Particularism in health care: challenging the authority of the aggregate

In health care, particularism asserts the primacy of the individual case. Moral particularists, such as Jonsen and Toulmin, reject deduction from universal moral principles and instead seek warrants for action from the multiple sources unique to a given patient. Another kind of health care particularism, here referred to as the knowledge of particulars, is offered as a corrective to evidence‐based medicine (EBM), its influence on health care practice and policy, and specifically to EBM's reliance on the aggregate. This paper describes the knowledge of particulars and identifies strategies for its legitimation in health care policy and practice. First, the paper documents the ascendancy of the aggregate through EBM's definition of ‘what works’ in health care. Second, it delineates the limits of health care knowledge based on the analysis of aggregates, not only for the care of individual patients but for the formulation of policies about patient care. Third, the paper analyses prominent rejections of the particular in contemporary health policy discourse and relates them to larger political purposes. Finally, it depicts the knowledge of particulars as the basis for clinical prudence and offers three potential strategies for promoting particularism as essential to high‐quality care.     

‘One mission accomplished,more important ones remain’: commentary on Every‐Palmer,S., Howick,J. (2014) How evidence‐based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 20 (6), 908–914

Every‐Palmer and Howick suggest that evidence‐based medicine (EBM) is failing in its mission because of contamination of research by manufacturer and researcher‐motivated bias and self‐interest. They fail to define that mission and to distinguish between the EBM movement and the research enterprise it was developed to critique. An educational movement, EBM accomplished its mission to simplify and package clinical epidemiological concepts in a form accessible to clinical learners. Its wide adoption within educational circles fostered critical literacy among several generations of practitioners. Illumination of bias, subterfuge and incomplete reporting of research has been a strength of EBM. Increased uptake and use of clinical research within the health care system properly defines the failing mission that eludes Every‐Palmer and Howick. Responsibility for failure to make progress towards its achievement is shared by virtually all relevant streams within the system, including policy, clinical guideline development, educational movements and the development of approaches to evidence synthesis. Discordance between the epistemological premises pervading today's research and health care community and the complex social processes that ultimately determine research use constitutes an important factor that must be addressed as part of a remedy. Enhanced emphasis on and demonstration of alternative approaches to research such as realism and realist synthesis and the momentum towards development of a learning health care system hold promise as guideposts for the rapidly evolving health care environment.     

Underdetermination in evidence‐based medicine

This article explores the philosophical implications of evidence‐based medicine's (EBM's) epistemology in terms of the problem of underdetermination of theory by evidence as expounded by the Duhem–Quine thesis. EBM hierarchies of evidence privilege clinical research over basic science, exacerbating the problem of underdetermination. Because of severe underdetermination, EBM is unable to meaningfully test core medical beliefs that form the basis of our understanding of disease and therapeutics. As a result, EBM adopts an epistemic attitude that is sceptical of explanations from the basic biological sciences, and is relegated to a view of disease at a population level. EBM's epistemic attitude provides a limited research heuristic by preventing the development of a theoretical framework required for understanding disease mechanism and integrating knowledge to develop new therapies. Medical epistemology should remain pluralistic and include complementary approaches of basic science and clinical research, thus avoiding the limited epistemic attitude entailed by EBM hierarchies.     

Challenging the epistemological foundations of EBM: what kind of knowledge does clinical practice require?

This paper raises questions about the epistemological foundations of evidence‐based medicine (EBM). We argue that EBM is based upon reliabilist epistemological assumptions, and that this is appropriate – we should focus on identifying the most reliable processes for generating and collecting medical knowledge. However, we note that this should not be reduced to narrow questions about which research methodologies are the best for gathering evidence. Reliable processes for generating medical evidence might lie outside of formal research methods. We also question the notion of the knower that is assumed by EBM. We argue that EBM assumes an enlightenment conception of knowers as autonomous, substitutable individuals. This conception is troubled by the way that clinicians learn the role of anecdote in health care and the role of patient choice, all of which bring into play features of clinicians and patients as situated individuals with particular backgrounds and experiences. EBM's enlightenment conception of the knower is also troubled by aspects of the way evidence is produced. Given these limitations, we argue that EBM should retain its reliabilist bent, but should look beyond formal research methodologies in identifying processes that yield reliable evidence for clinical practice. We suggest looking to feminist epistemology, with its focus on the standpoints of individual situated knowers, and the role of social context in determining what counts as knowledge.     

Improving the physical health of people with severe mental illness: Boundaries of care provision

There is compelling evidence that the physical health of people with severe mental illness is poor. Health‐promotion guidelines have been recommended as a mechanism for improving the physical health of this population. However, there are significant barriers to the adoption of evidence‐based guidelines in practice. The purpose of this research was to apply existing implementation theories to examine the capability of the health system to integrate physical health promotion into mental health service delivery. Data were collected within a regional city in Queensland, Australia. Fifty participants were interviewed. The core theme that emerged from the data was that of ‘care boundaries’ that influenced the likelihood of guidelines being implemented. Boundaries existed around the illness, care provision processes, sectors, the health‐care system, and society. These multilevel boundaries, combined with participants' ways of responding to them, impacted on capability (i.e. the ability to integrate physical health promotion into existing practices). Participants who were able to identify strategies to mediate these boundaries were better positioned to engage with physical health‐promotion practice. Thus, the implementation of evidence‐based guidelines depended heavily on the capability of the workforce to develop and adopt boundary‐mediating strategies.     

‘All the King's horses …’: the problematical fate of born‐again evidence‐based medicine: commentary on Greenhalgh,T., Snow,R., Ryan,S., Rees,S., and Salisbury,H. (2015) six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence‐based medicine. BioMed Central Medicine, 13:200

The phrase ‘evidence‐based medicine (EBM)' is being used by both EBM advocates and adversaries to broadly denote the production and use of clinical research throughout the healthcare system. Recently, this trend was joined by a call for a general expansion and rebirth of EBM to encompass a diverse range of healthcare activities otherwise corresponding to person‐centred care. The call asserts that EBM is to blame for anti‐patient biases within clinical practice and in policy and public health domains. Effective critique of either EBM or of the healthcare system requires that EBM itself be properly identified as a research literacy movement that grew out of clinical epidemiology of the 1970's and 1980's. We demonstrate the ineffectiveness of inappropriately targeted critiques of healthcare under the banner of born‐again EBM. We identify the strengths and weaknesses of EBM as an educational movement drawing on the concept of literacy associated with the Brazilian educator Paolo Freire. We consider the relationship of EBM to clinical epidemiology and conclude that it cannot fruitfully divorce itself from the latter. We briefly consider existing precedents for philosophically sound conceptual platforms for advocacy of person‐centred healthcare and broad based critique of the healthcare system including relationship‐centred care. We conclude that traditional EBM, as a framework for research literacy training of both clinicians and policy makers, must continue to play a subsidiary role within an expanding patient‐centred healthcare system and that advocacy efforts on behalf of patient voice and engagement are best pursued unencumbered by subsidiary agendas.     

The social construction of chronicity – a key to understanding chronic care transformations

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to argue the importance of contemporary analysis of the modern social construction of chronicity – encapsulating the world views of the chronically ill, and the medical and health system constructions of chronic disease, through the nature of care for chronic conditions. It is argued that chronic diseases are themselves, socially constructed, despite widely accepted disease classification systems. Thus, there is a need to examine how different ideas have permeated our clinical and health system developments and their social context and vice versa. Methods We examine historical ideas, theory and evidence about the tensions in social construction of chronic illness by those afflicted and the responses of society, the medical and health professions and increasingly the public and private institutions that shape health care. This is with the background of major differences in the two cultures that create knowledge: those based upon argument and intellectual logic – hermeneutic, and those based upon ‘objectivist’ empirical science, often called heuristic. Evidence‐based medicine (EBM) is the flagship of disease management, increasingly narrative‐based medicine and other similar genres are becoming the pragmatic face of social constructions, yet sit in juxtaposition without synthesis. A third culture has emerged of scientific intellectuals who straddle these cultures and in health care their public face is ‘mixed methods’. Findings Recent cases of modern ideas about improving chronic care were reviewed. We found that despite developments of social theory, the world view of the chronically ill exerts small influence in health system redesign, apparently dominated by chronic disease models. Confusion remains within health system reforms as to the social construction of chronicity – chronic disease, chronic condition or chronic illness and chronic care transformations. The role of Primary Care remains ambiguous straddling disease and illness. Radical redesign of health systems is taking place without an understanding and discourse about the nature of their construction. Ad hoc eclectism with unquestioning adoption of the dominant EBM paradigm is driving a new health culture based on disease‐based performance incentives, which is intrusive beyond the medical model and pays little attention to narratives of illness and even less to the whole social reconstruction of illness and wellness. Conclusions Health care systems cannot afford to avoid, and should actively embrace the critiques of social theory and analyses in the transformations of health systems to improve chronic care. Creative tensions between empirical and intellectual critique, and a synthetic middle ground are likely to lead to more realistic and innovative approaches spanning the nature of chronicity and the transformation of Primary Care.     

Mental health nursing: Daring to be different,special and leading recovery‐focused care?

How mental health nursing is differentiated from other disciplines and professions, and what special contribution mental health nurses make to health services, is a question at the heart of contemporary practice. One of the significant challenges for mental health nurses is identifying, developing and advancing those aspects of their practice that they consider differentiate them in the multi‐disciplinary mental health care team and to articulate clearly what a mental health nurse is and does. This paper draws on data from interviews with 36 mental health nurses in Australia who identified their practice as autonomous. Participants were asked the question, “What's special about mental health nursing?” Constructivist grounded theory techniques were applied to the research process. Findings were formulated and expressed as the ‘Ten P's of the professional profile that is mental health nursing’, which are ‘present’, ‘personal’, ‘participant partnering’, ‘professional’, ‘phenomenological’, ‘pragmatic’, ‘power‐sharing’, ‘psycho‐therapeutic’, ‘proud’ and ‘profound’. The combined elements of the findings present a theoretical construct of mental health nursing practice as something distinctive and special. It provides a model and exemplar for contemporary practice in mental health nursing, embracing the role of mental health nurses in the health care workforce as being well placed as providers of productive and effective care.     

Mental health consumer perspectives of a person-centred multidisciplinary care planning meeting on a rehabilitation inpatient unit

Mental health consumers are seeking genuine involvement in the planning regarding their treatment and care; however for many consumers in inpatient mental health settings, there is not the opportunity to participate. Current research evaluating person-centred multidisciplinary care planning initiatives in inpatient settings from the consumer perspective is limited. The aim of this study was to explore the consumer perspective of a person-centred multidisciplinary care planning meeting implemented in an Australian inpatient mental health rehabilitation unit. This study used a focused ethnographic design with data collection including fieldnotes, observations of meetings and interviews. Ten individuals participated in the study, with two participating in meeting observations and eight participating in structured interviews. Participants were consumers with a mental health diagnosis admitted to a mental health rehabilitation unit for assistance with achieving their goals for community living. Findings were analysed utilizing thematic analysis. Findings showed that consumers' experiences of the care planning meetings were positive. Themes included; ‘It's about you’, ‘Making decisions and expressing opinions’, ‘Staff involvement in care planning’ and ‘Supporting consumer recovery’. These findings add the consumer perspective to the existing evidence base and support the implementation of person-centred multidisciplinary care planning meetings in inpatient mental health settings.     

Complementary Medicine and Evidence-Based Practice

Healthcare is changing as evidence-based medicine (EBM) is incorporated into education and practice. This article considers the hierarchy of evidence, the validation of evidence for decision making and the extent to which this includes aspects of cultural and social constructs of health. We review the influence and the methodology of EBM as it is applied to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and suggest that there is an uneasy relationship as the two approaches to health have divergent understandings of health and evidence. There are fundamental philosophical and epistemological differences between orthodox and complementary medicine and we suggest that EBM is limited in how it can be applied to CAM. We question how the two approaches to healthcare can work together to create optimal outcomes in practice. The movement towards evidence-based practice underscores the division between biomedicine and CAM. Historically, there has been little scientific research into CAM, largely because of its place as a ‘fringe’ profession. Most research is funded by private sector interests who might see the economic benefit of a certain procedure or product. The research culture that has developed has been one that emphasises an evidence-based approach to establishing the efficacy of single herbs and nutrients, which overlooks the way that complementary therapists use these substances. The review concludes with a concern that the relationship between EBM and complementary medicine may become unbalanced, and the proponents of one system ignore or dismiss the values of the other. This lack of cross-paradigmatic respect is the wellspring for division and suspicion that is currently permeating the arranged marriage between CAM and EBM.     

W(h)ither complexity? The emperor's new toolkit? Or elucidating the evolution of health systems knowledge?

Rationale The outputs from vastly expanding health research and knowledge industry with a broadening range of approaches to the synthesis of knowledge provide an impetus to develop complex science and theory‐informed knowledge management in health care. Aims To stimulate debate in order to assist health care decision makers to move beyond framing certainty and evidence in purely reductionist terms. Objectives To locate health, health care and health knowledge systems research using a complex adaptive systems theory framework. Methods An conceptual analysis of pervading methodologies and ways of knowing in health systems research to elucidate a framework in order to inform health care decision making. Findings A living Tree of (Research) Knowledge is proposed, with theoretic and operational frameworks. Branches of the tree are linked to differing evolutionary and developmental processes in order to assist researchers in the ongoing self‐organizing of taxonomies, multiple methods and types of knowledge, recognizing the ‘lived’, developing and adaptive nature of our understandings. Conclusions It is challenging to determine whither the directions ‘knowledge’ creation and management should take in complex health systems, beyond a total reliance on reductionism. Yet quality will wither, if knowledge does not pertain to real world contexts.     

Failure to place evidence at the centre of quality improvement remains a major barrier for advances in quality improvement

Mondoux and Shojania (M&S) issued a critique of our call to unify all disciplines of relevance for quality improvement (QI). They do not challenge the need for alignment of different fields that have played roles in the QI space. They selected to focus their critique on our views that ultimately the discipline of QI should be based on the principles of evidence‐based medicine (EBM) and decision sciences. In our response, we reaffirm our calls to help achieve needed alignment and integration of all disciplines of importance to QI through “a unifying framework for improving health care” with EBM and decision sciences at helm. Challenging the importance of placing QI on solid empirical basis is misguided: As QI is all about measuring and consequently improving clinical care, acting on reliable evidence must remain its “cornerstone”. Apparent differences in our views appears to be due to our focus on what care should be delivered, while M&S concentrate on how that care should be delivered. The former is the domain of a narrowly defined EBM, while the latter is the realm of improvement/implementation science—which, we argue, should also be evidence‐based. QI initiatives are fundamentally local activities, and regulators would be most helpful if they require each institution to provide an annual plan of its top QI activities not included in the existing mandated list of performance measures. Finally, we addressed a number of specific QI initiatives highlighted by M&S—use of opioids, handwashing, venous‐thromboembolism prophylaxis, hip replacement, and perioperative beta‐blockers—to show that they would have been carried differently if they were based on the principles of EBM. Thus, the failure to place evidence at the centre remains a major barrier for advances in QI.     

‘Things you can't learn from books’: Teaching recovery from a lived experience perspective

Mental health policy in Australia is committed to the development of recovery‐focused services and facilitating consumer participation in all aspects of mental health service delivery. Negative attitudes of mental health professionals have been identified as a major barrier to achieving these goals. Although the education of health professionals has been identified as a major strategy, there is limited evidence to suggest that consumers are actively involved in this education process. The aim of this qualitative study was to evaluate students’ views and opinions at having been taught ‘recovery in mental health nursing’ by a person with a lived experience of significant mental health challenges. In‐depth interviews were held with 12 students. Two main themes were identified: (i) ‘looking through fresh eyes’ – what it means to have a mental illness; and (ii) ‘it's all about the teaching’. The experience was perceived positively; students referred to the impact made on their attitudes and self‐awareness, and their ability to appreciate the impact of mental illness on the individual person. Being taught by a person with lived experience was considered integral to the process. This innovative approach could enhance consumer participation and recovery‐focused care.     

Evidence‐based medicine: A cornerstone for clinical care but not for quality improvement

Quality improvement (QI) as a clinical improvement science has been criticized for failing to deliver broad patient outcome improvement and for being a top‐down regulatory and compliance construct. These critics have argued that the focus of QI should be on increasing adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and, as a result, should be consolidated into research structures with the science of evidence‐based medicine (EBM) at the helm. We argue that EBM often overestimates the role of knowledge as the root cause of quality problems and focuses almost exclusively on the effectiveness of care while often neglecting the domains of safety, efficiency, patient‐centredness, and equity. Successfully addressing quality problems requires a much broader, systems‐based view of health‐care delivery. Although essential to clinical decision‐making and practice, EBM cannot act as the cornerstone of health system improvement.     

Changing practice using recovery‐focused care in acute mental health settings to reduce aggression: A qualitative study

Consumer aggression is common in acute mental health settings and can result in direct or vicarious psychological or physical impacts for both consumers and health professionals. Using recovery‐focused care, nurses can implement a range of strategies to reduce aggression and empower consumers to self‐regulate their behaviour, when faced with challenging situations, such as admission to the acute care setting. Currently, there is limited literature to direct nurses in the use of recovery‐focused care and how it can be used to reduce consumer aggression. Twenty‐seven mental health nurses participated in this study. The constructivist grounded theory method guided data collection and analysis to identify categories that accurately described participants’ experiences. Five categories emerged that described how nurses can implement recovery‐focused care clinically to reduce the risk of consumer aggression: (i) identify the reason for the behaviour before responding; (ii) being sensitive to the consumer's trigger for aggression; (iii) focus on the consumer's strengths and support, not risks; (iv) being attentive to the consumer's needs; and (v) reconceptualize aggression as a learning opportunity. As the importance of promoting consumer recovery is now embedded in mental health policies internationally, nurses need to prioritize the application of recovery‐focused care clinically. Further research to provide evidence‐based outcomes supporting the use of recovery‐focused care is needed.     

Can mental healthcare for Muslim patients be person-centred without consideration of religious identity? A concurrent analysis

BackgroundMuslims constitute the largest, fastest growing religious minority in the UK. Globally, nurses are legally, morally and ethically obliged to provide non-discriminatory, person-centred, culturally sensitive care. This obligation includes supporting people with their religious needs where appropriate, but there is evidence this is not always happening, particularly for Muslims in mental health care.AimsThis paper reviewed primary research to address the question: Can mental healthcare for Muslims be person-centred without consideration of religious identity?MethodsNarrative synthesis and concurrent analysis. Searches were conducted post 2000 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, SAGE, PsychINFO and ASA with terms: ‘Muslim’, ‘Islam* ’, ‘mental health’, ‘nurs* ’, ‘person-cent* ’, ‘religio* ’. Narrative data were analysed for commonalities and themes.FindingsSeven studies of sufficient quality were analysed. Unconscious religious bias was the overarching theme linking the findings that healthcare staff felt ill-prepared and lacked necessary knowledge and experience to work with diverse patient groups. Unconscious racial bias contributed to limited cultural/ religious competence in treatment and care.ConclusionReligious identity is core for Muslim patients, so this group may not be receiving the person-centred care they deserve. Nurses need cultural and religious competence to deliver person-centred, holistic care to diverse patient populations, yet the importance of religious practice can be overlooked by staff, with harmful consequences for patient’s mental and spiritual welfare. This paper introduces a welcome pack that could help staff support the religious observance of those Muslim patients/service-users wishing to practice their faith during their stay in health services.     

Is restraint a ‘necessary evil’ in mental health care? Mental health inpatients’ and staff members’ experience of physical restraint

Restraint in mental health care has negative consequences, and guidelines/policies calling for its reduction have emerged internationally. However, there is tension between reducing restraint and maintaining safety. In order to reduce restraint, it is important to gain an understanding of the experience for all involved. The aim of the present study was to improve understanding of the experience of restraint for patients and staff with direct experience and witnesses. Interviews were conducted with 13 patients and 22 staff members from one UK National Health Service trust. The overarching theme, ‘is restraint a necessary evil?’, contained subthemes fitting into two ideas represented in the quote: ‘it never is very nice but…it's a necessary evil’. It ‘never is very nice’ was demonstrated by the predominantly negative emotional and relational outcomes reported (distress, fear, dehumanizing, negative impact on staff/patient relationships, decreased job satisfaction). However, a common theme from both staff and patients was that, while restraint is ‘never very nice’, it is a ‘necessary evil’ when used as a last resort due to safety concerns. Mental health‐care providers are under political pressure from national governments to reduce restraint, which is important in terms of reducing its negative outcomes for patients and staff; however, more research is needed into alternatives to restraint, while addressing the safety concerns of all parties. We need to ensure that by reducing or eliminating restraint, mental health wards neither become, nor feel, unsafe to patients or staff.     

‘How do we know if this is the best?’ Mental health‐care professionals' views on national guidelines for psychosocial interventions

National guidelines are released regularly, and professionals are expected to adopt and implement them. However, studies dealing with mental health‐care professionals' views about guidelines are sparse. The aim of the present study was to highlight mental health‐care staff's views on the Swedish national guidelines for ‘psychosocial interventions for schizophrenia or schizophrenia‐type symptoms’ and their implementation. The study took place in the southeast parts of Sweden, and data were collected through five group interviews consisting of 16 professionals working either in the county council or in the municipalities. The transcribed text was analysed by content analysis, revealing two categories. The first category ‘a challenge to the practice of care as known’ reflected that the release of guidelines could be perceived as a challenge to prevailing care and culture. The second category ‘anticipating change to come from above’ mirrored views on how staff expected the implementation process to flow from top to bottom. To facilitate working in accordance with guidelines, we suggest that future guidelines should be accompanied by an implementation plan, where the educational needs of frontline staff are taken into account. There is also a need for policy makers and managers to assume responsibility in supporting the implementation of evidence‐based practice.     

Structured review: evaluating the effectiveness of nurse case managers in improving health outcomes in three major chronic diseases

Aim. This paper presents the findings of a review and appraisal of the evidence for the effectiveness of nurse case management in improving health outcomes for patients living either with Diabetes, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease or Coronary Heart Disease. Background. Long term chronic health conditions provide some of the greatest challenges to western health care systems. In the UK, three of the most significant chronic conditions are Diabetes, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Coronary Heart Disease. Patients with these long term conditions are high users of health services who often receive unplanned, poorly co‐ordinated, ad‐hoc care in response to an exacerbation or crisis. To counter this, the nurse case manager is identified as a central aspect of improving care for these patients. However, the evidence for the effectiveness of nurse case management in improving health outcomes for the chronically ill is scarce. Design. A structured review of the literature. Method. The review was undertaken focussing on studies that evaluated nurse case management with one or all of the three major long term chronic conditions. A total of 108 papers were initially reviewed and filtered to leave 75 citations that were appraised. About 18 papers were finally included in the review and subject to thematic analysis based on the health outcomes evaluated in the studies. Results. Significantly positive results were reported for nurse case management impact on five health outcomes; ‘objective clinical measurements’, ‘quality of life and functionality’, ‘patient satisfaction’, ‘adherence to treatment’ and ‘self care and service use’. Relevance to clinical practice. The evidence generated in this review suggests that nurse case managers have the potential to achieve improved health outcomes for patients with long term conditions. Further research is required to support role development and create a more targeted approach to the intervention.