The more you understand and help manage your own health care the better. There is good evidence that better involvement results in highly significant reductions in adverse events. The NHS is promoting this wholeheartedly as it also has massive potential for efficiency savings. It never was the case that medical care was best left to the professionals who knew the definitive answers. Doctors report higher satisfaction from consultations where the patient is more able to engage in discussing the management of their situation.
The Health Foundations co-creating health project is finding that people get better quality of life by taking a more active role in their own health care. There are many ways in which the therapeutic relationship can be strengthened and this is the task of a health consultant. Enabling health is far more than simply controlling illnesses; it does require an investment of time and resources, but the evidence that this is worthwhile is overwhelming. The NHS is encouraging patients to co-create health; to take action to enhance their own health alongside the medical care they receive. With the shifting demographics and increasing medical needs it is in fact more a necessity than a nicety, that we are all proactive in enhancing our health.
Friday, 30 March 2012
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
In support of NHS General Practice
"Jack of all trades, master of none,
Certainly better than a master of one"
To argue whether a generalist is more valuable than a specialist is to miss the point that each has their place. Such polymaths as Leonardo da Vinci, who had skills spanning the arts and science, lived in an age of liberalising Renaissance thought, which viewed people as having limitless capabilities. Such a notion nurtured enablement of individuals to develop themselves and avoid the limitations often imposed by an oppressive body of conservative opinion.
Within the sphere of health the debate about specialism is further complicated by the notion that the body cannot be considered as a machine to be divided into different functions, but has to be considered as a whole. In this respect specialisms that deal with only one aspect of bodily function are to an extent arbitrary distinctions; it can be viewed that such a divisive process can undermine natural homeostatic mechanisms. Far more persuasive however, is the fact that critical actions are often necessary and this should be performed efficiently by a professional whose skill in the specific task is developed as fully as possible. The generalist is well-placed to apply the knowledge they have, to know when this is not sufficient and refer to an appropriate specialist when needed.
There is an increasing realisation that as a nation our capabilities to provide therapies outstrips our ability to pay for them within the NHS. This is an uncomfortable truth to politicians whose interests lie in promoting the perception that limitless care can be provided. It is also uncomfortable as a GP, as the consideration of resources impinges more and more upon the therapeutic relationship. The role as patient advocate is increasingly balanced (to be frank) with the desire to make financial savings and indirectly boost the personal share of business profit.
To conclude there is an ever increasing value to an independent advocate, who is able to engage alongside (and also think beyond) the limitations of conventional medical care. Who can enable sound decision making, have more time to provide holistic care and draw on knowledge of an expanded range of evidence-based therapies; enter the Health Consultant.
Certainly better than a master of one"
To argue whether a generalist is more valuable than a specialist is to miss the point that each has their place. Such polymaths as Leonardo da Vinci, who had skills spanning the arts and science, lived in an age of liberalising Renaissance thought, which viewed people as having limitless capabilities. Such a notion nurtured enablement of individuals to develop themselves and avoid the limitations often imposed by an oppressive body of conservative opinion.
Within the sphere of health the debate about specialism is further complicated by the notion that the body cannot be considered as a machine to be divided into different functions, but has to be considered as a whole. In this respect specialisms that deal with only one aspect of bodily function are to an extent arbitrary distinctions; it can be viewed that such a divisive process can undermine natural homeostatic mechanisms. Far more persuasive however, is the fact that critical actions are often necessary and this should be performed efficiently by a professional whose skill in the specific task is developed as fully as possible. The generalist is well-placed to apply the knowledge they have, to know when this is not sufficient and refer to an appropriate specialist when needed.
There is an increasing realisation that as a nation our capabilities to provide therapies outstrips our ability to pay for them within the NHS. This is an uncomfortable truth to politicians whose interests lie in promoting the perception that limitless care can be provided. It is also uncomfortable as a GP, as the consideration of resources impinges more and more upon the therapeutic relationship. The role as patient advocate is increasingly balanced (to be frank) with the desire to make financial savings and indirectly boost the personal share of business profit.
To conclude there is an ever increasing value to an independent advocate, who is able to engage alongside (and also think beyond) the limitations of conventional medical care. Who can enable sound decision making, have more time to provide holistic care and draw on knowledge of an expanded range of evidence-based therapies; enter the Health Consultant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)