Perspectivas de análisis para comprender la educación

The last decade in particular has brought with it, in response to the above-mentioned dilemmas of EBM, an increasing recognition that chronically ill patients need far more comprehensive forms of care than the disease-centric approaches that continue to be favoured by EBM (Rees and Williams, 2009). This thus mandates a need to move away from the currently impersonal, fragmented, and decontextualized approaches to treatment and management and toward newer models of care that are personalised, integrated, and contextualised (Miles, 2018). In this way, health professionals will be able to embrace the totality of the human person and therefore understand the subjective experiences of illness and respond to them effectively (Djulbegovic and Guyatt, 2017).

44

McCormarck (2003) defined person-centred care as an approach to practice that is established through the development and adoption of a therapeutic narrative between health care providers and patients that is built on mutual trust, understanding, and a sharing of collective knowledge. Separately, the IOM (2001) defined person-centred care as ‘care that is respectful and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and [which] ensures that patient values guide all clinical decisions’ (p. 49). Suhonen et al. (2002) defined person-centred care as being a comprehensive approach to health care delivery that meets each patient’s physical, psychological, and social needs. Morgan and Yoder (2012) have claimed that these definitions do not represent the concept of person-centred care in its entirety. Therefore, Morgan and Yoder combined these definitions to provide a more complete definition of the concept. Specifically, they defined person-centred care as a holistic approach to the delivery of care that is respectful and individualized, allowing for the negotiation of care and offering the ability to make choices through a therapeutic relationship where patients are entitled to be involved in decisions regarding their health at whatever level is preferred by the individual receiving the care (Morgan & Yoder, 2012). Person-centred care is a relatively new yet emerging phenomenon nowadays. It covers a variety of views, theories, and conceptual models (McCormack et al., 2015). However, despite the growing interest in person-centred care, there remains a lack of clarity among health care professionals about what person-centred care is and how it is adopted (Morgan & Yoder, 2012). It has been shown that person-centred care is underpinned by values of respect for individuals, a person’s right to self-determination, and mutual respect and understanding (McCormack et al., 2010). It also involves respecting them as unique individuals from a holistic perspective and entering their worlds by recognising their concerns, experiences, needs, and preferences (Mead & Bower, 2000; McCormack, 2003). Despite the differences between the definitions and features of person-centred care and related terms, they are all to some extent related to a broad underpinning ethical idea that patients should be ‘treated as persons’. It is obvious that what this means and what it takes to adhere to this concept are complicated issues, but the idea itself is a promising beginning point for an attempt to rejuvenate efforts to improve patients’ experiences in health care delivery (Entwistle and Watt, 2013).

The term ‘person-centred care’ is used to refer to many different principles and activities, and there is no single agreed-upon definition of the concept. This is partly because person-centred

45

care is still an emerging and evolving area and also because, if care is to be person-centred, then what it looks like will depend on the needs, circumstances, and preferences of the individual receiving care. What is important to one person in their health care may be unnecessary or even undesirable to another. Such may also change over time as the individual’s needs change (The Health Foundation, 2016).

Person-centred care is viewed to be in contrast with reductionism. It posits that patients are persons and should not be reduced to their illness alone, but rather that their subjectivity and integration within any environment as well as their strengths, future plans, and rights should also be taken into consideration (Leplege et al., 2007). Person-centred care indicates a shift away from a model in which the patient is the passive target of care to one in which a more collaborative arrangement is made, incorporating the patient as an active part in his or her care as well as the decision-making process (Leplege et al., 2007). In other words, in person- centred care, the person behind the disease is primarily focused on in contrast with the use of the more classical analytical focus on the disease or impairment as such (Mead & Bower, 2000; Leplege et al., 2007). Essential elements of person-centredness include having a relationship of a therapeutic nature and the sharing of power and information between patients and health care professionals (Morgan & Yoder, 2012). Additionally, studies have suggested that effective patient–clinician communication as well as shared decision-making are considered key components of person-centred care (Levit et al., 2013). This requires the interaction between informed, activated, and participatory patients and a person-centred care team that has effective communication skills and is supported by an accessible, well- organised, and responsive health care system (Epstein and Street Jr, 2007; Levit et al., 2013). There is no clear consensus regarding the principles of person-centredness in the literature. In a review of the literature on person-centredness by Mead and Bower, five distinct dimensions of the concept were highlighted (Mead and Bower, 2002, 2000). These dimensions may be considered as the defining attributes of person-centred care and are outlined as follows: (1) the health provider places attention on biological, psychological, and social aspects of a patient’s care; (2) the health care provider understands the patient as a person whereby illness has a personal unique meaning for each individual; (3) there is a sharing of power and responsibility between the caregiver and the patient in a way in which

46

the health care provider strives to acknowledge and is able to respond to a patient’s need for information and participation in decision-making; (4) there is a therapeutic connection between the health care provider and patient, in which common goals of treatment and management of care are developed and the relationship between the two is strengthened; and (5) there is an awareness that the health care provider is also a person and that the personal qualities and subjectivity of the provider may influence their care delivery (Mead & Bower, 2002).

On a similar note, Stewart et al., identified six interactive components of person-centredness in their work on the benefits of person-centredness in family practice (Stewart et al., 2000). The first five components promote the physician to: (1) explore the patient’s disease and dimensions of their illness experience; (2) understand the person as a whole; (3) find common ground with the patient regarding treatment and the management of care; (4) advocate for disease prevention and health promotion; and (5) improve the doctor–patient relationship. The final element requires that person-centredness be realistic in regards to personal limitations, time, and resources (Holmström and Röing, 2010; Mead and Bower, 2000; Stewart et al., 2000).

In a related effort, Olson and Windish (2010) reported that it is important for patients themselves to be aware of their diagnoses and treatments. They argue that gaps in understanding and communication could result in a decreased quality of care. In their study, 89 patients and 43 physicians were surveyed. While most physicians (77%) thought patients understood their diagnosis, only 57% of patients could correctly state their diagnosis, with 43% not knowing or incorrectly reporting their reason for admission. A total of 58% of patients thought that physicians always explained things in a comprehensible way, while 21% of physicians reported that they always provided some kind of explanation. Additionally, nearly all physicians (98%) stated their patients’ fears and anxieties are at least sometimes discussed, in comparison with 54% of patients who reported that their physicians never talked with them about such (Olson and Windish, 2010).

The previous results show that significant differences exist between patients’ and physicians’ impressions about patient knowledge and care delivered in the hospital. Patients’ and

47

physicians’ perceptions varied greatly with regard to patients’ knowledge and understanding of their diagnosis (Olson and Windish, 2010). These results are similar to those of the study by Makaryus and Friedman (2005), which stated that only 41.9% of patients could identify their diagnosis at discharge. It can be argued that differences in patient and physician perceptions about care are crucial in addressing problems with health care provisions. Furthermore, a lack of understanding of the communication gap between groups decreases the likelihood of delivering safe, effective, equitable, and patient-centred care (Olson & Windish, 2010). As a consequence, physicians may have to explain diagnoses, medications, treatment plans, and instructions at discharge both verbally and by providing visual and written information (Flacker et al., 2007).

Evidence shows that person-centred care is a key component in health care quality, and the concept is increasingly being advocated and integrated into the training of health care providers (Lauver et al., 2002). It is necessary to note that the practice of person-centred care is highly dependent on the setting in which care is delivered (Morgan & Yoder, 2012). Communication between the physician and patient is essential in the delivery of health care. Efforts to increase person-centred care have often focused on changing physicians’ and/or patients’ attitudes and behaviours. Many interventions seek to teach physicians more effective ways of communicating with patients or vice versa. This in turn reduces the problem of achieving patient-centred care to a problem of doctor–patient communication (Wagner et al., 2005). Evidence suggests that the quality and warmth of communication between the physician and patient are associated with patient satisfaction, compliance, and understanding of the diagnosis and treatment plan as well as the desire for a quick recovery (Makaryus and Friedman, 2005). For example, in the case of diabetes, doctor–patient communication is considered an essential part of care. This is because patients have a responsibility for the day-to-day management of their diabetes and, hence, it is critical that they have a good relationship with their doctor in order for them to understand the disease and how to self-manage it effectively (Coulter, 2012).

Prior research has suggested that physicians practicing a person-centred care approach consider the biopsychosocial aspects of an illness and treatment decisions are made with consideration of the patient’s values and preferences (Siminoff, 2013). It is necessary to state that the IOM has mandated that health care should always be safe, effective, person-centred,

48

timely, efficient, and equitable (IOM, 2002). A person-centred approach to health care involves the patient as an active participant in their own care. Their perspective and individual needs are important to achieving desired patient outcomes (Mead & Bower, 2000). The majority of physicians are committed to providing evidence-based care that is patient-centred and responsive to the clinical circumstances, values, and preferences of individual patients. However, there is increasing pressure from payers and those who attempt to define and assess quality in clinical encounters for physicians to uniformly apply clinical guidelines to patients and reduce the variance in medical care. Thus, the approaches of EBP and patient- centred care are not always compatible and therefore may provoke conflict between physicians and patients (Butler, 2012).

Many patients are willing to play a more active role in their health care, and growing evidence suggests that approaches to patient-centred care such as shared decision-making and self- management support can improve a range of factors such as patient experience, quality of care, and health outcomes (King and Hoppe, 2013). To illustrate, studies have shown that supporting patients with chronic conditions in managing their health can improve clinical outcomes (de Silva, 2011). In other words, when the patient plays a more collaborative role in the treatment and management of their disease, they are less likely to use emergency hospital services (The Health Foundation, 2014). Also, they are more likely to stick to their treatment plans and take their medications correctly (NICE, 2009). Moreover, efforts to promote shared decision-making, support an individual’s self-management of their chronic condition, and involve patients in the pursuit of patient safety have usefully emphasized the significance of respecting a patient’s autonomy. They have stressed that many patients can and want to participate and do more for themselves in relation to the management of their care than traditional health services have generally encouraged (Entwistle & Watt, 2013).

There has been growing realization of the necessity of person-centredness in practice and efforts for health care quality improvement as well as increasing evidence of its significant value (DiGioia et al., 2018). Although the body of literature pertaining to what patients want from their health care has increased, little research has attempted to date to investigate how effective communication with the patient can enable clinicians to offer more person-centred care (Wen, & Tucker, 2015).

49

In a similar direction, person-centred care is a patient-focused, individualized care delivery process that supports the building of trust within a provider–patient relationship, fosters the patient’s participation in care design, and reinforces patients’ expectations and perceptions of quality and equity (Wolf et al., 2008). Mead and Bower (2000) suggested that the concept of patient-centredness is a proxy for the quality of interpersonal aspects of care and that these aspects of care are key determinants of patient satisfaction. This statement portends that a patient evaluation of patient-centred care may allow for providers to measure patients’ satisfaction with care delivery across multiple disciplines and services (McCormack et al., 2015).

Previous research on person-centred care states that health care as a whole (not only medical care, per se) should be grounded in a patient’s subjective experience of illness. Understanding patient experiences in addition to the clinical indicators of a disease process is essential to comprehending the illness experience. Health care providers must collaborate with patients and their families and share the responsibility for defining expectations and goals, making decisions, and managing therapy (Barry & Edgman-Levitan, 2012).

In the work of Gerteis and colleagues (1993), the concept of patient-centred care within the context of health care delivery within medical institutions was explored. The study sought to identify how patient interactions with health care providers, institutions, and systems affect their subjective experiences of illness; how systems of care work or fail to work in meeting patient needs; and how providers and managers could integrate patient values and perceptions in health care delivery to improve patient satisfaction and care quality (Gerteis et al., 1993) (Gerteis et al., 1993). A patient-centred care framework was introduced and seven domains of patient-centred care were identified, which are as follows: respect for values, preferences, and expressed needs; the coordination and integration of care delivery; effective delivery of information through communication and education; promotion of physical comfort and emotional support and the alleviation of fear and anxiety; involvement of family and friends in the care process; and transition and continuity of care through various levels (Gerteis et al., 1993).

The next section explores person-centredness in medical consultation. It is important to highlight that, according to the literature, patient-centred consultations are more likely to

50

have better treatment outcomes and be more cost effective because engaging people increases the chances of their being actively involved in working towards their care or treatment goals (Barello and Graffigna, 2015a). Therefore, this review explores person- centredness in medical consultations separately, due to is importance in moving towards a more person-centred approach to healthcare.

2.3.1 Person-centredness in medical consultations

Person-centred care is considered as a vital element to improving health care quality in clinical practice and patient outcomes (Bate and Robert, 2007; Institute of Medicine, 2001; Ocloo and Fulop, 2012; Vincent and Davis, 2012). Furthermore, it is argued that person- centred care illustrates an important philosophical counterpart challenging paternalism and disease-oriented models of care as they relate to the person as a ‘whole’, their experiences, and their general health status (Wiig et al., 2013). It is apparent from the literature that person-centredness in health care is part of a wider movement towards a more bottom-up approach to health care planning and delivery (Bate & Robert, 2007). Person-centred care and shared decision-making as well as both conceptualizations of this movement all seek to incorporate patients’ values, experiences, and perspectives in the treatment and management of their care in an effort to improve health outcomes (Wiig et al., 2013). Although these conceptualizations are supported in the literature, their contribution in empirical research is noted to varying degrees (Légaré et al., 2014; Lewin et al., 2001). In addition to representing a means towards better health care quality in general, some scholars have claimed that person-centred care is needed in its own right (Lewin et al., 2001; Berwick, 2009). The term ‘person-centred’ has been used in research to describe an approach in which the clinician views the consultation through the eyes of the patient, attending to their experiences with and perceptions of their illness and emphasizing with their feelings and fears (Lewin et al., 2001). Moreover, it refers to providers giving opportunities for and responding to patients’ needs and willingness to participate in decision-making related to treatment and the management of their health (Tritter, 2009). Although person-centredness is advocated for and promoted in the training of health care providers, there continues to be a relatively poor understanding of how to integrate its core components into the routine practice (Lewin et al., 2001). Studies have postulated that the most investigated initiatives to

51

promote person-centred care have focused on enhancing the doctor–patient communication in clinical consultations (Wiig et al., 2013). A review conducted by Lewin and colleagues (2001) concluded that training providers in the area of person-centredness may improve their communication with patients, allow for a better understanding of patients’ concerns and improving overall satisfaction with care. Person-centred care includes fostering good communication between patients and their clinicians; developing and disseminating evidence-based information to inform patients and caregivers about treatment and management options; and practicing shared decision making (Boström et al., 2014). One of the most important aspects of person-centred care is the facilitation of shared decision- making (Siminoff, 2013).