PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: For residents in residential aged care, making choices in relation to food and mealtimes are opportunities to maintain a sense of self and autonomy. It is unknown, however, whether the concept of choice is adequately addressed in texts relating to residential aged care. The purpose of this review is to examine whether residents\' right to make choices regarding the meals they eat, is discussed in grey literature including, policies, standards, reports and guidelines, which all impact practice in residential aged care.
METHODS: Grey literature was located utilising; Google, Google Scholar and hand searching. Texts had to be in reference to residential aged care and were assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II and Joanna Briggs Institute tools.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine texts were included in the final review, consisting of, 12 policies and standards, 12 guidelines and 5 reports. Choice was discussed broadly in the majority of texts, with no definition included for the level of choice that should be provided by residential aged care. The use of alternative meals to provide choice was discussed; however, texts varied in their requirements and recommendations as to what constituted an adequate alternative.
CONCLUSIONS: The ambiguity surrounding choice affects the practices within residential aged care and ultimately the service provided to residents. With most recommendations being only general in nature, residential aged care homes are not provided with sufficient guidance for meal planning. To ensure residents\' right to make choices in their meals is guaranteed, more definitive requirements and recommendations are needed.
METHODS: Grey literature was located utilising; Google, Google Scholar and hand searching. Texts had to be in reference to residential aged care and were assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II and Joanna Briggs Institute tools.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine texts were included in the final review, consisting of, 12 policies and standards, 12 guidelines and 5 reports. Choice was discussed broadly in the majority of texts, with no definition included for the level of choice that should be provided by residential aged care. The use of alternative meals to provide choice was discussed; however, texts varied in their requirements and recommendations as to what constituted an adequate alternative.
CONCLUSIONS: The ambiguity surrounding choice affects the practices within residential aged care and ultimately the service provided to residents. With most recommendations being only general in nature, residential aged care homes are not provided with sufficient guidance for meal planning. To ensure residents\' right to make choices in their meals is guaranteed, more definitive requirements and recommendations are needed.
摘要：
目标：对于住院老年护理的居民，在食物和用餐时间方面做出选择是保持自我意识和自主性的机会。它是未知的，然而,选择的概念是否在有关住宿老年人护理的文本中得到充分解决。这项审查的目的是检查居民是否有权选择他们吃的饭菜，在灰色文献中讨论，包括，政策,标准,报告和指南，这些都会影响老年护理的实践。
方法：灰色文献位于利用；谷歌，谷歌学者和手搜索。文本必须参考住宅老年护理，并使用《评估与评估指南II》和JoannaBriggs研究所的工具进行评估。
结果：最终审查包括29篇文本，包括,12项政策和标准，12条准则和5份报告。在大多数文本中广泛讨论了选择，没有包括住宅老年人护理应提供的选择水平的定义。讨论了使用替代膳食来提供选择；然而，关于什么是适当的替代方案，案文的要求和建议各不相同。
结论：围绕选择的歧义会影响老年护理的实践，并最终影响向居民提供的服务。大多数建议只是一般性的，老年护理院没有提供足够的膳食计划指导。为了确保居民在膳食中做出选择的权利得到保障，需要更明确的要求和建议。
方法：灰色文献位于利用；谷歌，谷歌学者和手搜索。文本必须参考住宅老年护理，并使用《评估与评估指南II》和JoannaBriggs研究所的工具进行评估。
结果：最终审查包括29篇文本，包括,12项政策和标准，12条准则和5份报告。在大多数文本中广泛讨论了选择，没有包括住宅老年人护理应提供的选择水平的定义。讨论了使用替代膳食来提供选择；然而，关于什么是适当的替代方案，案文的要求和建议各不相同。
结论：围绕选择的歧义会影响老年护理的实践，并最终影响向居民提供的服务。大多数建议只是一般性的，老年护理院没有提供足够的膳食计划指导。为了确保居民在膳食中做出选择的权利得到保障，需要更明确的要求和建议。
