Frailty goes viral: a critical discourse analysis of COVID-19 national clinical guidelines in the United Kingdom

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Critical Public Health Pub Date : 2022-06-22 DOI:10.1080/09581596.2022.2090316
Louise Tomkow, Paul Pascall-Jones, D. Carter
{"title":"Frailty goes viral: a critical discourse analysis of COVID-19 national clinical guidelines in the United Kingdom","authors":"Louise Tomkow, Paul Pascall-Jones, D. Carter","doi":"10.1080/09581596.2022.2090316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper explores how the rationing of medical care for older people by frailty score was justified and operationalised in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 was expected to overwhelm the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. In March 2020, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published the ‘COVID-19 rapid guideline: critical care in adults’, which advised that clinicians use the Clinical Frailty Score (CFS) to inform decisions about which patients over the age of 65 should be offered ventilatory support. We present a Foucauldian Critical Discourse Analysis of this guidance and the supporting online resources. Analysis shows how the guidance merchandises the CFS as a quick and easy-to-use technology that reduces social and physical complexity into a clinical score. This stratifies older people by frailty score and permits the allocation of resources along these lines. We show how this is justified through epidemiological discourses of risk, which are merged with the language of individual mortality prediction. We discuss the proceduralisation of the CFS alongside a growing body of research that problematises its application in resource allocation. We argue that the pandemic has increased the use of the concept of frailty and that this effectively obfuscates the concept’s limitations and ambiguities; the ageism implicit in the response to COVID-19 in the UK; and the relative resource scarcity facing the UK’s NHS.","PeriodicalId":51469,"journal":{"name":"Critical Public Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2022.2090316","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper explores how the rationing of medical care for older people by frailty score was justified and operationalised in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 was expected to overwhelm the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. In March 2020, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published the ‘COVID-19 rapid guideline: critical care in adults’, which advised that clinicians use the Clinical Frailty Score (CFS) to inform decisions about which patients over the age of 65 should be offered ventilatory support. We present a Foucauldian Critical Discourse Analysis of this guidance and the supporting online resources. Analysis shows how the guidance merchandises the CFS as a quick and easy-to-use technology that reduces social and physical complexity into a clinical score. This stratifies older people by frailty score and permits the allocation of resources along these lines. We show how this is justified through epidemiological discourses of risk, which are merged with the language of individual mortality prediction. We discuss the proceduralisation of the CFS alongside a growing body of research that problematises its application in resource allocation. We argue that the pandemic has increased the use of the concept of frailty and that this effectively obfuscates the concept’s limitations and ambiguities; the ageism implicit in the response to COVID-19 in the UK; and the relative resource scarcity facing the UK’s NHS.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
虚弱像病毒一样传播:对英国COVID-19国家临床指南的批判性话语分析
本文探讨了在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,英国如何通过虚弱评分为老年人提供医疗服务的合理性和可操作性。预计2019冠状病毒病将使英国国家医疗服务体系不堪重负。2020年3月,英国国家卫生与护理卓越研究所(NICE)发布了《COVID-19快速指南:成人重症监护》,建议临床医生使用临床虚弱评分(CFS)来决定哪些65岁以上的患者应该获得呼吸机支持。我们提出了福柯式的批评话语分析,以此作为指导和支持的在线资源。分析表明,该指南如何将CFS推销为一种快速易用的技术,将社会和物理复杂性降低为临床评分。这种方法将老年人按虚弱程度进行分层,并允许按照这些方式分配资源。我们通过流行病学的风险论述来证明这是合理的,这些论述与个人死亡率预测的语言相结合。我们讨论了CFS的程序化以及越来越多的研究,这些研究对其在资源分配中的应用提出了问题。我们认为,大流行病增加了脆弱性概念的使用,这有效地混淆了这一概念的局限性和模糊性;英国应对COVID-19中隐含的年龄歧视;以及英国国民医疗服务体系面临的相对资源短缺。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Critical Public Health (CPH) is a respected peer-review journal for researchers and practitioners working in public health, health promotion and related fields. It brings together international scholarship to provide critical analyses of theory and practice, reviews of literature and explorations of new ways of working. The journal publishes high quality work that is open and critical in perspective and which reports on current research and debates in the field. CPH encourages an interdisciplinary focus and features innovative analyses. It is committed to exploring and debating issues of equity and social justice; in particular, issues of sexism, racism and other forms of oppression.
期刊最新文献
Factors influencing patients’ engagement with ChatGPT for accessing health-related information Australian burden of disease study: health equity through data disaggregation Indian dance (Bharatanatyam) to ease social loneliness and isolation in older adults Association between menopause and occupational burnout in healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study Enriching the evidence base of co-creation research in public health with methodological principles of critical realism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1