The Longitude and Latitude of Care ...

... and what lies between

As I continue to reflect upon Hodges' model (PROCESS 0 : 4 DOMAINS and other posts) I can see two influences on what it contains and how it works practically and more formally - what logic(s) might apply? The first is the binary state of: blank template, or empty set. The other is initiated when we start to populate the model with care concepts. Whether '0' or '1' the situation - context of the clinical encounter, has a bearing on both. Imagine, a student armed with an explanation of Hodges' model - having just 'created' the model through a seminar (Socratic dialogue); then, presented with a blank template they are ready to begin, while they listen to their mentor and a patient/client/carer? Alternately, a qualified practitioner examines their previous 'notes', with a patient, evaluating progress.

Imagination aside, I'm wondering (as ever!) about the what, how and why of the significance implied in placing concepts x,y, and z. What is the justification, if any, beyond seeking to assure person-centred, integrated, safe and high quality care? Restating the question, when concepts are placed in the 'INDIVIDUAL' domains what are the relationships between them, the model and the interactions that determined them?

Perhaps, I ask too much of this model? Are there underlying properties that characterise concepts placed in a domain and so distinguish them from others: (INTRA-)INTERPERSONAL - SCIENCES?

The model is acknowledging, incorporates the Cartesian divide: Mind-Body. When I write and advocate that the model supports integrated care, at one point do, can these two domains merge, 'collapse' into one?

 INDIVIDUAL

|

 INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

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

SOCIOLOGY  :   POLITICAL 

|

GROUP