The Zeitgeist in health, the media and the public
In a paper published today, David Oliver answers a complex question "The media narrative on quality in healthcare—helpful or harmful?"
I found the last two chapters really insightful:
Finally, as someone who is part of the health policy "commentariat" and clinical leadership community, I am struck by the mismatch between some of the zeitgeisty groupthink in those echelons and the priorities in the news media. Everyone is talking about "asset based approaches," "developing community resilience," "prevention," "integration," "care closer to home" with "new models outside hospital," "supported self care," "personalisation," "activist patients," "personal budgets," and "person held records." All this magic thinking comes from a select group of self styled innovators and thinkers, and a small empowered group of largely middle class, educated service users. I am not saying any of these priorities are wrong, but it’s like a small policy elite is trying to dictate to the wider public what its priorities ought to be.
Out there in the press and the opinion polls, the public still use and want the reassuring old fashioned terms of "doctor" and "patient." They still have confidence in buildings (their local hospital or GP surgery) and basically want the care from those organisations to be caring, responsive, and accessible. The media haven’t caught up with the zeitgeist and neither have the public. But who’s to say they are wrong?
David Oliver is the president of the British Geriatrics Society, a consultant geriatrician at the Royal Berkshire Hospital, and a senior visiting fellow at the King’s Fund.
