综合护理的伦理挑战和原则。

IF 6.7 2区 医学 Q1 Medicine
Alex McKeown
{"title":"综合护理的伦理挑战和原则。","authors":"Alex McKeown","doi":"10.1093/bmb/ldac030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Integrated care is an established approach to delivery in parts of the healthcare infrastructure, and an ideal which, it is claimed, should be realized system-wide. Its ethical weight derives from its defence of a view about how healthcare ought to operate. Although the goal of integration is laudable, it is ethically and practically complex, involving trade-offs.</p><p><strong>Sources of data: </strong>Considerable evidence attests to widespread enthusiasm for integration, given the need to prevent harm and extend the reach of scarce resources. Equally, evidence increasingly highlights the obstacles to successfully translating this ideal into practice.</p><p><strong>Areas of agreement: </strong>The principle that healthcare should be seamless, ensuring that patients do not come to harm through gaps in care enjoys broad agreement. There is a similar consensus that placing the patient's perspective at the centre of decision-making is vital, since this enables identification of these gaps.</p><p><strong>Areas of controversy: </strong>Integrating care by making it seamless entails blurring boundaries of care domains. This risks undermining the locus of responsibility for care decisions via confusion about who has ownership of specialist knowledge where domains overlap. There is a lack of consensus about how successful integration should be measured.</p><p><strong>Growing points: </strong>More research into the relative cost-effectiveness of upstream public health investment in preventing chronic ill-health caused by modifiable lifestyle factors vs integrating care for people already ill; further research into ethical implications of integration in practice, which can be obscured by the simplicity of the fundamental normative principle guiding integration in theory.</p>","PeriodicalId":9280,"journal":{"name":"British medical bulletin","volume":"146 1","pages":"4-18"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10286793/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical challenges and principles in integrated care.\",\"authors\":\"Alex McKeown\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/bmb/ldac030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Integrated care is an established approach to delivery in parts of the healthcare infrastructure, and an ideal which, it is claimed, should be realized system-wide. Its ethical weight derives from its defence of a view about how healthcare ought to operate. Although the goal of integration is laudable, it is ethically and practically complex, involving trade-offs.</p><p><strong>Sources of data: </strong>Considerable evidence attests to widespread enthusiasm for integration, given the need to prevent harm and extend the reach of scarce resources. Equally, evidence increasingly highlights the obstacles to successfully translating this ideal into practice.</p><p><strong>Areas of agreement: </strong>The principle that healthcare should be seamless, ensuring that patients do not come to harm through gaps in care enjoys broad agreement. There is a similar consensus that placing the patient's perspective at the centre of decision-making is vital, since this enables identification of these gaps.</p><p><strong>Areas of controversy: </strong>Integrating care by making it seamless entails blurring boundaries of care domains. This risks undermining the locus of responsibility for care decisions via confusion about who has ownership of specialist knowledge where domains overlap. There is a lack of consensus about how successful integration should be measured.</p><p><strong>Growing points: </strong>More research into the relative cost-effectiveness of upstream public health investment in preventing chronic ill-health caused by modifiable lifestyle factors vs integrating care for people already ill; further research into ethical implications of integration in practice, which can be obscured by the simplicity of the fundamental normative principle guiding integration in theory.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9280,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British medical bulletin\",\"volume\":\"146 1\",\"pages\":\"4-18\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10286793/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British medical bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldac030\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British medical bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldac030","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

简介:综合护理是一种既定的方法来提供部分医疗保健基础设施,一个理想的,它声称,应该实现全系统。它的道德分量来自于它对医疗保健应该如何运作的观点的辩护。尽管整合的目标值得称赞,但它在伦理上和实践上都很复杂,涉及权衡。数据来源:大量证据证明,鉴于需要防止损害和扩大稀缺资源的覆盖范围,人们普遍热衷于一体化。同样,越来越多的证据强调了将这一理想成功地转化为实践的障碍。达成一致的领域:医疗保健应该是无缝的,确保患者不会因医疗空白而受到伤害,这一原则得到了广泛的同意。还有一个类似的共识是,将患者的观点置于决策的中心是至关重要的,因为这可以识别这些差距。争议领域:通过无缝整合护理需要模糊护理领域的界限。这有可能通过混淆谁拥有重叠领域的专业知识而破坏护理决策的责任中心。对于如何衡量成功的整合,目前还缺乏共识。增长点:更多研究上游公共卫生投资在预防由可改变的生活方式因素引起的慢性健康不良与对已经患病的人进行综合护理方面的相对成本效益;进一步研究实践中整合的伦理含义,这可能被指导理论整合的基本规范原则的简单性所掩盖。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ethical challenges and principles in integrated care.

Introduction: Integrated care is an established approach to delivery in parts of the healthcare infrastructure, and an ideal which, it is claimed, should be realized system-wide. Its ethical weight derives from its defence of a view about how healthcare ought to operate. Although the goal of integration is laudable, it is ethically and practically complex, involving trade-offs.

Sources of data: Considerable evidence attests to widespread enthusiasm for integration, given the need to prevent harm and extend the reach of scarce resources. Equally, evidence increasingly highlights the obstacles to successfully translating this ideal into practice.

Areas of agreement: The principle that healthcare should be seamless, ensuring that patients do not come to harm through gaps in care enjoys broad agreement. There is a similar consensus that placing the patient's perspective at the centre of decision-making is vital, since this enables identification of these gaps.

Areas of controversy: Integrating care by making it seamless entails blurring boundaries of care domains. This risks undermining the locus of responsibility for care decisions via confusion about who has ownership of specialist knowledge where domains overlap. There is a lack of consensus about how successful integration should be measured.

Growing points: More research into the relative cost-effectiveness of upstream public health investment in preventing chronic ill-health caused by modifiable lifestyle factors vs integrating care for people already ill; further research into ethical implications of integration in practice, which can be obscured by the simplicity of the fundamental normative principle guiding integration in theory.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British medical bulletin
British medical bulletin 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
1.50%
发文量
24
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: British Medical Bulletin is a multidisciplinary publication, which comprises high quality reviews aimed at generalist physicians, junior doctors, and medical students in both developed and developing countries. Its key aims are to provide interpretations of growing points in medicine by trusted experts in the field, and to assist practitioners in incorporating not just evidence but new conceptual ways of thinking into their practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信