Aim: To describe ambulance clinicians' experiences of self-determination in older patients.

Design: The study had an inductive and explorative design, guided from a life-world perspective.

Methods: Thirty-two Swedish ambulance clinicians were interviewed in six focus groups in November 2019. The data were analysed with content analysis, developing manifest categories and latent themes.

Findings: The ambulance clinicians assessed the older patients' exercise of self-determination by engaging in conversation and by being visually alert, to eventually gain an overall picture of their decision-making capacity. This assessment was used as a platform when informing older patients of their rights, thus promoting their participation in care. Having limited time and narrow guidelines counteracted ambulance clinicians' ambitions to support older patients' general desire to avoid hospitalization, which resulted in an urge to displace their responsibility to external decision-makers.

Conclusion: Expectations that older patients with impaired decision-making ability will give homogeneous responses mean an increased risk of ageist attitudes with a simplified view of patient autonomy. Such attitudes risk the withholding of information about options that healthcare professionals do not wish older patients to choose. When decision-making is difficult, requests for expanded guidelines may paradoxically risk alienation from the professional nursing role.

Implications and Impact: The findings show ambulance clinicians' unwillingness to shoulder their professional responsibility when encountering older patients with impaired decision-making ability. In assuming that all older patients reason in the same way, ambulance clinicians tend to adopt a simplistic and somewhat ageist approach when it comes to patient autonomy. This points to deficiencies in ethical competence, which is why increased ethics support is deemed suitable to promote and develop ethical competence. Such support can increase the ability to act as autonomous professionals in accordance with professional ethical codes.

Reporting Method: This study adhered to COREQ guidelines.

Patient and Public Contribution: None.