Abstract
PURPOSE:
Dignity in healthcare significantly impacts patient satisfaction and care personalisation. This study explores dignity from the perspectives of patients and staff in an inpatient rehabilitation unit, addressing the challenges of undignified care.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Using a Generative Co-design Framework for Healthcare Innovation, specifically reporting on the pre-design phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 patients and 20 staff members over approximately 5 months. Patient interviews occurred during hospitalisation and post-discharge.
RESULTS:
Dignity was experienced through interactions influenced by people, infrastructure, and policies. Participants defined dignity as being acknowledged and respected as people, or the acknowledgement of personhood. Positive dignified experiences were reported, but some patients reported undignified, but necessary care activities. Staff and patients highlighted the need for flexible, person-centred policies. Practices enhancing dignity included validating patient choices, respecting privacy, and ensuring informed decision-making. Despite some systemic challenges, staff showed a strong commitment to dignified care.
CONCLUSIONS:
Dignity is challenging to define. Rehabilitation units and health systems more broadly should cultivate more responsive care interfaces, through flexible, person-centred policies, prioritising and hiring staff with disability aware attitudes, and embedding dignity into the organisational culture.
Dignity in healthcare significantly impacts patient satisfaction and care personalisation. This study explores dignity from the perspectives of patients and staff in an inpatient rehabilitation unit, addressing the challenges of undignified care.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Using a Generative Co-design Framework for Healthcare Innovation, specifically reporting on the pre-design phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 patients and 20 staff members over approximately 5 months. Patient interviews occurred during hospitalisation and post-discharge.
RESULTS:
Dignity was experienced through interactions influenced by people, infrastructure, and policies. Participants defined dignity as being acknowledged and respected as people, or the acknowledgement of personhood. Positive dignified experiences were reported, but some patients reported undignified, but necessary care activities. Staff and patients highlighted the need for flexible, person-centred policies. Practices enhancing dignity included validating patient choices, respecting privacy, and ensuring informed decision-making. Despite some systemic challenges, staff showed a strong commitment to dignified care.
CONCLUSIONS:
Dignity is challenging to define. Rehabilitation units and health systems more broadly should cultivate more responsive care interfaces, through flexible, person-centred policies, prioritising and hiring staff with disability aware attitudes, and embedding dignity into the organisational culture.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-10 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Disability and Rehabilitation |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 2 May 2025 |
| Externally published | Yes |