Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
Decision-making in musculoskeletal health care is complex, with discrepancy among clinical providers and variation in the per cent of referrals for specialist care. To date, there is an increased focus on specialist referrals, risking overuse of expensive testing and contributing to unnecessary treatment. ⋯ Therefore, this preliminary report offers a start towards clarifying key factors and an approach for implementing improved shoulder clinical care decision-making which could then be adapted and applied to other body sites.
-
Multimorbidity - the occurrence of two or more long-term conditions in an individual - is a major global concern, placing a huge burden on healthcare systems, physicians, and patients. It challenges the current biomedical paradigm, in particular conventional evidence-based medicine's dominant focus on single-conditions. Patients' heterogeneous range of clinical presentations tend to escape characterization by traditional means of classification, and optimal management cannot be deduced from clinical practice guidelines. ⋯ The underlying principles include non-linearity, tipping points, emergence, importance of initial conditions, contextual factors and co-evolution, and the presence of patterned outcomes. From a clinical perspective, complexity science has important implications at the theoretical, practice and policy levels. Three essential questions emerge: (1) What matters to patients? (2) How can we integrate, personalize and prioritize care for whole people, given the constraints of their socio-ecological circumstances? (3) What needs to change at the practice and policy levels to deliver what matters to patients? These questions have no simple answers, but complexity science principles suggest a way to integrate understanding of biological, biographical and contextual factors, to guide an integrated approach to the care of people with multimorbidity.
-
Prescribed opioids are major contributors to the international public health opioid crisis. Such widespread iatrogenic harms usually result from collective decision failures of healthcare organizations rather than solely of individual organizations or professionals. Findings from a system-wide safety analysis of the iatrogenic opioid crisis that includes roles of pertinent healthcare organizations may help avoid or mitigate similar future iatrogenic consequences. In this retrospective exploratory study, we report such an analysis. ⋯ The iatrogenic crisis has multiple intricately linked roots. The major catalyst: pervasive pharma-linked financial conflicts of interest (CoIs) involving most other healthcare organizations. These extensive financial CoIs were likely triggers for a cascade of erroneous decisions and actions that adversely affected patients. The actions and decisions of pharma ranged from unethical to illegal. The iatrogenic opioid crisis may exemplify 'institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals'.
-
Universal health care (UHC) is primarily a financing concern, whereas primary health care (PHC) is primarily concerned with providing the right care at the right time to achieve the best possible health outcomes for individuals and communities. A recent call for contributions by the WHO emphasized that UHC can only be achieved through PHC, and that to achieve this goal will require the strengthening of the three pillars of PHC - (a) enabling primary care and public health to integrate health services, (b) empowering people and communities to create healthy living conditions, and (c) integrating multisectoral policy decisions to ensure UHC that achieves the goal of "health for all." "Pillars" - as a static metaphor - sends the wrong signal to the research and policy-making community. ⋯ Health systems are socially constructed organizational systems that are "functionally layered" in a hierarchical fashion - governments and/or funders at the top-level not only promote the goals of the system (policies) but also constrain the system (rules, regulations, resources) in its ability to deliver. Hence, there is a need to focus on two key system features - political leadership and dynamic bottom-up agency that maintains everyone's focus on the goal to be achieved, and a limitation of system constraints so that communities can shape best adapted primary care services that truly meet the needs of their individuals, families, and community.
-
The health care delivery model in the United States does not work; it perpetuates unequal access to care, favours treatment over prevention, and contributes to persistent health disparities and lack of insurance. The vast majority of those who suffer from preventable diseases and health disparities, and who are at greatest risk of not having insurance, are low-income minorities (Native Americans, Hispanics, and African-Americans) who live in high risk and vulnerable communities. The historical lack of support in the United States for Universal Health Care (UHC) and Primary Health Care (PHC)-with their emphasis on health care for all, population health, and social determinants of health-requires community health scientists to develop innovative local solutions for addressing unmet community health needs. ⋯ Our community health science approach demonstrates that the factors contributing to health can only be addressed by working directly with and in affected communities to co-develop health care solutions across the broad range of causal factors. As the United States begins to consider expanding health care options consistent with PHC and UHC principles, our community health science experience provides useful lessons in how to engage communities to address the deficits of the current system. Perhaps the greatest assets US health care systems have for better addressing population health and the social determinants of health are the important health-related initiatives already underway in most local communities. Building partnerships based on local resources and ongoing social determinants of health initiatives is the key for medicine to meaningfully engage communities for improving health outcomes and reducing health disparities. This has been the greatest lesson we have learned the past two decades, has provided the foundation for our community health science approach, and accounts for whatever success we have achieved.