IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v22y2013i9-10p1353-1360.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

No decision about me without me: concordance operationalised

Author

Listed:
  • Austyn Snowden
  • Glenn Marland

Abstract

Aims and objectives To demonstrate that concordance can be operationalised to the benefit of patients. Concordance can be understood as a composite of knowledge, health beliefs and collaboration. Background In discussing any clinical decision, it would be ideal if different views could be incorporated to reach the most coherent decision. This is a definition of concordance, a widely agreed ideal in nursing. There are limits, however, that make the practice of concordance problematic. Sometimes there is little time or willingness to discuss issues in depth. Some views of the world are considered more worthy than others. As a consequence, clinical guidelines currently prioritise easier to measure outcomes of negotiation, such as adherence. Design This discursive article argues that prioritising adherence is a fundamental error, incoherent with current strategic rhetoric such as the Department of Health's ‘no decision about me without me’. Methods The impact of prioritising concordance is contrasted with adherence‐based interventions. Results Where adherence is a goal of treatment, non‐adherence is considered problematic. This value judgment is not useful and does not occur in a consultation that prioritises concordance. However, concordance is difficult to translate into clinical practice. This article shows that concordance can be operationalised by considering it a composite of health beliefs, knowledge and collaboration. Conclusion The main thesis is that different behaviours can always be incorporated into a concordance framework. This negates the necessity for adherence as an endpoint in itself. Relevance to clinical practice Fifty per cent of people do not take medicines as prescribed. Interventions focused towards improving adherence are only ever partially successful. This is because it presupposes the clinician is right. Concordance by contrast is more coherent with person centred care and thus more likely to generate clinically meaningful outcomes for patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Austyn Snowden & Glenn Marland, 2013. "No decision about me without me: concordance operationalised," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(9-10), pages 1353-1360, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:22:y:2013:i:9-10:p:1353-1360
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04337.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04337.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04337.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:22:y:2013:i:9-10:p:1353-1360. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.