Opening the Black Box of Rationing Care in Later Life

Bedside Rationing by Health Practitioners: A Case Study in a Ugandan Hospital

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to describe bedside rationing by health practitioners in a teaching hospital in Uganda.

Methods. This was a case study involving in-depth interviews. A modified thematic approach was used in data analysis. Types of decisions, the decision-making process, key players, and hospital-, medical-, and patient-related considerations in the process were identified. Klein’s 6 forms of rationing were used to identify the forms of rationing used. The setting was a tertiary hospital in Uganda. Theoretical sampling was used to identify 40 doctors and 16 nurses from the Departments of Medicine, Surgery, Paediatrics, and Obstetric and Gynaecology.

Results. Four types of bedside rationing decisions were identified: 1) which patients are seen first, 2) which treatment the patients receive, 3) which patients are admitted, and 4) which patients are taken to the operating theatre first. Hospital-related considerations regarding bedside rationing included the hospital budget and number of beds; medical-related considerations included the patient’s diagnosis and effectiveness of treatment; and patient-related considerations included poverty, social status, and age. All forms of rationing (denial, dilution, deflection, deterrence, delay, and termination) were practiced.

Conclusion. Although bedside rationing decisions in the study hospital seem somewhat similar to that in developed countries, the rationing of 1st-line drugs by health practitioners in Uganda is complex, difficult, and different from what has been described in industrialized countries. The complexity and severity of the consequences of the bedside decisions necessitate the development of resource-sensitive clinical guidelines and transparent decision-making processes to foster patients’ understanding of the reasons and the procedures and to ensure fair decision-making processes.

Perspectives on medicine adherence in service users and carers with experience of legally sanctioned detention and medication: a qualitative study

AIM

To explore and analyze perceptions of service users and caregivers on adherence and nonadherence to medication in a mental health care context.

BACKGROUND

Mental health medication adherence is considered problematic and legal coercion exists in many countries.

DESIGN

This was a qualitative study aiming to explore perceptions of medication adherence from the perspective of the service user (and their caregiver, where possible).

PARTICIPANTS

Eighteen mental health service users (and six caregivers) with histories of medication nonadherence and repeated compulsory admission were recruited from voluntary sector support groups in England.

METHODS

Data were collected between 2008 and 2010. Using qualitative coding techniques, the study analyzed interview and focus group data from service users, previously subjected to compulsory medication under mental health law, or their caregivers.

RESULTS

The process of medication adherence or nonadherence is encapsulated in an explanatory narrative. This narrative constitutes participants' struggle to negotiate acceptable and effective routes through variable quality of care. Results indicated that service users and caregivers eventually accepted the reality of their own mental illness and their need for safety and treatment. They perceived the behavior of professionals as key in their recovery process. Professionals could be enabling or disabling with regard to adherence to medication.

CONCLUSION

This study investigated service user and caregiver perceptions of medication adherence and compulsory treatment. Participants described a process perceived as variable and potentially doubly faceted. The behavior of professionals was seen as crucial in collaborative decision making on medication adherence.

Towards developing new partnerships in public services: users as consumers, citizens and/or co-producers in health and social care in England and Sweden

The causes and effects of marketization of public services have been analysed extensively in the literature, but there is relatively little research on how those policies impact on the development of new forms of governance, and the role of users in these new arrangements. This study reviews examples of competition, freedom of choice and personalized care in health and social services in England and Sweden, in order to examine the type of relationships emerging between the user/consumer vis-à-vis market driven providers and various agencies of the state under the marketized welfare. The article focuses on the possible roles users might assume in new hybrid arrangements between markets, collaborations and steering. A user typology: namely, that of a consumer, citizen, co-producer and responsibilized agent in various governance arrangements, is then suggested. The article concludes by arguing that pro-market policies instead of meeting the alleged needs of post-modern users for individualized public services are likely to promote a new type of highly volatile and fragile partnerships, and create a new subordinated user who has no choice but to ‘choose’ services they have little control over.

Fair nursing care when resources are limited: the role of patients and family members in Norwegian home-based services

The purpose of the study was to investigate nurses' priority decisions and the provision of home-based nursing care services. Interviews were conducted with 17 nurses in various positions in this service. The data were interpreted and analyzed according to interpretive hermeneutic methodology. The authors particularly address the nurses' descriptions of the role of the patient and his or her family members for the provision of home-based care. Cooperative patients and family members represent an important resource for care and can make it possible for nurses to provide services for all the patients on an egalitarian basis and to prioritize those who live alone. However, demanding and resourceful patients and family members may "rule" the service at the expense of other patients who also have legitimate care needs--a practice that the nurses describe as unfair. In this article, the authors discuss how a fair and impartial distribution of common benefits can be achieved without some parties being unjustly treated.