 15 | 7,1 | 7 | 3,3 | 13 | 6,2 | 16 | 7,6 | 157 | 74,8 | 2 | 1 |
| Bed-making | 15 | 7,1 | 22 | 10,5 | 28 | 13,3 | 28 | 13,3 | 98 | 46,7 | 3 | 1,5 |
| Help him/her to change nightgown/pyjamas | 25 | 11,9 | 26 | 12,4 | 30 | 14,3 | 8 | 3,8 | 120 | 57,1 | 1 | 0,5 |
| Change bed linen | 63 | 30 | 47 | 22,4 | 38 | 18,1 | 10 | 4,8 | 47 | 22,4 | 5 | 2,4 |
| Food preparation/help during eating/feed the patient | 35 | 16,7 | 13 | 6,2 | 11 | 5,2 | 17 | 8,1 | 132 | 62,9 | 2 | 1 |
| Help him/her to wash his/her hair in the bathroom | 101 | 48,1 | 32 | 15,2 | 29 | 13,8 | 3 | 1,4 | 41 | 19,5 | 2 | 1 |
| Provide bed hair wash | 136 | 64,8 | 15 | 7,1 | 7 | 3,3 | 6 | 2,9 | 38 | 18,1 | 8 | 4,8 |
| Help him/her to move with a wheelchair | 106 | 50,5 | 19 | 9 | 12 | 5,7 | 9 | 4,3 | 58 | 27,6 | 5 | 2,9 |
| Help other patients hospitalized in the same room with my patient | 52 | 24,8 | 26 | 12,4 | 20 | 9,5 | 19 | 9 | 90 | 42,9 | 3 | 1,5 |
| I get him/her water or/and food from the canteen | 33 | 15,7 | 12 | 5,7 | 11 | 5,2 | 22 | 10,5 | 128 | 61 | 4 | 1,9 |
| I carry the plates to the kitchen | 130 | 61,9 | 15 | 7,1 | 14 | 6,7 | 9 | 4,3 | 39 | 18,6 | 3 | 1,5 |
| Carry the paperwork to the hospital offices | 74 | 35,2 | 20 | 9,5 | 22 | 10,5 | 10 | 4,8 | 81 | 38,6 | 3 | 1,5 |
| Carry blood samples & other samples to hospital labs | 131 | 62,4 | 18 | 8,6 | 18 | 8,6 | 10 | 4,8 | 31 | 14,8 | 2 | 1 |
3.2. Patient/nurse ratio per working shift
In order to determine the reasons for caregivers’ active participation in care during hospitalization, the patient/nurse ratio was studied. More specifically, in the wards under investigation patients rated from 12 to 45, with a mean number of 26.9 (±10.1) patients. A mean of 13.8 (±3.2) patients in the morning shift were allocated to each nurse. The ratio was even higher during late and night shift.
3.3. Perceptions on caregivers’ presence in hospital
When caregivers were asked about what Greek society expected from them to do for their hospitalized family member, almost all (91.4%, n=192) stated that the most important was psychological support. It is not uncommon belief in the general public (36.2%, n=76), that the care provided is not good enough, so caregivers have to provide supplementary care. Later on, almost all of the participants stated that they stayed in hospital because they wanted to provide psychological support and care for their not self-reliant and insecure family member in the new and unknown environment of the hospital. It is worth mentioning, that during data processing two different statements for both the public’s perceptions as well as the caregiver’s reasons for staying by the patient’s bedside emerged. The most common belief was that informal caregivers could communicate better with healthcare professionals (84.5%, n=178) and that patients trust more their family to be the provider of care instead of nurses (67.1%, n=141). An important reason for caregivers to provide in-hospital care was the family tradition of caring for one another (75.7%, n=159), which is actually very common in Greece. Finally, the shortage of nursing personnel, which is more evident in the years of Greece’s financial crisis, was stated as an important reason for staying by the patient for the 73.4% (n=154) of caregivers.
3.4. Interventions provided by caregivers
When studying the 23 interventions performed by caregivers, the first 19 were grouped as a scale of care delivered, based on the frequency of performance, and they accounted for interventions of basic nursing care. The mean value was 55.93 (±15.22) with a range from 19 to 95. The higher the scale, the more frequent caregivers performed the specific interventions. As caregivers reported, the most common interventions were performed from 5-6 times a week to daily (Table 2).
Furthermore, females (r=0.151, p=0.032, U=3098.00) and those caregivers that were not residing in the city that the hospital was situated (r=0.147, p=0.037, U=3531.50), were performing more frequently interventions of care. In addition, the more serious the patient’s health status was perceived by caregivers (r=0.344, p=0.000) and the lower the patient’s ability for self-care (r=-0.309, p<0.001), the more the frequency of the provided interventions. Furthermore, it was found that with every year age increased, the scale of care delivered by caregivers increased for 0.14 (p=.034). More than double (0.37) was the increase in the scale, for every hour and day more (0.33) spent by the patient’s bedside. In addition, for every unit increase in the patient/nurse ratio, the scale of care increased by 0.18. Finally, caregivers tended to believe that without their presence the patient’s needs were not going to be fulfilled, especially when their patient’s health status was very serious and his/her ability for self-care as very limited.
3.5. Correlations according to age
As the patient’s age increased, there was an increase in hospitalization days, caregiver’s age, total days and hours per day spent by the patient’s bedside and frequency of interventions provided. In more details, caregivers were helping patients to eat, have his/her hair washed, change position in bed, and take the medication administered by nurses (Table 7). Furthermore, it was found that the older the patient, the more serious the patient’s health status and the lower the patient’s ability for self-care as perceived by caregivers. On the contrary, the older the patient, the less the frequency that the caregiver helped to shower and change his/her urine bag (Table 3).
Table 3. Correlations regarding patient’s age and various variables.
| Patient’s age | ||
|---|---|---|
| Patient’s health status | Spearman’s rho | .178** |
| Sign. | .010 | |
| Caregiver’s age | Spearman’s rho | .383** |
| Sign. | .000 | |
| Days of hospitalization | Spearman’s rho | .289** |
| Sign. | .000 | |
| Hours/day staying by the patient’s bedside | Spearman’s rho | .173* |
| Sign. | .013 | |
| Days of staying by the patient’s bedside | Spearman’s rho | .160* |
| Sign. | .020 | |
| Patient’s ability for self-care | Spearman’s rho | -.355** |
| Sign. | .000 | |
| Frequency of interventions | Spearman’s rho | .149* |
| Sign. | .034 | |
| Help patient eat | Spearman’s rho | .295** |
| Sign. | .000 | |
| Help to wash his/her hair | Spearman’s rho | .135 |
| Sign. | .052 | |
| Help patient to shower | Spearman’s rho | -.212** |
| Sign. | .002 | |
| Change position in bed | Spearman’s rho | .244** |
| Sign. | .000 | |
| Help patient to take the medication administered by nurses | Spearman’s rho | .191** |
| Sign. | .006 | |
| Change the urine bag | Spearman’s rho | -.148* |
| Sign. | .032 | |
3.6. Correlations according to gender
As it was evident from the correlations, mainly females provided care for patients, either male (84.6%, n=178) or female (62.4%, n=131) (r=0.254, p=0.000). When looking into the reasons for staying at the hospital and the frequency of interventions performed by caregivers, differentiations regarding gender were found. Female caregivers believed that they had to be there because they could communicate better with healthcare professionals, patients trusted them more than nurses and due to the fact that their patient was not self-sufficient. On the other hand, male caregivers believed that they had to be at the hospital because care provided was not enough for their patient (Table 8). In an analysis of the most common basic nursing care interventions provided by caregivers, females performed more interventions than males also. (Table 4).
Table 4: Correlations according to gender regarding perceived reasons for coming and staying at the hospital and interventions performed.
| GENDER | N | Mean | SD | r/p | U, p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caregiver communicate better with healthcare professionals | Male | 53 | 2.9 | 0.9 | r=0.229, p=0.001 | U=2995, p=0.001 |
| Female | 157 | 3.4 | 0.7 | |||
| Patients, sometimes, trust more their caregiver than nurses | Male | 53 | 2.7 | 1.1 | r=0.140, p=0.043 | U=3423.5, p=0.043 |
| Female | 157 | 2.9 | 0.9 | |||
| Patient is not able of self-care | Male | 53 | 2.9 | 0.8 | r=0.148, p=0.032 | U=3396.5, p=0.032 |
| Female | 157 | 3.3 | 0.9 | |||
| Not sufficient care provided by nurses | Male | 53 | 3.1 | 0.9 | r= - 0.136, p=0.049 | U=3419.5, p=0.050 |
| Female | 157 | 2.8 | 1.0 | |||
| Morning toilet or help for morning toilet | Male | 53 | 4,0 | 1,5 | r= 0.196, p=0.004 | U=3341.5, p=0.005 |
| Female | 157 | 4,5 | 1,1 | |||
| Bed-making | Male | 53 | 3,2 | 1.1 | r= 0.197, p=0.004 | U=3135.5, p=0.004 |
| Female | 157 | 3,9 | 1,4 | |||
| Hair washing on the bed | Male | 53 | 1,5 | 1,5 | r=0.147, p=0.034 | U=3444.0, p=0.034 |
| Female | 157 | 2,1 | 1,7 | |||
| Helping other patients hospitalized in the same ward | Male | 53 | 2,9 | 1,7 | r=0.162, p=0.019 | U=3242.5, p=0.019 |
| Female | 157 | 3,5 | 1.7 |
4. DISCUSSION
For the GHS, lack of healthcare professionals, and especially nurses, is a timeless problem and was evident even in the pre-crisis era (5-6) (10-15). Healthcare Unions have stated that GHS personnel during economic crisis have been reduced by 4000, while vacant places in public hospital reach 35000 (14). Having the appropriate amount of personnel is mandatory in order to provide high quality services and fulfill the consumers’ needs and demands. Nursing personnel shortage is evident when recording the patient/nurse ratio (16) and the informal caregiver’s presence during hospitalization (7). Longitudinal dysfunction of GHS is forcing family members to provide in-hospital care for their relative. In the present study, the majority of caregivers (58.1%, n=122) were practically residing in the hospital, as they were there for more than 17 hours/day. In a similar research (10) in 600 hospitalized patients, it was found that 60.5% (n=363) of the patients regarded extremely necessary the presence of an informal caregiver by their bedside. Almost half of them (49.5%, n=297) had already someone from the close family circle with him/her. Another research conducted fifteen years later, found even more informal caregivers (82%) staying at the hospital (7).
The reasons that force informal caregivers to stay in hospital are associated to the actual nursing care as it is delivered in today’s economic crisis affected GHS. Six out of seven most selected statements regarding informal caregiver’s interventions are associated to basic nursing interventions. Patients’ psychological support and empowerment are major characteristics of nursing identity, which need face to face communication and interaction in order to be achieved (16). Nursing personnel understaffing has resulted in a high number of patients being allocated to each nurse, a situation which undermines quality and safety of nursing care delivered (16). Care deficit deterministically caused by the absence of thousands of nurses from the GHS, has convinced population that patients must be accompanied by a family member, which, with its continuous presence, will support every need (7).
In many cultures, illness, regardless how serious it is, is a family affair. Within this concept care-giving is expected to be delivered by family members either as emotional support or actual care during hospitalization or after discharge at home (17). In various studies, it has been shown that the presence of family member is beneficiary for the patient, especially in Intensive Care Unit environment (18). Informal caregivers can be the source of valuable information and enhance communication with healthcare team (19-20), can keep the patient in touch with the “outside” world (21) and promote rehabilitation (22). Furthermore, informal caregivers can increase the patient’s relaxation (23), reduce anxiety (24), and provide encouragement, psychologic and emotional support (17) (25).
Care provided by informal caregivers focuses on medication management (26), familiarization and adaptation to the demands/changes in the way of life imposed by the disease (27), and participation in recovery and rehabilitation of their patient (28). Caregivers’ presence ensures continuity of care (19) as, during hospitalization, they can be trained better in order to provide care for their loved one at home after discharge (29). Since the late 2000s, worldwide policies regarding family visitation changed towards a friendlier environment; allowing informal caregivers to stay more time with their family member patients and even to provide some care for them (30).
But even though, informal caregivers are allowed to stay more in hospital wards with considerable positive outcomes, they are not involved with any actual nursing interventions, only psychologic empowerment and keeping company to the patient (19) (28) (30). On the contrary, in the present study, family members provided a considerable amount of basic nursing care interventions, such as bed-making, morning toilet and hair wash, feeding or helping with meals, but also made sure that the administered medication were actually taken by the patient. Although the results of the present study cannot be generalized, as they reflect data of a specific hospital, they agree with various studies conducted in Greece, which concluded that not only Greek families have the main responsibility for caring for their disabled member at home, but they provide in-hospital care, also (7) (31-33). Similar were the findings in a rehabilitation center in Turkey, where the majority of basic nursing care interventions were performed by family members (34). Caregivers were found to be nurses’ help and perform basic care in a culturally diverse population in Australia (17).
Three out of four informal caregivers, in the present study, were females and wives, daughters or daughters in law of the patients, with a lot of them practically residing in the hospital for a lot of days facing changes in their everyday routine and employment status. In the last 30-35 years, a lot of changes have been accomplished in the Greek society social structure regarding the position of females. Greek society, although more open-minded, is still expecting from female family members to care for ill and elders, mainly due to social, religious and cultural beliefs (7) (35-37). In research conducted in Spain and Italy, the demographics of caregivers were similar (around 80% of caregivers were females) confirming the belief that southern-Mediterranean families have more strong and traditional family ties than inhabitants of northern Europe (38-39). Alas, it might come as a surprise that similar findings were reported in a Norwegian research (40) both among older and in younger generation.
Having the nurse/patient ratio in mind and the fact that caregivers regarded, equally, their patients as totally dependent and self-sufficient with a little help, the caregiver’s in-hospital presence for 17.2 hours/day can be justified. Family is regarded as a type of social support and is closely connected to self-care (1), but the patient’s demand to have a caregiver by his/her bedside at all times is beyond this supporting role. With the various dysfunctions of the healthcare facilities (7) and the prevailing fear that being away from the hospitalized patient results in unfulfilled needs, the sense of duty is enhanced even more, making the caregiver reluctant to leave the patient even for only few hours. All this process is causing unpleasant consequences both for the caregiver and sometimes the patient, also.
The scale of care delivered by caregivers reveals the frequency of basic nursing care interventions that are usually performed by healthcare personnel. In the present study, mean value was 55.93 (out of 95), making more evident the weakness of GHS to cover sufficiently patients’ needs. Nursing staff shortage is making caregivers, and mostly females, to implement a variety of nursing interventions with greater frequency and duration (41-42). A very important part in the GHS is played by informal caregivers, as they, quite often, substitute nurses in a number of basic nursing interventions (43). Continuous and constant presence of informal caregivers during hospitalization, cause major negative effects in caregivers’ personal, family and work life, especially of those with lower economic status.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The present study revealed the nursing staff shortage in the specific hospital. Unfortunately, the problem is equal in the whole GHS. The reasons that force informal caregivers to come and stay in hospital during a family member’s hospitalization are the main cause of care deficit created by the significant shortage of nursing staff. Informal caregivers are trying to balance this care deficit with the long hours and extended presence in hospital. During their stay, they are, often, forced to provide basic nursing care interventions instead of providing just psychological support and company to their family member.
The GHS administration officials are called to try and find appropriate solutions. Adequate nursing staff creates a safe environment for the provision of care in which patient’s needs are met. In an environment like that, caregivers could be confined to psychological support and participate only in the discharge process, where all training for home care takes place. Patient and family are trained in skills and interventions that will help them to safely continue providing care at home. It is now, more than ever, needed to plan and implement changes in Greek healthcare system. As the employment of new public servants, like nurses, is forbidden by the austerity measures implemented, another solution has to be found. Informal caregivers could be trained through structured programs to provide basic nursing care during hospitalization and at home, ensuring continuity of care. These programs could be organized by the hospital’s training officer and last for one or two hours during the first days of hospitalization.
Author’s contributions:
Aikaterini Stavrianou, Alexandra Mantoudi, Eugenia Minasidou made substantial contribution to conception, design, data collection and drafting the paper. Theodora Kafkia contributed in drafting the paper, critically revised it into English and made the final edition. Anna Konstantinidou contributed to data collection. Despoina Sapountzi-Krepia and Alexandra Dimitriadou made substantial contribution in the design and supervision of the research and critically revised the paper. All authors approved the final version submitted.
Conflict of interest:
none declared.
REFERENCES
- 1.Sahahriari M, Ahmadi M, Babaee S, Mehrabi T, Sadeghi M. Effects of a family support program on self-care behaviors in patients with congestive heart failure. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2013;18(2):152–157. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Tountas I. Financial crisis impact on healthcare. Vima newspaper. 2016. May 22,
- 3.Hellenic Statistics Authority. Survey on income and living conditions 2010. [December, 2016]. Available at: http://www.statistics.gr.
- 4.Papamikrouli S. Report on the nursing problem in Greece. Nosileftiki. 1981;83(4):152–182. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Karanikola M, Papathanasoglou E, Giannakopoulou M, Koutroubas A. Pilot exploration of the association between self-esteem and professional satisfaction in Hellenic hospital nurses. J Nurs Manag. 2007;15(1):78–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2934.2006.00673.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Brokalaki H, Matziou V, Thanou J, Zirogiannis P, Dafni U, Papadatou D. Job-related stress among nursing personnel in Greek dialysis units. EDTNA-ERCA J. 2001;27(4):181–186. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-6686.2001.tb00174.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Sapountzi-Krepia D, Raftopoulos V, Sgantzos M, Dimitriadou A, Ntourou I, Sapkas G. Informal in-hospital care in a rehabilitation setting in Greece: an estimation of the nursing staff required for substituting this care. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28(1):3–11. doi: 10.1080/09638280500165070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kondilis E, Gavana M, Giannakopoulos S, Smyrnakis E, Dombros N, Benos A. Payments and quality of care in private for-profit and public hospitals in Greece. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:234–245. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kondilis E, Giannakopoulos S, Gavana M, Ierodiakonou I, Waitzkin H, Benos A. Economic crisis, restrictive policies and the population’s health and health care: the Greek case. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(6):973–980. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Dimitriadou A, Lazaridis P, Papadopoulou A, et al. Views and attitudes of hospitalized patients regarding nursing administration. Proceedings 18th National Nursing Conference; Athens. 1991. pp. 71–87. (in Greek) [Google Scholar]
- 11.Stathis G. Healthcare professions in deficiency or absence. Health Rev. 1993;4(1):9–10. (in Greek) [Google Scholar]
- 12.Charalambidou E. Nurses’ satisfaction: quality factors in the healthcare system. Proceedings 21st National Nursing Conference; Athens. 1994. pp. 82–88. (in Greek) [Google Scholar]
- 13.Papadimitriou M, Leventis C, Foulidou C, Fidani A, Dimopoulou E, Marneras C. Interpersonal relations: Nurses’ and patients’ satisfaction from the delivered care. Nosileftiki. 1998;3(2):251–264. (in Greek) [Google Scholar]
- 14.Merkouris A, Ouzounidou A, Mouderidou D, Rombi M, Zougris P, Lemonidou C. Evaluation of satisfaction of patients hospitalized in medical and surgical wards from the nursing care delivered in a general hospital. Nosileftiki. 2001;3(1):74–84. (in Greek) [Google Scholar]
- 15.Kapela M, Minetou E, Zyga S. Evaluation of nurses’ satisfaction from their job. Nosileftiki. 2002;2(2):191–196. (in Greek) [Google Scholar]
- 16.Dimitriadou A. School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki; 2008. Epidemiologic evaluation of views towards the identity and the role of modern nurse according to his/her education. Ph.D. Dissertation. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Cioffi J. Culturally diverse family members and their hospitalized relatives in acute care wards: a qualitative study. Aust J Adv Nurs. 2006;24(1):15–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Tayebi Z, Borimnejad L, Dehghan-Nayeri N, Kohan M. Rationales of restricted visiting hour in Iranian intensive care units: a qualitative study. Nurs Crit Care. 2014;19(3):117–125. doi: 10.1111/nicc.12081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.McCabe M. Impact of family presence in the healthcare setting. 2014. [Janurary 2017]. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1481&context=honors.
- 20.Miller A, Mishra S, Kendall L, Haldar S, Pollack A, Pratt W. Partners in Care: Design Considerations for Caregivers and Patients During a Hospital Stay. CSCW Proc Conf Comput-Support Coop Work Conf Comput-Support Coop Work (CSCW) 2016;6(2):756–69. doi: 10.1145/2818048.2819983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Clarke C, Harrison D. The needs of children visiting on adult intensive care units: a review of the literature and recommendations for practice. J Adv Nurs. 2001;34(1):61–8. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.3411733.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Agård A, Lomborg K. Flexible family visitation in the intensive care unit: nurses’ decision-making. J Clin Nurs. 2011;20(7-8):1106–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03360.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Toseland R, Blanchard C, McCallion P. A problem solving intervention for caregivers of cancer patients. Soc Sci Med. 1995;40(4):517–28. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)e0093-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Smith L, Medves J, Harrison M, Tranmer J, Waytuck B. The Impact of Hospital Visiting Hour Policies on Pediatric and Adult Patients and their Visitors. JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(2):38–79. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907020-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Sapountzi-Krepia D, Lavdaniti M, Psychogiou M, Arsenos P, Paralikas T, Triantafylidou P. Nursing staff shortage and in-hospital informal care in an oncology hospital in Greece: the nursing staff’s perceptions. Int J Nurs Pract. 2008;14(3):256–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-172X.2008.00688.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Manias E. Communication relating to family members‘involvement and understandings about patients’ medication management in hospital. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):850–866. doi: 10.1111/hex.12057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Creasy K, Lutz B, Young M, Stacciarini J. Clinical Implications of Family-Centered Care in Stroke Rehabilitation. Rehabil Nurs. 2015;40(6):349–59. doi: 10.1002/rnj.188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Rotman-Pikielny P, Rabin B, Amoyal S, Mushkat Y, Zissin R, Levy Y. Participation of family members in ward rounds: Attitude of medical staff, patients and relatives. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;65(2):166–70. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Bishop S, Walker M, Spivak I. Family presence in the adult burn intensive care unit during dressing changes. Crit Care Nurse. 2013;33(1):14–24. doi: 10.4037/ccn2013116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Wigert H, Berg M, Hellström A. Parental presence when their child is in neonatal intensive care. Scand J Caring Sci. 2010;24(1):139–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2009.00697.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Sapountzi-Krepia D, Kalofissudis I, Psychogiou M, Peterson D, Sakellari E. Seeing to the future through the shadow of the nursing staff shortage: Greek registered nurses’ views on a possible establishment of a family nursing policy in Greek hospitals. ICU and Nursing Web Journal. 2001b;7:56–60. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Bellou-Milona P, Iordanou P, Kyriakidou H. Factors influencing family members to visit and remain close to their hospitalized relatives. ICU and Nursing Web Journal. 2002a;8:34–40. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Bellou-Milona P, Iordanou P, Kyriakidou H, Andrea S, Evangelou H, Kostandou H. Family members’ involvement in their hospitalized patients’ care. ICU and nursing web journal. 2002b;12:1–10. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Yazicioglu K, Gunduz S, Alaca R, Arpacioglu O. Nursing care in spinal cord injuries in Turkey. Spinal Cord. 2001;39(1):47–50. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Pliatsika K, Kafkia T, Sakellari E, Sapountzi-Krepia D. Experiences and feelings of long-term informal care providers in a rehabilitation center: a qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2017. (submitted)
- 36.Sapountzi-Krepia D, Lavdaniti M, Psychogiou M, et al. Nursing staff shortage and in-hospital informal care in an oncology hospital in Greece: the nursing staff’s perceptions. Int J Nurs Pract. 2008;14(3):256–263. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-172X.2008.00688.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Samonis G, Giannousi Z, Varbobitis I, Sardi T, Falagas M. Family support of elderly patients hospitalized in a public tertiary hospital in Greece: a prospective study. J Am Geriatric Soc. 2009;57(7):1302–1304. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02302.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Rodriguez-Gonzalo A, Garcia-Marti C, Ocana-Colorado A, Baquera-De Micheo J, Morel-Fernandez S. Efficiency of an intensive educational program for informal caregivers of hospitalized, dependent patients: cluster randomized trial. BMC Nurs. 2015;14(1):5–17. doi: 10.1186/s12912-015-0055-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Quattrin R, Artico C, Farneti F, Panariti M, Palese A. Study on the impact of caregivers in an Italian specialization hospital: presence, costs and nurse’s perception. Scand J Caring Sci. 2009;23(2):328–333. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2008.00626.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Bragstad L, Kirkevoid M, Hofoss D, Foss C. Informal caregivers’ participation when older adults in Norway are discharged from the hospital. Health Soc Care Community. 2014;22(2):155–168. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Larsson K, Thorslund M. Does gender matter? Differences in patterns of informal support and formal services in Swedish urban elderly population. Research on Aging. 2002;24(3):308–336. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Mackay G, Risk M. Building Quality Practice Settings: An Attributes Model. Can J Nurs Leadersh. 2001;14(3):19–25. doi: 10.12927/cjnl.2001.19127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Dimitriadou A, Stavrinou A, Manomenidis G, et al. Informal caregivers’ living conditions in hospital setting and their negative impact on patients and themselves. Nosileftiki. 2017. (accepted) (in Greek)