Fallacy or Functionality: Law and Policy of Patient Treatment Choice in the NHS

The illusion of treatment choice in abortion care: A qualitative study of comparative care experiences in England and Wales

Treatment choice is a key component of quality, person-centred care, but policies promoting choice often ignore how capacity to choose is unequally distributed and influenced by social structures. In abortion care, the choice of either medication or a procedure is limited in many countries, but the structuring of treatment choice from the perspective of people accessing abortion care is poorly understood. This qualitative study explored comparative experiences of abortion treatment choice in England and Wales, using in-depth interviews with 32 people who recently accessed abortion care and had one or more prior abortions. A codebook approach was used to analyse the data, informed by a multidisciplinary framework for understanding the relationship between choice and equity. Abortion treatment choice was structured by multiple intersecting mechanisms: limitations on the supply of abortion care, incomplete or unbalanced information from providers, and participants' socio-economic environments. Long waiting times or travel distances could reduce choice of both treatment options. In interactions with providers, participants described not being offered procedural abortions or receiving information that favoured medication abortion. Participants' socio-economic environments impacted the way they navigated decision-making and their ability to manage the experience of either treatment option. Individual preferences for care were shaped in part by the interplay between these structural barriers, creating an illusion of choice, as the health system bias towards medication abortion reinforced some participants' negative perceptions of procedural abortion. The erosion of choice, to the point it is rendered illusory, has unequal impacts on quality of care. People's needs for their abortion care are complex and diverse, and access to varied service models is required to meet these needs. Treatment choice could be expanded by integrating public and private non-profit sector provision, aligning time limits and workforce requirements for abortion care with international standards, addressing financial pressures on service delivery, and revising the language used to depict each treatment option.

A Policy Analysis of State Plans for Independent Living in the U.S

People aging with disability and people of retirement age depend upon their respective states to follow the philosophical tenets of independent living (IL) to remain self-sufficient in their communities with a high quality of life. Independent living services are specified, programmatic sets of services funded by the Administration for Community Living (ACL) in line with expressly stated goals for implementation by state agencies for their state indepdent living centers (SILCSs) to implement through a State Plan for Independent Living (SPIL). Designated state agencies are required to submit their SPIL every three years to maintain funding through the ACL. This policy analysis of funded state plans for inclusion of people with disability aimed to determine which SPILs promote the IL philosophies of consumer choice and control. To this end, qualitative and quantitative content analyses were done to evaluate SPIL's inclusion of IL philosophies. Specifically, the consumer choice and control philosophy, involvement of people with disability, as well as the coherency of IL services from state to state were reviewed. The results of this paper indicate disparities in consumer choice and control initiatives across states, with approximately half of all states clearly promoting consumer control initiatives in their plans. Only three states made it clear that people with disability were involved in the SPIL development. The results give direction for nursing organizations who wish to work with and support SILCs as they advocate for person-centered approaches for people with disability.

Evaluating nuanced practices for initiating decision-making in neurology clinics: a mixed-methods study

Background

We report follow-on research from our previous qualitative analysis of how neurologists offer patients choice in practice. This focus reflects the NHS’s emphasis on ‘patient choice’ and the lack of evidence-based guidance on how to enact it. Our primary study identified practices for offering choice, which we called ‘patient view elicitors’ (PVEs) and ‘option-listing’. However, that study was not designed to compare these with recommendations or to analyse the consequences of selecting one practice over another.

Objectives

To (1) map out (a) the three decision-making practices – recommending, PVEs and option-listing – together with (b) their interactional consequences; (2) identify, qualitatively and quantitatively, interactional patterns across our data set; (3) statistically examine the relationship between interactional practices and self-report data; and (4) use the findings from 1–3 to compare the three practices as methods for initiating decision-making.

Design

A mixed-methods secondary analysis of recorded neurology consultations and associated questionnaire responses. We coded every recommendation, PVE and option-list together with a range of variables internal (e.g. patients’ responses) and external to the consultation (e.g. self-reported patient satisfaction). The resulting matrix captured the qualitative and quantitative data for every decision.

Setting and participants

The primary study was conducted in two neurology outpatient centres. A total of 14 neurologists, 223 patients and 114 accompanying others participated.

Results

Distribution of practices – recommending was the most common approach to decision-making. Patient demographics did not appear to play a key role in patterning decisional practices. Several clinical factors did show associations with practice, including (1) that neurologists were more likely to use option-lists or PVEs when making treatment rather than investigation decisions, (2) they were more certain about a diagnosis and (3) symptoms were medically explained. Consequences of practices – option-lists and PVEs (compared with recommendations) – were strongly associated with choice by neurologists and patients. However, there was no significant difference in overall patient satisfaction relating to practices employed. Recommendations were strongly associated with a course of action being agreed. Decisions containing PVEs were more likely to end in rejection. Option-lists often ended in the decision being deferred. There was no relationship between length of consultation and the practice employed.

Limitations

A main limitation is that we judged only outcomes based on the recorded consultations and the self-report data collected immediately thereafter. We do not know what happened beyond the consultation.

Conclusions

Patient choice is harder to enact than policy directives acknowledge. Although there is good evidence that neurologists are seeking to enact patient choice, they are still more likely to make recommendations. This appears to be partly due to concerns that ‘choice’ might conflict with doctors’ duty of care. Future guidance needs to draw on evidence regarding choice in practice to support doctors and patients to achieve the wider goal of shared decision-making.

Future research

To advance understanding of how interactional practices might have effects beyond the clinic, a priority is to investigate associations between decision-making practices and external outcomes (such as adherence).

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The paradox of non-evidence based, publicly funded complementary alternative medicine in the English National Health Service: An explanation

Despite the unproven effectiveness of many practices that are under the umbrella term 'complementary alternative medicine' (CAM), there is provision of CAM within the English National Health Service (NHS). Moreover, although the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence was established to promote scientifically validated medicine in the NHS, the paradox of publicly funded, non-evidence based CAM can be explained as linked with government policy of patient choice and specifically patient treatment choice. Patient choice is useful in the political and policy discourse as it is open to different interpretations and can be justified by policy-makers who rely on the traditional NHS values of equity and universality. Treatment choice finds expression in the policy of personalised healthcare linked with patient responsibilisation which finds resonance in the emphasis CAM places on self-care and self-management. More importantly, however, policy-makers also use patient choice and treatment choice as a policy initiative with the objective of encouraging destabilisation of the entrenched healthcare institutions and practices considered resistant to change. This political strategy of system reform has the unintended, paradoxical consequence of allowing for the emergence of non-evidence based, publicly funded CAM in the NHS. The political and policy discourse of patient choice thus trumps evidence based medicine, with patients that demand access to CAM becoming the unwitting beneficiaries.