h2cm: Globalization, Accommodation theory and Relativism (Grayling, 2010)

From A.C. Grayling's Ideas that Matter, 2010, Phoenix.

Globalization: p. 235-236.

A more neutral account of globalization describes it as the process of making things known, done, available or possessed worldwide - such as Internet access, telecommunications, medical knowledge and benefits such as vaccines, transport technologies, political ideas, art and music, books and much besides.

Grayling also explains how the increased distribution associated with globalization is unequal, hence the sense of injustice that is felt resulting in protest.

The health care domains model is concerned with making things known - helping to make knowledge available on a personal, group and family level. This is no Mercator projection, not even Peter's projection but it is a global map.

Accommodation theory: p. 3-5.

Accommodation theory states that when people talk to each, they adjust their behaviour and manner of speech to take account of (to accommodate themselves to) the topic, the circumstances, and the other people engaged with them in conversation.

There are many theories to explain how we communicate and thereby model(?) ourselves, others and the world. Imagine a doctor's surgery and the morning's clinical consultations, it is easy to envisage the role that accommodation routinely plays. The one-to-one conversation (dialogue, argumentation, debate) can be extended, and viewed as the combined chatter, the whole series of multidisciplinary Q&A with the breaks (the silences when we are listening!). Accommodation theory has proved of value in multiculturalism, especially on policy concerning immigration and integration. p.5

The care domains provide an ethnoculturally neutral space (it could be argued) for the accommodations that are demanded in the 21st Century. 

Relativism: p.433.

There is a distinction to be drawn between moral or cultural relativism, on the one hand, and cognitive relativism on the other. The former concerns the difference between cultures, or between different historical phases of the same culture, with respect to religious, social, and moral values and practices, that is, with respect to what might be called the 'superstructure' of the culture's conceptual scheme. Cognitive relativism concerns the 'infrastructure', the level of basic beliefs about the world, such as that there are perception-independent, re-identifiable and individually discriminable objects or events, occupying space and time, interacting causally, and bearing properties of various kinds.

Much is said of the games that people play. Whether the care domains model provides a game board that can accommodate both the super- and infrastructural conceptual levels is open to question. In the health career model the infrastructure level concepts are light - as we find that they reside in the upper part of the model: perceived, individually discriminable (INTRApersonal) objects occupying space and time (SCIENCES) with mass, weight, inertia. ... The political domain prompts access to values and how these shape the total conceptual landscape(s), the conversations and silences that go on there ...

Care Logistics: have model will travel ...

From: NHS Logistics - supplies, v4m, corporate, orders, consultancy, catalogue, process, delivery, stock, just in time, service, quality, priority, efficiency, customers, finance, contracts ...
	To: Care Logistics - access, choice, attitude, empathy, communication, values, outcomes, human rights, dignity and respect, quality care, professionalism, purpose, roles, holistic competency, standards, personal, measures, equity ...

Philosophy of information empowers philosophy of care

The moral and ethical dimensions of nursing quickly become apparent to individual practitioners and professional associations. Philosophy in nursing boasts specific courses, journals and groups, for example:

International Philosophy of Nursing Society (IPONS)

Nursing Philosophy (journal)

International Centre for Nursing Ethics

Here on W2tQ, in papers and on the website I have stressed the importance of the health career model as a framework that can utilise information as a fundamental and potentially unifying concept.

Expanding on the post last week about the philosophers' magazine [tpm50] let's look at Floridi's piece on the philosophy of information (PI). The 50 ideas featured are each only granted two pages, but this has a definite philosophical equivalent twitter-styled appeal. On page 42 (- 43) Floridi notes that:

... PI possesses one of the most powerful conceptual vocabularies ever devised in philosophy. This is because one can rely on informational concepts whenever a complete understanding of some series of events is unavailable or unnecessary for providing an explanation. Virtually any issue can be rephrased informationally. Such semantic power is a great advantage of PI, understood as a methodology. ...

It shows that we a dealing with an influential paradigm. But it may also be a disadvantage, because a metaphorically pan informational approach can lead to a dangerous equivocation, namely, thinking that since any x can be described in (more or less metaphorically) informational terms, then the nature of any x is genuinely informational. (Luciano Floridi, 2010).

Admittedly Floridi's context is the position and status of PI as an emerging discipline within philosophy. As he notes the vocabulary while powerful lies in the discipline of philosophy.

Given my preoccupation with information, Floridi's observation above is a timely warning for me and the many nurses who in the past saw a concomitant risk that in adopting the nursing process, patients (and carers) would be processed. Ironically, this processing concerned information. The workflow - form and layout of the documentation - was prescribed. This is an old tale, with the nursing process being subsumed within the routine work of nursing. Perhaps though this also demonstrates a need for a new debate?

My interest in information is as a trope to explain the significance of the care (knowledge) domains that underpin Hodges' model. Crucially, though these can stand on their own as nursing philosophy issues. Joining the efforts of the nursing philosophers above, this can bring information and philosophy out of the academic realm to include a more practical and grounded variety of topics:

FROM: personal identity,
definitions and ownership of computer based records,
utility versus security of information (summary care record ...),
definitions of information (data, knowledge) - through
TO: patient information and patient informatics, ...
where is collective informatics^# heading?

Taking Floridi's lead - which of the above .... are core nursing (health) information concepts (and not just freeloading info-masqueraders along for the ride)? Well, that is a question for a new community of scholars to decide?

Philosophy resources: Interpersonal care domain

^#Collective informatics = all the claimed informatics disciplines combined?

Care ecology

Webster’s dictionary defines ecology as:

".. the totality or pattern of relations between organisms and their environment."

In health and social care there are several environments:

• cognitive
• social
• physical
• political
• [and spiritual]

In this sense then Hodges' model provides a much needed care ecology:

An ecology not only for* care (disposition?)

- but an ecology to* care (direction?).

That is as something to protect given its inherent inclusiveness, balance and holism - an ecology within which we can also check on the health of our values.

In being focused on life - as an ecology - the model can also encompass the end of life.

*Michael Serres writes on the role of prepositions:

Conner, S. (2008) Wherever: The Ecstasies of Michel Serres, Accessed 19 June 2010.

Jones, P. (2007) Language to Care, Accessed 19 June 2010.

Michael Serres: messengers - a Blog

Greenspan wins Dynamite Prize in Economics

Alan Greenspan has been judged the economist most responsible for causing the Global Financial Crisis. He and 2^nd and 3^rd place finishers Milton Friedman and Larry Summers have won the first – and hopefully last — Dynamite Prize in Economics.

In awarding the Prize, Edward Fullbrook, editor of the Real World Economics Review, noted that “They have been judged to be the three economists most responsible for the Global Financial Crisis. More figuratively, they are the three economists most responsible for blowing up the global economy.”

The prize was developed by the Real World Economics Review Blog in response to attempts by economists to evade responsibility for the crisis by calling it an unpredictable, “Black Swan” event. In reality, the public perception that economic theories and policies helped cause the crisis is correct.

The prize winners were determined by a poll in which over 7,500 people voted—most of whom were economists themselves from the 11,000 subscribers to the Real-World Economics Review. Each voter could vote for a maximum of three economists. In total 18,531 votes were cast.

Fullbrook cautioned that not all economics and economists were bad. “Only ‘neoclassical’ economists caused the GFC. There are other approaches to economics that are more realistic—or at least less delusional—but these have been suppressed in universities and excluded from government policy making.”

“Some of these rebels also did what neoclassical economists falsely claimed was impossible: they foresaw the Global Financial Crisis and warned the public of its approach. In their honour, I now call for nominations for the inaugural Revere Award in Economics, named in honour of Paul Revere and his famous ride. It will be awarded to the 3 economists who saw the GFC coming, and whose work is most likely to prevent another GFC in the future.”

Dynamite Prize Citations:

Alan Greenspan (5,061 votes)
As Chairman of the Federal Reserve System from 1987 to 2006, Alan Greenspan both led the over expansion of money and credit that created the bubble that burst and aggressively promoted the view that financial markets are naturally efficient and in no need of regulation.

Milton Friedman (3,349 votes)
Friedman propagated the delusion, through his misunderstanding of the scientific method, that an economy can be accurately modeled using counterfactual propositions about its nature. This, together with his simplistic model of money, encouraged the development of fantasy-based theories of economics and finance that facilitated the Global Financial Collapse.

Larry Summers (3,023 votes)
As US Secretary of the Treasury (formerly an economist at Harvard and the World Bank), Summers worked successfully for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which since the Great Crash of 1929 had kept deposit banking separate from casino banking. He also helped Greenspan and Wall Street torpedo efforts to regulate derivatives.

The poll was conducted by PollDaddy. Cookies were used to prevent repeat voting.

For further information and interviews email: pae_news@btinternet.com

My source: (with additional links and image) Ciresearchers.net

Image source: http://sveccha.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/laws-of-and-black-swan/

Hodges' model: POLITICAL domain resources

'Problem patients?' 2 - Appease me do (not)

Many of the aspirations of nursing are just that - aspirational.

Appeasement and other similar 'power' associated concepts helps explain some of the appeal of Hodges' model - with its inclusion of a POLITICAL care domain. The needs of the ONE (interpersonal care domain) are diagonally opposed by the needs of the MANY (political care domain).

Just because I may approach someone (*evidently*) abusing medication / alcohol, over-eating, risk taking ... does not mean I am prepared to continue to nurse them and hence support them in that behaviour. Attempts to engage can be made and (must be) documented, as subsequent referrals and care will build on those care encounters. There is a marked difference between those individuals above who are often socially excluded, risk takers and people who are preoccupied with their health and mental health state. (Are such people stuck in the 'sick role?) Such patients may well seek new drugs and then instantly question the medication they are taking, never satisfied, they may query their care record and care while in hospital by virtue of their personality and anxieties.

I can reject negative behaviours and attitudes, but not the person. As a member of the health care team I can explain clear terms for future engagement should the patient wish. At the end of the day we constantly review: do they have mental capacity and to what extent does their behaviour present a risk to themselves, or others...? There is also a role for specific care management to be effected, to screen and prevent people reaching emergency services when this is repeated and unnecessary. The combination of some conditions such as long term respiratory problems and anxiety can create acute management problems, both for the individuals concerned, their family carers and care providers.

People do have choices to make, and so must take responsibility for how they exercise those choices.

Crucially this also needs to be explained to referrers - e.g. general practitioners / family physicians. For effective care management the inclusion of paramedic, crisis, social and intermediate care services in care management communication and coordination is also essential.

So, there is absolutely no need for a "current model of appeasement based care".

(This is a wind-up - surely? If not I am available for career advice.)

Yours truly and the patient's (even if it hurts),

Peter Jones

'Problem patients?' 1

Nurse Philosophy list

'Problem patients?' 1 - Wimps and space to care

I responded to a mail list discussion around 'problem patients' which began with the following main points:

• a relatively new nurse
• surprise that a significant minority of (my) patients are pathological wimps;
• even prior to seeing them they can often easily be spotted by examining their medical records;
• for example, I frequently notice that wimps have an obscene (and often downright odd) amount of special meal requests;
• current nursing philosophy encourages nurses to be endlessly supportive of wimps. i.e. to follow the often demonstrably wrong idea that "the patient is always right.";
• IMO nurses who claim they benefit such patients using the current model of appeasement based care are co-dependent personality types who enjoy feeling needed more than they enjoy actually helping people.

My first response is copied below with some additional points a further post will follow:

Patients are always a challenge in that they come in lots of 'varieties'. This is why we recognise the need for individualised, person-centred care. One variety is physical trauma laden to which the full-complement of the multidisciplinary team must respond. These patients and *their* crises bring out the best in us in terms of the skills and knowledge, team work they force us to exercise.

Among the plethora of other varieties there are those who are viewed as 'problems'. Like the Pepsi ad of decades ago they are variously and pejoratively described as -

multiattendin, attentionseekin, patiencesappin, bedblockin,
buzzabuzz-buzzin, heartsinkin, timewastin,
symptomfindin, carenumbin

.... patients!

If I receive referral information or heads up information on diagnosis of a 'tci' (to come in) that suggests the above is on the way, has arrived or worse "is on your caseload" - what do I do?

• Brace myself for impact?
• Go off sick (suffering loss of job satisfaction)?
  
• Become purely task or disease focussed, give up on effecting +ve change and improved outcome?
  
• Share collective anecdotes in the office - staff changing as a way to cope, de-stress, inject some humour?

OR do I -

• Avoid labelling them, or use these labels in a re-constructive way?
• Ask why are they 'who' they are?
• Gaze into their 'life history' and help them learn from it?
  
• Refuse to make gross assumptions, even based on previous experience with client - patient?
• Look at the individual wholistically - socially, educationally, behaviourally?
  
• Believe you can still make a difference (be the fly-half you can be and play ball)?
  
• Side step being tripped by foibles, behaviours and blatant displays of -ve obstructive ...... attitude that offend 'me'?
  
• Enter their space and do my utmost to find room for manoeuvre (this is the hardest test)?
• Speak to my manager(s) very tersely about protecting 'me' as a scarce resource and shout "OK where the hell is the gate keeper!"
  
• Or, as a nurse do you boldly go and seek out new strengths and new opportunities in the same way that Kirk, McCoy, Spock et al. (2264) go and seek New Life, New Civilizations...?

You may have an impossible lock to pick (in its most severe form this has become known as 'personality disorder'), but the nursing challenge is there in all its personal and professional glory. Address this personal - under-the-skin - slant - seek supervision. Be aware of the pit that some people fall into. The trap for some people with life chances they may have completely:

missed, never had, were stolen, denied,
took for granted, spurned,
totally - wasted.

Around the pit is the zone of judgement, but beware it is a singularity (no perspective) and very slippery.

• Otherwise go do your job: Nurse.

Nurse Philosophy list

Reference:

Kirk, McCoy, Spock et al. (2264) The Caring Imperative, To Boldly Go..., Four Quadrant Galactic Care Journal, Integrated Galactic Care Publishing Inc. itess-cube: 1701u-care4mesafelyandnicely

'situated' in Hodges' model #2

So, Hodges' model is person-centred and situated
- a conceptual springboard for all.

In the 1970-80s the nursing process challenged task-based care.

Ever since we have stressed individualised, personalised care and now today self-care.

Interpersonal and communication skills are central to nursing theory,
practice, management and informatics.

In Hodges' model the individual is the primary focus*.

The science and art of nursing
is predicated upon the
nurse - patient
relationship.

Situated = 'Its a duet' (anagram)

*Inclusion of the 'group' in the model also facilitates
consideration of relatives, parent-child, family, community and populations.

Comment on Paul Roemer's "EHR market is ripe for the taking by Google, Microsoft, Oracle"

I read with great interest Paul Roemer's post last month -

EHR market is ripe for the taking
by Google, Microsoft, Oracle

I've a lot of respect for the people working at that other sharp end of health. There are times when they are where I would like to be: not the bleeding edge, but the business edge:

Paul is a healthcare strategist and the managing partner of Healthcare IT Strategy, which helps health care providers solve business problems using EHR, workflow improvement, and change management.

Mr Roemer is out there among the corporations, the deals, the the media frenzy and the stock market's take on health care AND health IT. He is addressing specific audiences and over here in the UK we can hear the debate raging. My problem is that working for the NHS all my career I have been and am cocooned. Even though I try to venture out and get involved, this is the very powerful criticism of long-term public sector employees. While far from totally sheltered from economical and political climate change, we are protected from the worst of the business elements. Despite this, seeing the title of Paul's post and his two rules:

Rule No. 1: Content is king. In cable, it is channels such as HBO and Discovery. In healthcare it is data--patient data, effectiveness data, disease data.

Rule No. 2: The cable/telco model values the businesses based on the number of assets (subscribers--you and me). Each body adds somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 to the valuation model of a Comcast or a Verizon. Downstream, some valuation will be placed on each PHR subscriber.

- two additional rules sprang instantly to mind. ...

Rule 3: Beware low hanging fruit

I posted in April 2009 Data sharing, privacy, health, citizenry.... "Database State" expressing concern that the sanctity of personal data is being eroded bit-by-bit in the mind of the general public by the media and the sheer ubiquity of information and technology. Peaches, plums, pears are delicious when ripe, but as such they need to be handled very carefully. So too does the Personalised health record amid a variety of threats - the worst of which are often internal. In health care the patient data that Paul identifies in his Rule 1 is central, and a key issue is the demarcation of individual and anonymised aggregated data. Hence, Paul quite rightly points to a regulated market. Personal data can be far more valuable in terms of direct marketing and so the temptations for misuse are profound.

In the UK an NHS consultation has addressed the additional uses of patient data. This concerned the research capability programme and provision of a health research support service; with events to present proposals and debate the various issues that include information governance. The report of that consultation is provided below (care of the NHS-HE Connectivity Project list):

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Responsestoconsultations/DH_109310

Information governance is not fixed, nor should it ever be.

In Paul's rule 1 content is king and content=data - in this case:

• patient data;
• effectiveness data;
• disease data.

This list of data would surely qualify as being 'broad spectrum' in nature. If its circulation is not very tightly controlled it can damage the (care) environment. If not managed effectively across multifold 'borders' - national, regional/state, corporate, systems, organisations, users, testing, interfaces, legislative, public bodies - this data can mutate markedly despite the insistence upon standards. You see although Google, Microsoft and Oracle may take that ripe fruit, as they pick it they come across -

Rule 4: Whenever and wherever picked,
fruit can be tainted

This might include the odd bug, or one or two tainted fruit items perhaps? It could be problems in the form of parts of the EHR that are difficult to incorporate, with questions of shared access and ownership? (If the fruit is indeed pristine, no blemish, no chemicals, no truly-devoted-insect-kisses: what are the overheads - especially those in the form of corporate responsibility?)

Now don't mistake me: I'm also sick to the gums of flannel and people talking jargon. I've seen medics, nurses and nurse managers waving their arms around stressing the importance of their profession, this action followed by that and pointing to the shrouds (my right index finger twitches as I write). But if Google, Microsoft and Oracle believe they can do an Indiana Jones and just shoot to solve the problem because - as Paul suggests - they have the 'numerics' in the cable/telco model, then they need to take care (even if only improvising).

Microsoft, CSC and many other corporations already know of the complexity that reigns (pours in fact!) from their experience in health IT. Paul highlights Google as a new kid in town. Maybe acquisition does obviate the need to learn quickly (let others learn the lessons). But whatever the point of entry: health care remains a cussed business. And the future mix demands (begs!) the integrated addition of social care, but how and to what level?

It is not enough to counter "let's attack this complexity with simplicity." Health and social care are metronomic. They alternate between complex - simple descriptions (one of which is re-organisation). Plus, that metronome may as well be in a closed box:

Schrodinger's. Care to gamble?

Paul's choice of 'downstream' referring to the eventual valuation of PHR subscribers does lessen the mechanistic clang-clang as the subscription counter falls. There is a space for the person - for the humanistic aspects to shine through. Paul's post is also fascinating since such numbers do count and speak volumes (sorry - but they really do). They will not only reach shareholder's ears, but the general public's too helping erode the cherished sanctity of my personal data. So am I saying that some of the giants of corporative intelligence turn and run screaming, arms raised like surprised Martians in alien territory? No.

Maybe, as I have found -

the real low hanging fruit is the m+del.

Is it as ripe and appropriate in this market as it seems?

Or is it past its sell by date?

Time as ever will tell.

Additional links:

NHS data breaches: the 'cogeography' of who and where?

EHR market is ripe for the taking by Google, Microsoft, Oracle

Paul Roemer (twitter)

Image source:
LowHangFruit.com

=============== Paul's Post Follows ==============

December 17th, 2009

by Paul Roemer
The national EHR market is ripe for the taking by a big three like Microsoft, Google and Oracle. Heck, I'll even go so far as to suggest that when the dust settles in about five or seven years, the National Health Information Network will be a regulated combination of a handful of those firms.

As for the other firms offering or planning to offer PHRs, permit me to suggest the following scenario: Let's say I am in charge of Google's somewhat non-existent healthcare line of business. One of my goals would be to have more users of my PHR than any other firm.

Why does this model make sense? Two ways, both of which come from the cable/telco business model.

Rule No. 1: Content is king. In cable, it is channels such as HBO and Discovery. In healthcare it is data--patient data, effectiveness data, disease data.

Rule No. 2: The cable/telco model values the businesses based on the number of assets (subscribers--you and me). Each body adds somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 to the valuation model of a Comcast or a Verizon. Downstream, some valuation will be placed on each PHR subscriber.

So, back to the example of me running Google's healthcare offering. (If you don't like Google as an example, insert your favorite firm.) If I'm Google, am I troubled by the fact that other firms are building their own solutions? No, because the difficult part of the business model is adding users, adding subscribers. Why not let a bunch of firms do the business development work for me, do the dirty work to get the users, and then just devour those firms? Once I own them, I convert them to my platform. Do I then get some 'ownership' or right to use the data? That would certainly be the business goal.

One million users valued at $5,000 adds $5 billion in valuation. Ten million adds $50 billion. Ten billion is about 2.5 percent of the U.S. market. Do I stop at the border? Of course not.

By the way, while all this is going on, Google, Microsoft, or some other company will also be creating standards and building or buying up EHR firms.

Nursing management consultants & being optically challenged

Being somewhat optically challenged at present (need new glasses!) I have nonetheless managed to sort some old papers. I came across a more recent news item from the Nursing Times 8 September, p.3 by Sally Gainsbury. What use is late news?

I raise this now because public sector health finance provides the impetus, so this subject is perpetual motion. It is also reported ongoing by HSJ. I refer to this not to take sides, but to acknowledge that politically there is a need to make decisions and find the required £20bn efficiency savings. The news line reads:

DH told 1,500 district nurses could go with no damage to patient care

The item focuses on a report for the DoH produced by McKinsey management consultants. The government has distanced itself from the reports recommendations, but the need for action remains. The Nursing Times news item includes two clocks (with the total nursing time available depicted as 1 hour) that break down the time spent on patients on general medical wards and community wards. While this is just one aspect of a report of more than 100 pages, the findings are of great interest. ...

GENERAL WARD: 15 mins Physical care; 10 mins Psychosocial care; 35 mins non-patient care.
COMMUNITY NURSES: 17 mins Antenatal activities; 13 mins Postnatal; 27 mins npc; 3 mins other and classes.

I have not worked on a general or mental health ward for a long time, but I was surprised to see the time spent on patient being less on the wards than the community - 25 minutes v. 30 minutes. There are challenges in comparing different clinical areas, but I would have thought travel, administration - including paper and e-record data entry would impinge much more on community. On mental health wards there has been an effort to free nurses to nurse - with protected time? So pause for thought there - but only for a moment....

Thinking about community - providers will no doubt vary in the way (district) nursing teams are organized, the location of their bases and how that impacts average journey times. Districts also vary in the way the population is distributed, especially those neighbourhoods were social and economic deprivation is higher and need may be increased.

This is why access to GIS (geographical information systems) by team managers and members is crucial and should not just be some esoteric academic and intelligence artifact. While we should not under estimate the potential use of GIS to inform inpatient care, it is community services that are best placed to benefit from improved intelligence, planning and decisions.

There is a long thread here and the politicians of all parties know it leads into the forest ....

For example, much can be read in a single word "... McKinsey found that only 15 minutes was on the "physical care" of patients while the remaining 10 minutes went on "psychosocial" care, such as talking to patients." I hope that 'only' does not suggest that talking to patients is 2nd best, even though basic nursing care is the factor in the news regarding public perception of the quality of nursing care. This is a constant problem as we move to outcomes. Are we going to have patients saying - "The physical care was excellent, but I felt like I was in a religious retreat. Nobody hardly spoke, explained anything." Patient education, self care, staying well, the effective use of medication and treatment ... is predicated on psychosocial engagement.

What is also very troubling is that cost savings might mean detrimental changes in the skill-mix; the ratio of qualified to health care assistant staff. Some of the best 'natural' nurses I have worked with and work with today are dedicated HCAs. They have a major role and contribution to make, but if safety gains are to be maintained and improved upon then 'safe' skill-mix is critical.

Given the present demographic, 'nurses' are not new to cuts. In the public sector cuts are part of that perpetual motion I mentioned at the start. What frustrates is working on the holistic care mosaic to produce something that is safe, effective, quality care; then as we come to finally add the threads - clinical supervision, PDP, health IT, outcome measures, public engagement we have to unravel and start again.

Image source used with permission and thanks: D L Ennis. Visual Thoughts http://dlennis.wordpress.com/

Forensic Nursing: bio-psycho-social (political) steps

I've been searching for a definition of forensic nursing and came across this by The International Association of Forensic Nurses (IAFN)…

“the application of nursing science to public or legal proceedings; the application of the forensic aspects of health care combined with the bio-psycho-social education of the registered nurse in the scientific investigation and treatment of trauma and/or death of victims and perpetrators of abuse, violence, criminal activity and traumatic accidents.”
IAFN 2002

While seeing bio-psycho-social in the definition comes as no surprise - the list of areas, situations and contexts that forensic nurses may work in is enlightening:

• Interpersonal Violence
• Forensic Mental Health
• Correctional Nursing
• Legal Nurse Consulting
• Emergency/Trauma Services
• Patient Care Facility Issues
• Public Health and Safety
• Death Investigation

In writing about the relevance of Hodges' model in this field there is the assumption that forensic nursing is specialized, but built - of course - upon fundamental nursing principles and values. These are carried forward in forensic nursing theory and practice - Beyond Tradition, Advancing Humanity -  as the IAFN slogan ably puts it. Being reminded yesterday of mental health law (always a good thing!) in training on Mental Health Act 2007, I can see just how well Hodges' model can support the early bio-psycho-social steps of the nurse learner.  Then if students go on to specialize in forensic care, the model's political care (knowledge) domain will continue to serve them well.

KT-EQUAL event Ageing Research 17 September

I was really pleased to be able to attend this event last Thursday (do check the site as there is an ongoing programme of workshops):

Making the most of the potential of Assistive Technology

This workshop organised in conjunction with BIAS (Brunel Institute for Ageing Studies) will provide a round-up of recent developments in AT and the underlying research aimed at enhancing independence in the home, improving safety and security, extending the use of the car, managing continence, maintaining the body and stimulating the brain.

 

Hosted by: Brunel Institute for Ageing Studies
Sponsored by: BIAS and KT-EQUAL

10:20 Welcome and Introduction, The world of  BIB and older people, Chair for the morning, Professor Emeritus Heinz Wolff, Founding Director, Brunel Institute for Bioengineering (BIB), Brunel University 
10:30 New Service Quality to Support Self-Care, Keren Down MBE, Director of FAST
10:55  Tackling Ageing Continence, Felicity Jowitt, Brunel Institute for Bioengineering
11:20 Refreshments
11:40 From chairs to stairs, Dr Ruth Mayagoitia, Applied Medical Research Group, King's College London,
12:05 "The Companion" - Independence, choice and self-sufficiency, Edward Varney, Brunel Institute for Bioengineering
12:30 Discussion
12:45 Lunch
13:45 Introduction to the afternoon, The world of BIAS and older people, Chair for the afternoon, Professor Mary Gilhooly, Professor of Gerontology, School of Health Sciences and Social Care, Brunel University 
13:50 KT-EQUAL: its mission for older people, Professor Peter Lansley, Director KT-EQUAL, University of Reading
14:00 Older drivers & older IT users: designing new technology, Suzette Keith, Middlesex University
14:25 Safety and Security in Later Life, Professor Rachel McCrindle, KT-EQUAL Consortium, University of Reading
14:50 Tea
15:10 Nourishing the body and saving the soul, Dr Arlene Astell, St Andrews University
15.35 Technology for people with dementia, Eleanor van den Heuvel, Brunel Institute for Bioengineering
16:00 Discussion
16:30 End

As noted above Prof. Heinz Wolff duly and delightfully introduced proceedings and chaired the morning. As a community mental health nurse for older adults and informatics / ICT enthusiast the day certainly proved worthwhile for me. Here are some reflections on two sessions:

While clinical and information standards have and remain a preoccupation for me, Keren Downs' session raised the chicken and the egg problem of standards and quality in the development of self-care and assistive technologies. Keren's presentation highlighted the stasis in design in the older adults sector and the question of how to energise future vision and models for innovation. There was reference to Shaping the future of care together and Common Core Principals to Support Self Care 2008, Department of Health.

Funding inevitably featured - the green paper listing three options:

Partnership - government pays for between a quarter and a third of care costs ...
Insurance - government pays for between a quarter and a third of care costs ...
Comprehensive - everyone pays into a state insurance scheme, whether or not they need care, and everyone gets free care when they need it.

The next slide reminded me of the tilting, table fitted geriatric chairs of old as Keren Downes highlighted the relative stasis in design and need for change for this population group.

While form follows function - can it also stifle innovation? When you consider change in materials, people's homes, care environments, attitudes ... there must be opportunities for innovation?

I also recalled similarities between this market of assistive technology and that of benefits realization within nursing (health) informatics. Especially as barriers were considered such as:

• poor design (usability)
• information provision
• workforce competency
• procurement
• (To which I would add 'value added services' - maintenance, life-cycle management.)

As the speaker and work of FASTUK made clear, older adults represent a growing and emerging market, for whom standards and design will be critical if self-care and assisted living are to be fully realised *.

The final slide listed some reports and a web link as follows:

FAST reports: www.fastuk.org

• Assistive Technology supporting self care, July 2006
• Assistive Technology –Workforce Development, June 2007
• Annual Report to Parliament on Research and Development in Assistive Technology, July 2009

Felicity Jowitt in another session:

TACT3: Tackling Ageing Continence through Tools, Theory and Technology

- provided a concise non-medicalized definition:

Urinary Incontinence 'is a condition in which involuntary urine loss 
is a social or hygienic problem and is objectively demonstrable'.

International Continence Society definition of incontinence

The talk included explanations of the problems and how they arise, prevalence, management, available AT options and the anatomically - stigma driven challenges that male and female continence presents. To close new assistive devices were discussed. The creation and production of discrete, well-designed person- (in a social context) friendly aides, special pads and devices to detect the odour that signifies the need to change a continence pad before the human nose is alerted.

The sessions featured a Q&A session and amongst the many questions raised, I wondered about the ideal of continence aids that also help nurses and carers maintain high quality standards of care and professional values. ... Perhaps from the late 1970s I have antiquated notions of basic nursing care? It is shocking to hear stories of people being told to "do it anyway - you've got a pad on!". Does it not occur to these people that if the person is asking they obviously have insight and are distressed by their urgent situation. As to people who are confused and asking as a result of agitation - the mind boggles and the heart aches at the standards of care evident in such an attitude.

So, this was a really thought provoking and - despite the subjects - enjoyable event and I have only of course scratched the surface.

The majority of presentation (including those above) are available on the download page.

A related reference I am following up:

Duarte, L.R., Marquié, L., Marquié, J-C. et al. (2009) Analyzing feature distinctiveness in the processing of living and non-living concepts in Alzheimer’s disease, Brain and Cognition, Volume 71, Issue 2, November 2009, Pages 108-11.

I will do a h2cm matrix on continence in the future.

* You can almost hear the critical exclamation of a future aged '60s generation - "No way dude I'm not using that!". Perhaps by then we will have the means to ensure they retain the faculties to pass a critique.