Suppr超能文献

创建一个非人格化的国民保健制度?个性化、选择和亲密关系的削弱。

Creating an impersonal NHS? Personalization, choice and the erosion of intimacy.

机构信息

Research Associate, Centre for Public Policy Research, King's College London, London, UK.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2015 Feb;18(1):22-31. doi: 10.1111/hex.12000. Epub 2012 Sep 4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Personalization - most often understood in terms of granting patients greater opportunity to participate in, and make choices about, the services they receive - has become a key principle guiding reform of the English NHS.

OBJECTIVE

This study sets out to explore the relationship between two senses of the term 'personal' within the context of personalization. Firstly, much of the policy literature equates a 'personal' service with one that is responsive to the choices of individual patients. Secondly, the term 'personal' can be thought to refer to the intimate relationships between patients and medical professionals that have typified traditional models of good practice.

METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION

I combine a review of the relevant academic and policy literature on personalization with a process of conceptual analysis to uncover three arguments, which suggest that personalization based on choice may adversely affect standards of care by eroding the qualities of intimacy at the heart of the care process. Thus, an unintended consequence of the drive for personalization may be the creation of an NHS that is, in an important sense, less personal than it once was.

CONCLUSION

Whilst personalization may deliver many potential benefits, the tension between promoting patient choice and retaining intimate professional-patient relationships ought to be taken seriously. Thus, the task of promoting choice whilst retaining intimacy represents a key policy challenge for advocates of personalization.

摘要

背景

个性化——通常被理解为让患者有更多机会参与和选择他们所接受的服务——已成为指导英国国民保健制度改革的关键原则。

目的

本研究旨在探讨个性化背景下术语“个人”的两种含义之间的关系。首先,许多政策文献将“个人”服务等同于对个别患者选择做出回应的服务。其次,“个人”一词可以被认为是指患者与医疗专业人员之间的亲密关系,这是传统良好实践模式的典型特征。

方法和讨论

我结合了对个性化相关学术和政策文献的回顾以及概念分析的过程,揭示了三个论点,这些论点表明,基于选择的个性化可能会通过侵蚀护理过程核心的亲密品质来对护理标准产生不利影响。因此,个性化的推动力的一个意外后果可能是创建一个在重要意义上不如以往那么“个人化”的国民保健制度。

结论

虽然个性化可能带来许多潜在的好处,但在促进患者选择和保留亲密的医患关系之间的紧张关系应该得到认真对待。因此,在促进选择的同时保持亲密关系是个性化倡导者面临的一个关键政策挑战。

相似文献

1
Creating an impersonal NHS? Personalization, choice and the erosion of intimacy.
Health Expect. 2015 Feb;18(1):22-31. doi: 10.1111/hex.12000. Epub 2012 Sep 4.
2
The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):76-87. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1072.
3
Whatever suits you: unpicking personalization for the NHS.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2010 Apr;16(2):310-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01390.x.
4
Divergence of NHS choice policy in the UK: what difference has patient choice policy in England made?
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013 Oct;18(4):202-8. doi: 10.1177/1355819613492716. Epub 2013 Jul 31.
7
Fallacy or Functionality: Law and Policy of Patient Treatment Choice in the NHS.
Health Care Anal. 2016 Dec;24(4):279-300. doi: 10.1007/s10728-014-0275-6.
8
Primary Care Research Team Assessment (PCRTA): development and evaluation.
Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract. 2002 Feb(81):iii-vi, 1-72.
9
Evaluating the Labour Government's English NHS health system reforms: the 2008 Darzi reforms.
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013 Oct;18(2 Suppl):1-10. doi: 10.1177/1355819613499323.
10
The paradox of non-evidence based, publicly funded complementary alternative medicine in the English National Health Service: An explanation.
Health Policy. 2015 Oct;119(10):1375-81. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.03.007. Epub 2015 Mar 21.

引用本文的文献

1
The rural tax: comprehensive out-of-pocket costs associated with patient travel in British Columbia.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Aug 21;21(1):854. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06833-2.

本文引用的文献

1
Public management 'reform' narratives and the changing organisation of primary care.
London J Prim Care (Abingdon). 2010 Dec;3(2):76-80. doi: 10.1080/17571472.2010.11493306.
2
Whatever suits you: unpicking personalization for the NHS.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2010 Apr;16(2):310-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01390.x.
3
In defense of paternalism.
Theor Med Bioeth. 2005;26(6):445-68. doi: 10.1007/s11017-005-2203-0.
4
The death of the personal doctor.
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001 Jul;6(3):129-30. doi: 10.1258/1355819011927323.
5
Death of the personal doctor.
Lancet. 1996 Sep 7;348(9028):667-8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)03512-X.
6
The educational needs of the future general practitioner.
J R Coll Gen Pract. 1969 Dec;18(89):358-60.
7
Purposes of medicine.
Lancet. 1965 Oct 23;2(7417):801-5. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(65)92443-8.
8
The key to personal care.
J R Coll Gen Pract. 1979 Nov;29(208):666-78.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验