21世纪以病人为中心:工具化还是改进沟通?

M. Vang, A. H. Andersen, O. Hendricks, G. Handberg, Z. Illés, K. Roessler
{"title":"21世纪以病人为中心:工具化还是改进沟通?","authors":"M. Vang, A. H. Andersen, O. Hendricks, G. Handberg, Z. Illés, K. Roessler","doi":"10.5750/EJPCH.V7I2.1673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objective of the current study was to investigate the contemporary concept of patient-centeredness compared to the original notion of patient-centeredness in practice and politics. Methods: This is accomplished through a concept-analysis of patient-centeredness on the basis of the original publications by Michael and Enid Balint as well as policy documents regarding patient-centeredness in the Danish healthcare system in the period 2014-2016. A case study was conducted on patient-centeredness in the Danish healthcare system using interviews with doctor and patient before and after the consultation and video observation of the consultation. The interviews and observations were transcribed and analysed using a framework derived from Pragmatics of Human Communication. Results: Substantial differences between the original patient-centeredness and contemporary patient-centeredness were identified. Both types of patient-centeredness were practised. However, contemporary patient-centeredness was only realised in the patient performing the doctor’s role-obligations of prescribing and monitoring treatment, resulting in a breakdown of the doctor-patient relationship that was only restored by the doctor’s practice of original patient-centeredness. Conclusion: Contemporary patient-centeredness over-emphasises content aspects of the doctor-patient encounter in favour of relationship aspects. Original patient-centeredness emphasises the relationship aspects of the encounter and support addressing existential concerns that might have important implications for treatment.","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"1 1","pages":"325-333"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient-centeredness in the 21st century: Instrumentalisation or improved communication?\",\"authors\":\"M. Vang, A. H. Andersen, O. Hendricks, G. Handberg, Z. Illés, K. Roessler\",\"doi\":\"10.5750/EJPCH.V7I2.1673\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: The objective of the current study was to investigate the contemporary concept of patient-centeredness compared to the original notion of patient-centeredness in practice and politics. Methods: This is accomplished through a concept-analysis of patient-centeredness on the basis of the original publications by Michael and Enid Balint as well as policy documents regarding patient-centeredness in the Danish healthcare system in the period 2014-2016. A case study was conducted on patient-centeredness in the Danish healthcare system using interviews with doctor and patient before and after the consultation and video observation of the consultation. The interviews and observations were transcribed and analysed using a framework derived from Pragmatics of Human Communication. Results: Substantial differences between the original patient-centeredness and contemporary patient-centeredness were identified. Both types of patient-centeredness were practised. However, contemporary patient-centeredness was only realised in the patient performing the doctor’s role-obligations of prescribing and monitoring treatment, resulting in a breakdown of the doctor-patient relationship that was only restored by the doctor’s practice of original patient-centeredness. Conclusion: Contemporary patient-centeredness over-emphasises content aspects of the doctor-patient encounter in favour of relationship aspects. Original patient-centeredness emphasises the relationship aspects of the encounter and support addressing existential concerns that might have important implications for treatment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal for person centered healthcare\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"325-333\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal for person centered healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5750/EJPCH.V7I2.1673\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal for person centered healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5750/EJPCH.V7I2.1673","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是探讨当代以病人为中心的概念在实践和政治上与原始的以病人为中心的概念的比较。方法:根据Michael和Enid Balint的原始出版物以及2014-2016年期间丹麦医疗保健系统中有关患者中心的政策文件,通过对患者中心进行概念分析来完成这一研究。对丹麦医疗保健系统中以患者为中心的案例进行了研究,在会诊前后对医生和患者进行了访谈,并对会诊进行了视频观察。访谈和观察结果被记录下来,并使用源自人类交际语用学的框架进行分析。结果:发现了原始的以患者为中心与当代的以患者为中心之间的实质性差异。两种类型的以病人为中心的实践。然而,当代的以患者为中心,只是在患者履行医生的角色义务,即开处方和监督治疗中才得以实现,从而导致医患关系的破裂,而医患关系只有通过医生最初的以患者为中心的实践才能得以恢复。结论:当代以患者为中心过分强调医患接触的内容方面,而倾向于关系方面。原始的以病人为中心强调关系方面的遭遇和支持解决存在的问题,可能对治疗有重要的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Patient-centeredness in the 21st century: Instrumentalisation or improved communication?
Objective: The objective of the current study was to investigate the contemporary concept of patient-centeredness compared to the original notion of patient-centeredness in practice and politics. Methods: This is accomplished through a concept-analysis of patient-centeredness on the basis of the original publications by Michael and Enid Balint as well as policy documents regarding patient-centeredness in the Danish healthcare system in the period 2014-2016. A case study was conducted on patient-centeredness in the Danish healthcare system using interviews with doctor and patient before and after the consultation and video observation of the consultation. The interviews and observations were transcribed and analysed using a framework derived from Pragmatics of Human Communication. Results: Substantial differences between the original patient-centeredness and contemporary patient-centeredness were identified. Both types of patient-centeredness were practised. However, contemporary patient-centeredness was only realised in the patient performing the doctor’s role-obligations of prescribing and monitoring treatment, resulting in a breakdown of the doctor-patient relationship that was only restored by the doctor’s practice of original patient-centeredness. Conclusion: Contemporary patient-centeredness over-emphasises content aspects of the doctor-patient encounter in favour of relationship aspects. Original patient-centeredness emphasises the relationship aspects of the encounter and support addressing existential concerns that might have important implications for treatment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The ethical and epistemic roles of narrative in person-centred healthcare Person-Centred Healthcare versus Patient Centricity - what is the difference and how are pharmaceutical companies aiming to secure internal representation of the patient voice? Moving past phronesis: clinical reasoning in person-centered care Persons over models: shared decision-making for person-centered medicine lifestyle and degeneracy
×
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