Palliative care is provided at a certain timepoint, both in a person's life and in a societal context. What is considered to be a good death can therefore vary over time depending on prevailing social values and norms, and the person's own view and interpretation of life. This means that there are many interpretations of what a good death can actually mean for an individual. On a more general level, research in palliative care shows that individuals have basic common needs, (...) for example physical, mental, social and spiritual well‐being. Therefore, in today's pluralistic Western society, it becomes important that palliative care is person centred to enable individuals to receive, as far as can be achieved, care that promotes as good a life as possible based on the person's own needs and preferences, and in accordance with evidence and current laws. For many years a research group, consisting nurse researchers together with nurses working in palliative care, has developed a model for person‐centred palliative care, the 6S‐model. The model's central concept is Self‐image, where the starting point is the patient as a person and their own experience of the situation. The other concepts: Self‐determination, Symptom relief, Social relationships, Synthesis and Strategies are all related to the patient's self‐image, and often to each other. The model's development, value base and starting assumptions are reported here, as are examples of how the model is applied in palliative care in Sweden. The model has been, and still is, constantly evolving in a collaboration between researchers and clinically active nurses, and in recent years also with patients and close relatives. (shrink)

Adverse health care events are a global public health issue despite major efforts, and they have been acknowledged as a complex concern. The aim of this study was to explore the construction of unsafe care using accounts of adverse events concerning the patient, as reported by patients, relatives, and health care professionals. Twenty‐nine adverse events reported in an acute care setting in a Swedish university hospital were analyzed through discourse analysis, where the construction of what was considered to be real (...) and true in the descriptions of unsafe care was analyzed. In the written reports about unsafe events, the patient was spoken of in three different ways: (a) the patient as a presentation of physical signs, (b) the patient as suffering and vulnerable, and (c) the patient as unpredictable. When the patient's voice was subordinate to physical signs, this was described as being something that conflicted with patient safety. The conclusion was that the patient's voice might be the only sign available in the early stages of adverse events. Therefore, it is crucial for health care professionals to give importance to the patient's voice to prevent patients from harm and not unilaterally act only upon abnormal physical signs. (shrink)