English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background: West Park Healthcare Centre, a complex continuing care and rehabilitation setting in Ontario, Canada has implemented practice development as one method of facilitating person-centred, evidence-informed practices. West Park is planning the construction of a new hospital, with a target construction timeline of 2018-21. Practice development is an internationally established transformation model (Manley et al., 2008) that can breathe life into the necessary but often burdensome process of policy revision in healthcare settings. Aims: The aim of this article is to share how practice development was used to review and revise West Park’s after-death care policy. The process entailed an integration of a broad span of evidence and intentional challenge of ‘habit-based’ ways. Such an approach to policy revision is needed if practice leaders are to use evidence to help achieve transformative changes in practice. Conclusions: Our after death-care policy involved processes that were antithetical to our shared vision for person-centred practices. Unquestioned, longstanding traditional approaches to after-death care needed to be questioned. Through the transformative journey at personal and organisational levels of applying practice development principles to this process, we were successful in bringing forward a policy that supports end-of-life plans of care, choice and person-centred after-death care practices and language. Implications for practice: • Healthcare organisations can review after-death care by exploring different sources of evidence, including research, clinical experience, local audit and patient experience, to challenge takenfor-granted practices • Consultation with funeral professionals will be valuable in terms of establishing what they do and do not need from a healthcare organisation • Fellow patients do not need to be ‘protected’ from the after-death care process and appreciate having a voice on how it is carried out • Respect for language, religious and cultural issues is part of offering a ‘sympathetic presence’ in after-death care practices

Facilitating person-centred after-death care: unearthing assumptions, tradition and values through practice development