E-DRUG: 'Compliance/concordance' (Cont)
--------------------------------------
Dear E-druggers,
James Russo should not be so diffident about expressing a personal opinion
across the E-drug network. Isn't that what the network is for?
I agree with the sentiments he expresses with regard to the use of the term
'compliance' with its implication of onus on the part of the patient. In
UK the term that is being increasingly used is 'concordance'. It implies,
even demands, a shared decision on the therapeutic goals, and the process
by which they are attained, between the patient (client, customer) and the
treatment provider. It makes us as healthcare professionals re-assess our
part in ensuring therapeutic success.
Two aspects have been put forward against 'concordance'. The first relates
to discussion of what to do about ADR's etc, and the second is a long tale
about the critical timing of OC dosing. Both of these are important issues
to discuss with the patient when agreeing therapy, but is it not for the
patient to choose what to do and to take appropriate action? However, they
can only make those decisions if they have knowledge of the likely
consequences of their actions, and it is for us to ensure that they have
enough information to be able to make their own choices. In one sense it
doesn't matter what we call it. It is whether or not we do it that counts!
Tim Dodd
Scotsman & Training Advisor, Ghana National Drug Programme
Email: Cath_and_Tim_Dodd@compuserve.com
--
Send mail for the `E-Drug' conference to `e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.
Mail administrative requests to `majordomo@usa.healthnet.org'.
For additional assistance, send mail to: `owner-e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.