Defining What is Good: Pluralism and Healthcare Quality

Unifying and universalizing Personalised Care? An analysis of a national curriculum with implications for policy and education relating to person-centred care

OBJECTIVE

To examine the Curriculum of England's Personalised Care Institute as a national initiative to promote person-centred practice.

METHOD

Analysis of Curriculum content and discourse RESULTS: The Curriculum describes an educational framework which aspires to unify approaches and universalize provision of Personalised Care. It presents 8 "models and approaches" and 6 "components" within the "whole" of Personalised Care. It locates their unity in an underlying common core repertoire of professional capabilities and values and an anchoring belief in people's strengths, resourcefulness and ability to develop their own solutions with appropriate support. The Curriculum indicates some complexity in the provision of Personalised Care but leaves unanswered questions about the theoretical coherence of the concept. It also neglects some important aspects of person-centredness (especially values beyond empowerment and choice); the implications of entrenched social inequalities and systemic prejudices; and other practical-ethical implementation challenges that can be difficult for health professionals.

CONCLUSION

The Curriculum signals a national commitment to person-centred practice, but its practical potential is limited by its neglect of the value tensions and diverse situational challenges involved.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The Curriculum and similar policy-education initiatives could be strengthened by more explicit attention to the normative complexities of person-centred practice.

Cultural Differences in Patients' Preferences for Paternalism: Comparing Mexican and American Patients' Preferences for and Experiences with Physician Paternalism and Patient Autonomy

Following up on previous research demonstrating the high level of care realized by a paternalistic Mexican physician, the present research further explored the hypothesis that there are cultural differences in preferences for and experiences with physician paternalism vs. patient autonomy in White American culture as compared with Mexican culture. In this research, we interviewed sixty (60) people including twenty (20) Mexican, twenty (20) Mexican American, and twenty (20) White American respondents. We asked these patients about their experiences with and attitudes towards paternalism and patient autonomy in healthcare interactions. With some caveats, our data showed strong support for both hypotheses while also suggesting a high level of care can be realized by paternalistic physicians when "paternalism" is understood in a cultural context. We close with a brief consideration of the implications of these findings.

Talking it better: conversations and normative complexity in healthcare improvement

In this paper, we consider the role of conversations in contributing to healthcare quality improvement. More specifically, we suggest that conversations can be important in responding to what we call 'normative complexity'. As well as reflecting on the value of conversations, the aim is to introduce the dimension of normative complexity as something that requires theoretical and practical attention alongside the more recognised challenges of complex systems, which we label, for short, as 'explanatory complexity'. In brief, normative complexity relates to the inherent difficulty of deciding what kinds of changes are 'improvements' or, more broadly, what is valuable in healthcare. We suggest that explanatory and normative complexity intersect and that anyone interested in healthcare improvement needs to be sensitive to both. After briefly introducing the idea of normative complexity, we consider some contrasting examples of conversations, reflecting on how they do and might contribute to healthcare quality. We discuss both conversations that are deliberately organised and facilitated ('orchestrated conversations') and more informally occurring and routine conversations. In the first half of the paper, we draw on some examples of orchestrated and routine conversations to open up these issues. In the second half of the paper, we bring some more theoretical lenses to bear on both conversations and normative complexity, summarise what we take to be the value of conversations and draw together some of the implications of our discussion. In summary, we argue that conversations can play a crucial role in negotiating the normative complexity of healthcare quality improvement because of their capacity to hold together a plurality of perspectives, to contribute and respond to emergence and to help underpin institutional conditions for empathy and imagination.

Pushing poverty off limits: quality improvement and the architecture of healthcare values

BACKGROUND

Poverty and social deprivation have adverse effects on health outcomes and place a significant burden on healthcare systems. There are some actions that can be taken to tackle them from within healthcare institutions, but clinicians who seek to make frontline services more responsive to the social determinants of health and the social context of people's lives can face a range of ethical challenges. We summarise and consider a case in which clinicians introduced a poverty screening initiative (PSI) into paediatric practice using the discourse and methodology of healthcare quality improvement (QI).

DISCUSSION

Whilst suggesting that interventions like the PSI are a potentially valuable extension of clinical roles, which take advantage of the unique affordances of clinical settings, we argue that there is a tendency for such settings to continuously reproduce a narrower set of norms. We illustrate how the framing of an initiative as QI can help legitimate and secure funding for practical efforts to help address social ends from within clinical service, but also how it can constrain and disguise the value of this work. A combination of methodological emphases within QI and managerialism within healthcare institutions leads to the prioritisation, often implicitly, of a limited set of aims and governing values for healthcare. This can act as an obstacle to a genuine broadening of the clinical agenda, reinforcing norms of clinical practice that effectively push poverty 'off limits.' We set out the ethical dilemmas facing clinicians who seek to navigate this landscape in order to address poverty and the social determinants of health.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that reclaiming QI as a more deliberative tool that is sensitive to these ethical dilemmas can enable managers, clinicians and patients to pursue health-related values and ends, broadly conceived, as part of an expansive range of social and personal goods.