Showing posts with label people-centered. Show all posts
Showing posts with label people-centered. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

What Does People Centered Health Really Mean?

There's been a lot of talk about "people centered health," but my impression is that there's not a really clear definition of the term. In this post, I'm going to attempt to have a go at a defnitiion. Neverthleless, my attempt is really to solicit some opinions and help in defining this. I'm concluding this post with my take on what are the "revolutionary" components of people centered health in the hopes of soliciting comments that can clear this up for me and others.

Perhaps not a definition, but a recent article by Joe Flower for the Center for Health Design, sheds some light on the subject:

Most physicians and health professionals agree that Mr. Elswit’s perception is typical: Sick people are treated
in effect like prisoners in many health-care settings. The people-centered health-care movement responds to this chronic neglect of the patient experience by proclaiming a call to arms. Hospitals, say leaders of this movement, should never add to the pain and trauma of being sick or injured.


There is no shortage of low-cost opportunities to build a better patient relationship. Some peoplecentered
practices are clinical, including the enforcement of such fundamental (but too often forgotten) measures as having doctors and nurses wash their hands between treatments, installing better ventilation in hospitals,
and responding reliably to the call button. (In a 2004 study of hospital accidents, the Center for Health

Design found that a major cause was patients struggling out of bed, alone, to go to the bathroom because no one showed up to help them.) Other innovations provide simple dignity: giving patients hospital gowns with
Velcro closure tabs or straps, for modesty; or training staff to answer telephones by the third ring, to knock
before entering a patient’s room, and to introduce themselves and explain what they’re there to do.


My impression is that there's real ambiguity with respect to this term. The problem with this is that the term can be used to push programs or agendas, leading to cynicism. I've seen doctors roll their eyes when they here this term. Not because they don't want change (they do), but because they've seen initiatives (under this guise) which have very little to do with improving care and more to do with hidden agendas. Even though there've been committed efforts to define what this is, it's not easy to really get handle on the meaning of this term (or phrase). Fortunately, the World Health Organization recently had a go of defining the core values of "people centered health:"

Empowerment
Participation
The central role of the family and community in any process of development, and
An end to gender and all other forms of discrimination.

WHO goes on to admit that, "Despite its long history and increasing popularity, people-centred health care has not been satisfactorily and collectively enunciated at the health system level." WHO goes on to describe the characteristics of such a system from the viewpoint of each stakeholder:

For individuals, patients and their families:

Access to clear, concise and intelligible health information and education that increase health literacy;
Equitable access to health systems, effective treatments, and psycho-social support;
Personal skills which allow control over health and engagement with health care systems: communication, mutual collaboration and respect, goal setting, decision making, and problem solving, self-care; and
Supported involvement in health care decision-making, including health policy.

For health practitioners:

Holistic approach to the delivery of health care;
Respect for patients and their decisions;
Recognition of the needs of people seeking health care;
Professional skills to meet these needs: competence, communication, mutual collaboration and respect, empathy, health promotion, disease prevention, responsiveness, and sensitivity;
Provision of individualized care;
Access to professional development and debriefing opportunities;
Adherence to evidence-based guidelines and protocols;
Commitment to quality, safety and ethical care;
Team work and collaboration across disciples, providing co-ordinated care and ensuring continuity of care.

In health care organizations:

Accessible to all people needing health care;
Commitment to quality, safety, and ethical care;
Safe and welcoming physical environment supportive of lifestyle, family, privacy and dignity;
Access to psychological and spiritual support during the care experience;
Acknowledgement of the importance of all staff - managerial, medical, allied health, ancillary – in the delivery of health care;
Employment and remuneration conditions that support team work people-centred health care;
Organisation of services that provide convenience and continuity of care to patients;
Service models that recognise psycho-social dimensions and support partnership between individuals, their families and health practitioners.

In health systems:

Primary care serves as the foundation;
Financing arrangements for health organisations that support partnership between health practitioners and people accessing health care;
Investment in health professional education that promote multidisciplinary team work, good communication skills, an orientation towards prevention, and integrates evidence about psychosocial dimensions of health care;
Avenues for patient grievances and complaints to be addressed;
Collaboration with local communities;
Involvement of consumers in health policy;
Transparency.

Conclusion

I highlighted in red the items which, for me, are the clearest components that can provide a notable change in health care. First off is giving people (patients) access to quality health information. This is easier said than done for we need to define what quality means (e.g., not skewed towards the Pharma view, etc.). Secondly, there's a holistic approach to delivery of health care. This could be quite revolutionary if we include alternative medicine (e.g., herbal medicine, acupunture, etc.) as a valid component of health care delivery.

Teamwork and collaboration (as equal partners) among various stakeholders such as doctors, ancillary staff, etc. combined with a focus on continuity of care seems to me as something that easier to state and much, much harder to execute. Last but not least are transparency and recognizing the importance of Primary care in the whole process.

These concepts are easy to put in a blog post. Nevertheless, I've been around enough doctors (e.g., Dad and brother) to know that these changes are extremely hard to imagine. Why am I writing about all of this? The reason is that I really believe (am I naive?) that the web presents a tool that can really drive these changes. How exactly can this tool (web) drive something as complex as change in health care? I'll leave that for my next post. :)

Friday, October 27, 2006

Wouldn't it be nice?

Though I’m not involved professionally with Health care, I’ve always been around conversations concerning this topic. It helps that my father and brother (twin) are Docs. With the entire web 2.0 stuff exploding in the consumer market, I’ve wondered whether the social networking technologies that are currently evolving wouldn't be excellent tools to unite people with a new vision of a stronger and more effective health care system.

I wanted to write this blog, not so much because I have any particular expertise here, but rather, because I'm interested in becoming a part of conversations focused on answering the question:

Does today's web and it's associated technologies (e.g., collaboration, social networking) offer an avenue to developing (and promoting) a vision for a more sensible health care system?

After reading an article in the last issue of Newsweek on “Fixing America’s Hospitals,” I decided to find out more about health care and why everything is so screwed up so I tried to find some objective info on the web. I didn’t realize how tough this is. Sure, there’s some info, but I never know, because of Big Pharma sponsorships, if some of the information is skewed one way or another.

I’m sure there are a lot of studies on improving the health care system, but I found one in particular from the Rand Corporation, which states, “On average, Americans receive about half of recommended medical care processes.” Of note is the end of the report where they offer conclusions or recommendations on how to "fix" the current situation:

What can we do to break through this impasse? Given the complexity and diversity of the health care system, there will be no simple solution. A key component of any solution, however, is the routine availability of information on performance at all levels. Making such information available will require a major overhaul of our current health information systems, with a focus on automating the entry and retrieval of key data for clinical decision-making and for the measurement and reporting of quality.49 Establishing a national base line for performance makes it possible to assess the effect of policy changes and to evaluate large-scale national, regional, state, or local efforts to improve quality.


It’d be cool to have a vision of what a more “sane” system would actually look like. The closest thing to this vision that I came across was something called “People-centered Health care” or “People centered heath care” (not sure of the correct spelling ‘cause it’s spelled both ways). It seems to describe a health care experience 180 degrees different than the institutional experience one must currently endure. .

I found one definition of “patient-centered health care” from the Institute of Health care Improvement stating the following:

Enable health care providers to reliably meet the needs and preferences of patients. We believe that health care that is customized based on patient needs and preferences will make tremendous strides toward improving patient-provider relationships, sharing knowledge, and putting patients in control. Customization of care also helps to eliminate unwanted, unneeded, and wasteful services; and increase the effectiveness of care delivered.

Enable fully informed, shared decision-making. There is increasing evidence that patients and families who participate fully in care decisions help to improve the quality of medical decisions and reduce overuse of aggressive surgical treatments without worsening health outcomes. (Annette O’Connor)

Include patients and their loved ones on health care improvement and design teams. Doing so has transformed the improvement experience for the health care organizations that have embraced this challenge.


Currently, social websites such as Myspace are making headlines because of their ability to connect people. The technologies employed in such sites go by a number of names: Web 2.0, the social web. It occurs to me that these are precisely the type of tools that could ably address the areas (communication, collaboration, etc.) that "experts" highlight as problem areas within the healthcare system.

Wouldn’t it make sense to get patients, caregivers, and others to hook up in a Myspace-type environment all with the same vision (people-centered health care)? Employing such tools aren’t solutions bound to emanate?
Technorati Profile