The paradox of Service Vs Person-Centred Care

Looking at Hodges' model and its basic structure of axes and care (knowledge) domains, I wrote a note to the effect that:

- the INTERPERSONAL (INTRA-) and SCIENCES domains are fundamental to individual care. 

This follows, of course, from the vertical axis.

Then I added, that the SOCIOLOGICAL and POLITICAL domains are fundamental to person-centred care.

 

Person-centredness is vested, is realised in and by the care domains that involve concepts mediated and related by the group, the collective.

 

There seems a (strong?) recognition of social justice and justice at work.

INDIVIDUAL

|

 INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

SOCIOLOGY  :   POLITICAL 

|

GROUP

individualised	individualised
person-centred	person-centred

Perhaps this is the implicit origin of the call to new learners and professionals alike to 'Make a Difference', 'Be the Difference'?

Then I thought of the perennial duality of service-centred and person-centred care.

 

Accepting the idealised nature of these thoughts, when 'presented' with a case, health services - through their practitioners, focus on the individual. The individual may express personal choices, hopes, but the extent to which these garner a response, are acted upon, also depends on the SOCIOLOGICAL and POLITICAL domains. 

In terms of the ideals (that apply, and what I will call upon) there are two extremes - I have mentioned previously, consider:

In the triage situation, apart from establishing consciousness - communication and interpersonal are collapsed into seconds, and response to stimuli / pain, communication is not key. Task orientation, practice, procedure, events, rehearsal, stock and equipment checks are to the fore.

 

Alternately, there is the level of interpersonal skills that are exercised to communication with the patient, to learn of, recognise, and respond to their personal choices.

 

All of a sudden things seem to be reversed.

 

Short of being plain wrong (?) -

THIS seems powerful, essential and required medicine for the 21st century.

service	SERVICE
person	PERSON

It is even more nuanced, however, and I'm not trying to clever (mathematics and logic are definitely not my subject), but making the above easier to describe:

s	S
p	P

Above, I'm trying to suggest and represent:

1. A lack of regard and relative neglect of the humanistic domains [ s AND p ];
2. This is then reflected in the ongoing issues of parity of esteem for mental health, illness and psychological interventions [ s OR S ].

In #1, we can add the UK decade long, debacle of funding for social care and the status and recognition of the workforce; the legacy (lessons) of medical sociology and the potential of attention to the social determinants of health and the sustainable development goals (paper to follow mapping the SDGs to h2cm).

The [ S AND P] in the SCIENCES and POLITICAL domains - might (also) be indicative of the continuously espoused benefits of technology as part of health care delivery. While accessibility and improvements in this are emphasized, often Politically people are isolated due to lack of technology, or funds. There remains a SOCIO-technical divide.

The years to follow, will no doubt see the microscope from the SCIENCES placed in the humanistic domains and technology's impact - benefits examined there. Who knows: maybe a new instrument, simultaneously (transdisciplinary) qualified will be found?

Conclusion that might be drawn:

The bio-psycho-social model is insufficient for person-centred care (having an opportunity, then yes - I would say this).

The overall aim and objective of Hodges' model when applied, is not to tick boxes but to diffuse the disciplinary boundaries, to assure, and integrate.

More to follow... (a paradox?)