Search

The article examines the issues surrounding White Paper's uncovering of the proposal to reforming the health professionals' Trust, Assurance and Safety regulation in Great Britain. The White Paper expressed that to reform, the importance of perceptions must be rightly emphasized as public needs to perceive that the regulatory system is operating in the interests of patients. It also stresses that the General Medical Council's (GMC) four functions must be integrated in the regulatory framework.

This paper concerns the use of photo-elicitation interviews in constructing migrant narratives of health and well-being. It argues that photo-elicitation can be particularly effective in producing nuanced understandings about relationships among culture, place and health. It explores how, through this method, subject-centred understandings of health and well-being are able to challenge dominant discursive constructions that tend to ‘other’ and potentially stereotype minority groups in explanations of health behaviour. The paper includes discussion of issues of power and representation in research with marginalized populations, which further elaborates the value of photo-elicitation in developing a non-essentializing view of minority groups. The paper concludes with comment on the potential value of this method in the formulation of health and social policies aiming to incorporate the views and needs of marginalized or minority groups. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The disclosure of adverse events to patients or their families who have been affected is considered to be a central feature of high quality and safer patient care, but despite this, as few as 30% of harmful errors may currently be disclosed to patients. Advocates of open disclosure propose that failing to communicate effectively with patients following adverse events may have negative repercussions for all stakeholders. The disclosure of adverse events and errors to patients and their families is partly fulfilling the duty of candour advocated in the numerous recent reports into the quality and safety within the NHS. This paper considers why disclosure remains challenging for organisations and professionals alike, despite guidance and in a clear moral imperative and commitment from stakeholders to transparency in healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper compares the development of genetic testing for breast cancer (BRCA testing) in the USA and the UK. It argues that national political cultures played an important role in how these genetic testing technologies were shaped, and that the shapes of these technologies had important implications for the users of these systems. In order to demonstrate the roles of national social and political elements in the development of new genetic testing technologies, I introduce the concept of a technology's architecture, which is made up of component and the specific ways in which these components are assembled to fulfill particular functions. In the USA, four very different BRCA testing systems initially emerged. However, one biotechnology company, Myriad Genetics, eventually used its legal and economic position to become the sole provider of testing. It offered BRCA testing the way many other laboratory tests were provided in the USA, available to anyone through any physician. The shape of this testing service had important implications for its participants, defining the client as a consumer who could demand access to any of Myriad's laboratory services, but could not choose among testing systems. In the UK, the government-run National Health Service provided testing through regional genetics clinics, using family history information to assess risks and triage care. Clients in the UK were defined as citizens and patients, who had the right to equal access to the testing system but could not demand any specific services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical authorities have historically either been silent or circumspect about the role of candour in clinical relationships. Hippocrates told doctors to abstain from doing harm, not entertaining the possibility that they might be negligent, while in 1847 the American Medical Association declared that doctors have: ‘a sacred duty … to avoid all things which have a tendency to discourage the patient and depress his spirits’. Being candid about an injurious mistake in the course of treatment would no doubt discourage even the worldliest of 19th century patients. However, in recent years, the focus has shifted: doctors in 21st century have an obligation to disclose even the most depressing of mistakes. This modern ‘duty of candour’ is found in a mish-mash of moral principles, regulatory guidelines and contractual agreements but following the Francis Report it will be buttressed by statute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an interview with Liam Donaldson, chief medical officer of the British Department of Health, about patient safety. The interview begins with an assessment of the report "An Organisation With a Memory" which stimulated a lot of awareness about patient safety. Donaldson then discusses the approach to cover ups or failure to comply with the being open policy. In addition, Donaldson talks about the role of the National Health Service Litigation Authority.

The article presents information on public policy issues governing health care reform and the National Health Service (NHS) in Great Britain. The introduction of the NHS Review affected hospitals, community health services and general practitioners. Fundholding practices and small health maintenance organizations have a similarity as well as a difference.