Providers and Patients Caught Between Standardization and Individualization: Individualized Standardization as a Solution; Comment on “(Re) Making the Procrustean Bed? Standardization and Customization as Competing Logics in Healthcare”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors

Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences and Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Abstract

In their 2017 article, Mannion and Exworthy provide a thoughtful and theory-based analysis of two parallel trends in modern healthcare systems and their competing and conflicting logics: standardization and customization. This commentary further discusses the challenge of treatment decision-making in times of evidence-based medicine (EBM), shared decision-making and personalized medicine. From the perspective of systems theory, we propose the concept of individualized standardization as a solution to the problem. According to this concept, standardization is conceptualized as a guiding framework leaving room for individualization in the patient physician interaction. The theoretical background is the concept of context management according to systems theory. Moreover, the comment suggests multidisciplinary teams as a possible solution for the integration of standardization and individualization, using the example of multidisciplinary tumor conferences and highlighting its limitations. The comment also supports the authors’ statement of the patient as co-producer and introduces the idea that the competing logics of standardization and individualization are a matter of perspective on macro, meso and micro levels.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Mannion R, Exworthy M. (Re) Making the procrustean bed? Standardization and customization as competing logics in healthcare. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(6):301-304. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2017.35
  2. Abrahams E, Ginsburg GS, Silver M. The personalized medicine coalition: Goals and strategies. Am J Pharmacogenomics. 2005;5(6):345-355.
  3. Pfaff H, Driller E, Ernstmann N, et al. Standardization and individualization in care for the elderly: Proactive behavior through individualized standardization. Open Longev Sci. 2010;4:51-57. doi:10.2174/1876326X01004010051
  4. Fierz W. Challenge of personalized health care: to what extent is medicine already individualized and what are the future trends? Med Sci Monit. 2004;10(5):RA111-RA123.
  5. Dzau VJ, Ginsburg GS. Realizing the full potential of precision medicine in health and health care. JAMA. 2016;316(16):1659-1660. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.14117
  6. Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA. 2005;294(6):716-724. doi:10.1001/jama.294.6.716
  7. Barratt A. Evidence based medicine and shared decision making: the challenge of getting both evidence and preferences into health care. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):407-412. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.054
  8. 8.      Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC, Palda VA, Lemieux-Charles L, Grimshaw JM. How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability. Implement Sci. 2011;6:26. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-26
  9. Karbach U, Schubert I, Hagemeister J, Ernstmann N, Pfaff H, Höpp H-W. Physicians’ knowledge of and compliance with guidelines: An exploratory study in cardiovascular diseases. Dtsch Ärtzebl. 2011;108(5):1-69. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2010.0
  10. Cleland JG, Cohen-Solal A, Aguilar JC, et al. Management of heart failure in primary care (the improvement of heart failure programme): An international survey. Lancet. 2002;360(9346):1631-1639. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11601-1
  11. Steel N, Bachmann M, Maisey S, et al. Self reported receipt of care consistent with 32 quality indicators: national population survey of adults aged 50 or more in England. BMJ. 2008;337:a957. doi:10.1136/bmj.a957
  12. Hagemeister J, Schneider CA, Diedrichs H, et al. Inefficacy of different strategies to improve guideline awareness - 5-year follow-up of the hypertension evaluation project (HEP). Trials. 2008;9(39):1-7. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-9-39
  13. Carlsen B, Glenton C, Pope C. Thou shalt versus thou shalt not: a meta-synthesis of GPs’ attitudes to clinical practice guidelines. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57(545):971-978. doi:10.3399/096016407782604820
  14. Epstein RM. Mindful Practice. JAMA. 1999;282(9):833-839. doi:10.1001/jama.282.9.833
  15. Jacke CO, Albert US, Kalder M. The adherence paradox: guideline deviations contribute to the increased 5-year survival of breast cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:734. doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1765-0
  16. Hernes T, Bakken T. Implications of Self-Reference: Niklas Luhmann’s Autopoiesis and Organization Theory. Organ Stud. 2003;24(9):1511-1535.
  17. in 't Veld RJ, Termeer CJAM, Schaap L, Van Twist MJW, eds. Autopoiesis and Configuration Theory: New Approaches to Societal Steering. Dordrecht: Springer; 1991.
  18. Ansmann L, Kowalski C, Pfaff H, Wuerstlein R, Wirtz MA, Ernstmann N. Patient participation in multidisciplinary tumor conferences. Breast. 2014;23(6):865-869. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2014.09.004
  19. Lamb BW, Taylor C, Lamb JN, et al. Facilitators and barriers to teamworking and patient centeredness in multidisciplinary cancer teams: findings of a national study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(5):1408-1416. doi:10.1245/s10434-012-2676-9
  20. Croke JM, El-Sayed S. Multidisciplinary management of cancer patients: chasing a shadow or real value? An overview of the literature. Curr Oncol. 2012;19(4):232-238. doi:10.3747/co.19.944
  21. Devitt B, Philip J, McLachlan S-A. Team dynamics, decision making, and attitudes toward multidisciplinary cancer meetings: health professionals’ perspectives. J Oncol Pract. 2010;6(6):e17-e20. doi:10.1200/JOP.2010.000023
  22. Komatsu H, Nakayama K, Togari T, et al. Information sharing and case conference among the multidisciplinary team improve patients’ perceptions of care. Open Nurs J. 2011;5:79-85. doi:10.2174/1874434601105010079
  23. Lamb BW, Brown KF, Nagpal K, et al. Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(8):2116-2225. doi:10.1245/s10434-011-1675-6
  24. Hahlweg P, Hoffmann J, Härter M, Frosch DL, Elwyn G, Scholl I. In absentia: an exploratory study of how patients are considered in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0139921. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139921
  25. Ernstmann N, Wirtz M, Nitzsche A, et al. Patients’ trust in physician, patient enablement, and health-related quality of life during colon cancer treatment. J Canc Educ. 2017. doi:10.1007/s13187-017-1166-y
  26. Piette JD, Heisler M, Krein S, Kerr EA. The role of patient-physician trust in moderating medication nonadherence due to cost pressures. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(15):1749-1755. doi:10.1001/archinte.165.15.1749
  27. Simpson S, Eurich D, Majumdar S, Tsuyuki R, Varney J, Johnson J. A meta-analysis of the association between adherence to drug therapy and mortality? BMJ. 2006;333(15):1-6. doi:10.1136/bmj.38875.675486.55
  28. Andersen RM, McCutcheon A, Aday LA, Chiu GY, Bell R. Exploring dimensions of access to medical care. Health Serv Res. 1983;18(1):49-74.
  29. Siminoff LA, Step MM. A communication model of shared decision making: accounting for cancer treatment decisions. Health Psychol. 2005;24(4 (suppl 1):S99-S105. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S99
  30. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Britten N. “doing prescribing”: how doctors can be more effective. BMJ. 2003;327(7419):864-867. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7419.864
  31. Schilsky RL. Personalized medicine in oncology: the future is now. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(5):363-366. doi:10.1038/nrd3181

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 14 June 2017
  • Revise Date: 31 July 2017
  • Accept Date: 01 August 2017
  • First Publish Date: 01 April 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics