A plea to merge clinical and public health practices: reasons and consequences.
Health management
Health policy
Medical education
Medical professionalism
Public health
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Dec 2020
09 Dec 2020
Historique:
entrez:
9
12
2020
pubmed:
10
12
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Revisiting professionalism, both as a medical ideal and educational topic, this paper asks whether, in the rise of artificial intelligence, healthcare commoditisation and environmental challenges, a rationale exists for merging clinical and public health practices. To optimize doctors' impact on community health, clinicians should introduce public health thinking and action into clinical practice, above and beyond controlling nosocomial infections and iatrogenesis. However, in the interest of effectiveness they should do everything possible to personalise care delivery. To solve this paradox, we explore why it is necessary for the boundaries between medicine and public health to be blurred. Proceeding sequentially, we derive standards for medical professionalism from care quality criteria, neo-Hippocratic ethics, public health concepts, and policy outcomes. Thereby, we formulate benchmarks for health care management and apply them to policy evaluation. During this process we justify the social, professional - and by implication, non-commercial, non-industrial - mission of healthcare financing and policies. The complexity of ethical, person-centred, biopsychosocial practice requires a human interface between suffering, health risks and their therapeutic solution - and thus legitimises the medical profession's existence. Consequently, the universal human right to healthcare is a right to access professionally delivered care. Its enforcement requires significant updating of the existing medical culture, and not just in respect of the man/machine interface. This will allow physicians to focus on what artificial intelligence cannot do, or not do well. These duties should become the touchstone of their practice, knowledge and ethics. Artificial intelligence must support medical professionalism, not determine it. Because physicians need sufficient autonomy to exercise professional judgement, medical ethics will conflict with attempts to introduce clinical standardisation as a managerial paradigm, which is what happens when industrial-style management is applied to healthcare. Public healthcare financing and policy ought to support medical professionalism, alongside integrated clinical and public health practice, and its management. Publicly-financed health management should actively promote ethics in publicly- oriented services. Commercialised healthcare is antithetical to ethical medical, and to clinical / public health practice integration. To lobby governments effectively, physicians need to appreciate the political economy of care.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Revisiting professionalism, both as a medical ideal and educational topic, this paper asks whether, in the rise of artificial intelligence, healthcare commoditisation and environmental challenges, a rationale exists for merging clinical and public health practices. To optimize doctors' impact on community health, clinicians should introduce public health thinking and action into clinical practice, above and beyond controlling nosocomial infections and iatrogenesis. However, in the interest of effectiveness they should do everything possible to personalise care delivery. To solve this paradox, we explore why it is necessary for the boundaries between medicine and public health to be blurred.
MAIN BODY
METHODS
Proceeding sequentially, we derive standards for medical professionalism from care quality criteria, neo-Hippocratic ethics, public health concepts, and policy outcomes. Thereby, we formulate benchmarks for health care management and apply them to policy evaluation. During this process we justify the social, professional - and by implication, non-commercial, non-industrial - mission of healthcare financing and policies. The complexity of ethical, person-centred, biopsychosocial practice requires a human interface between suffering, health risks and their therapeutic solution - and thus legitimises the medical profession's existence. Consequently, the universal human right to healthcare is a right to access professionally delivered care. Its enforcement requires significant updating of the existing medical culture, and not just in respect of the man/machine interface. This will allow physicians to focus on what artificial intelligence cannot do, or not do well. These duties should become the touchstone of their practice, knowledge and ethics. Artificial intelligence must support medical professionalism, not determine it. Because physicians need sufficient autonomy to exercise professional judgement, medical ethics will conflict with attempts to introduce clinical standardisation as a managerial paradigm, which is what happens when industrial-style management is applied to healthcare.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Public healthcare financing and policy ought to support medical professionalism, alongside integrated clinical and public health practice, and its management. Publicly-financed health management should actively promote ethics in publicly- oriented services. Commercialised healthcare is antithetical to ethical medical, and to clinical / public health practice integration. To lobby governments effectively, physicians need to appreciate the political economy of care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33292215
doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05885-0
pii: 10.1186/s12913-020-05885-0
pmc: PMC7725113
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1068Références
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 05;11(2):e0148343
pubmed: 26849801
Soc Sci Med. 2002 Dec;55(11):1905-21
pubmed: 12406460
Int J Health Plann Manage. 2003 Oct-Dec;18 Suppl 1:S79-88
pubmed: 14661943
BMJ. 2014 Jun 13;348:g3725
pubmed: 24927763
Eur J Gen Pract. 2017 Dec;23(1):257-260
pubmed: 29148849
Fam Pract. 2015 Dec;32(6):681-5
pubmed: 26187223
Soc Sci Med. 2011 Aug;73(4):535-539
pubmed: 21802184
Int J Integr Care. 2006 Sep 18;6:e15
pubmed: 17006552
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Jul 23;14:244
pubmed: 25056517
Br J Gen Pract. 2012 Jul;62(600):e522-4
pubmed: 22782000
J Family Med Prim Care. 2019 Jul;8(7):2328-2331
pubmed: 31463251
Nature. 2003 Oct 23;425(6960):785-91
pubmed: 14574401
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Feb 04;4(2):61-4
pubmed: 25674569
Bull World Health Organ. 2000;78(8):1005-14
pubmed: 10994284
PLoS Med. 2011 Apr;8(4):e1001020
pubmed: 21532739
Patient Educ Couns. 2005 Feb;56(2):139-46
pubmed: 15653242
JAMA. 2015 Dec 1;314(21):2263-70
pubmed: 26624825
Lancet. 2019 Jun 29;393(10191):2571-2573
pubmed: 31258113
Lancet. 2018 Nov 17;392(10160):2203-2212
pubmed: 30195398
Int J Integr Care. 2006 Sep 18;6:e14
pubmed: 17006553