Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:34:24.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ethical dilemmas: balancing choice and risk with a duty of care in extending personalisation into the care home

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2020

Emma Miller Open the ORCID record for Emma Miller [Opens in a new window]  and
Karen Barrie
Emma Miller*
Affiliation:
School of Social Work and Social Policy, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Karen Barrie
Affiliation:
School of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article reports the perspectives of senior care staff as part of a study exploring personalisation in care homes. Behind the conceptual sword and shield of ‘choice and control’ associated with personalisation in the United Kingdom (UK) lie irreconcilable flaws, thrown into sharp relief in this context. Personalisation, which originated in community-based social services, has recently been extended into UK care homes. This service development has been stimulated by a desire to promote a humane response to caring for an ageing population, whilst containing costs. Seemingly promoting a relational approach, personalisation also entails consumerist underpinnings, with consequent tensions resulting in weakened policy mechanisms. Discussing findings pertaining to ‘food and eating’, the article illustrates the complex interplay between supporting resident capabilities with poor staff ratios; when choice is not really choice at all; balancing choice, risk and the duty of care; and responding to diverse perspectives about what matters. This complexity reflects the highly skilled nature of care work as promoted by care ethicists. The tensions permeated care home life and found parallels in the wider system of care. Honesty about the limitations of choice and control is essential to achieve ethical care in care homes. The care home constitutes fertile ground for exposing and exploring the shortcomings of the ‘logic of choice’ and for advancing a more relational, inclusive and sustainable conceptualisation of personalisation.

Keywords

personalisationcare homesethic of careriskconsumerismpersonal outcomes
Type
Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 42 , Issue 8 , August 2022 , pp. 1800 - 1821
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrews, N, Gabbay, J, Le-May, A, Miller, E, Petch, A and O'Neill, M (2020) Story, dialogue and caring about what matters to people: progress towards evidence-enriched policy and practice. Evidence & Policy 16, 597–618.10.1332/174426420X15825349063428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, M (2011) Abandoning care? A critical perspective on personalisation from an ethic of care. Ethics and Social Welfare 5, 153–167.10.1080/17496535.2010.484265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, M (2012) Care in Everyday Life: An Ethic of Care in Practice. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Bauman, Z (1998) Globalisation: The Human Consequences. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Benoot, T, Dursin, W, Verschuere, B and Roose, R (2021) Lessons from Ricoeur's ‘capable human being’ for practices of personalisation in three European countries. Disability and Society 36, 772–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beresford, P (2014) Advancing the positives of personalisation/person-centred support: a multi-perspective view. In Needham, C and Glasby, J (eds). Debates in Personalisation. Bristol, UK: Policy Press, pp. 153–166.10.2307/j.ctt1t892xn.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boxall, K, Dowson, S and Beresford, P (2009) Selling individual budgets, choice and control: local and global influences on UK social care policy for people with learning difficulties. Policy and Politics 37, 499–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) (2017) Care Homes Market Study. London: CMA.Google Scholar
Cook, A and Miller, E (2012) Talking Points: A Personal Outcomes Approach. Edinburgh: Joint Improvement Team.Google Scholar
Demos (2014) A Vision of Care Fit for the Twenty-first Century. London: The Commission on Residential Care.Google Scholar
Eccles, A and Cunningham, I (2018) The Enablers and Barriers to Voluntary Sector Organisations Providing Personalised Support Through Delivery of Self-directed Support. Glasgow, UK: University of Strathclyde.Google Scholar
Fisher, B and Tronto, J (1990) Towards a feminist theory of caring. In Abel, E and Nelson, M (eds). Circles of Care Work and Identity in Women's Lives. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 36–54.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, M and Murphy, C (2019) Questioning ‘choice’: a multinational metasynthesis of research on directly funded home-care programs for older people. Health and Social Care in the Community 27, e37–e56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, B (2014) The Future Care Workforce. London: ILC-UK.Google Scholar
Froggatt, K, Davies, D and Meyer, J (2009) Research and development in care homes: setting the scene. In Froggatt, K, Davies, S and Meyer, J (eds). Understanding Care Homes: A Research and Development Perspective. London: Jessica Kingsley, pp. 9–22.Google Scholar
Harnett, T and Jonson, H (2017) Shaping nursing home mealtimes. Ageing & Society 37, 823–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, V (2014) A view from social work practice. In Needham, C and Glasby, J (eds). Debates in Personalisation. Bristol, UK: Policy Press, pp. 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HM Government (1990) National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
HM Government (2014) Care Act 2014. London: The Stationery Office. Available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/23/contents/enacted/data.htm.Google Scholar
Hurtley, R (2004) The developing culture in its political context. In Perrin, T (ed). The New Culture of Therapeutic Activity with Older People. London, UK: Speechmark Publishing, pp. 20–40.Google Scholar
Jeon, Y, Simpson, J, Li, Z, Cunich, M, Thomas, T, Chenoweth, L and Kendig, H (2015) Cluster randomized controlled trial of an aged care specific leadership and management program to improve work environment, staff turnover, and care quality. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 16, 629.e19–629.e28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2009) Older People's Vision for Long-term Care. York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Kadri, A, Rapaport, P, Livingston, G, Cooper, C, Robertson, S and Higgs, P (2018) Care workers, the unacknowledged persons in person-centred care: a secondary qualitative analysis of UK care home staff interviews. PLOS ONE 13, e0200031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, J (2014) John Kennedy's Care Home Inquiry. York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Keyes, S, Webber, S and Beveridge, K (2015) Empowerment through care: using dialogue between the social model of disability and an ethic of care to redraw boundaries of independence and partnership between disabled people and services. European Journal of Disability Research 9, 236–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kontos, PC, Miller, KL, Mitchell, GJ and Cott, CA (2011) Dementia care at the intersection of regulation and reflexivity: a critical realist perspective. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 66B, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law Commission (2011) Adult Social Care. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Lloyd, L (2010) The individual in social care: the ethics of care and the ‘personalisation agenda’ in services for older people in England. Ethics and Social Welfare 4, 188–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, L (2014) Can personalisation work for older people? In Needham, C and Glasby, J (eds). Debates in Personalisation. Bristol, UK: Policy Press, pp. 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lymbery, M (2013) Austerity, personalisation and older people: the prospects for creative social work practice in England. European Journal of Social Work 17, 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, E and Meyer, J (2019) Assessing quality for people living with dementia in residential long-term care: trends and challenges. Gerontology & Geriatric Medicine 5, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merrell, J, Philpin, S, Warring, J, Hobby, D and Gregory, V (2012) Addressing the nutritional needs of older people in residential care homes. Health and Social Care in the Community 20, 206–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Midwinter, E (2011) Care Homes: A Historical Perspective. In Lievesely, N, Crosby, G and Bowman, C (eds). The Changing Place of Care Homes. BUPA and the Centre for Policy on Ageing, pp. 9–12.Google Scholar
Miller, E (2011) Getting Back to What Matters. Edinburgh: Dunedin.Google Scholar
Miller, E and Barrie, K (2015) Learning from the Meaningful and Measurable Project: Strengthening Links Between Identity Action and Decision-making. Glasgow, UK: Healthcare Improvement Scotland.Google Scholar
Mol, A (2008) The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.10.4324/9780203927076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mol, A (2009) Living with diabetes: care beyond choice and control. Lancet 373, 1756–1757.10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60971-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, J (2004) Independent living and community care: a disempowering framework. Disability and Society 19, 427–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, C (2011) Personalising Public Services: Understanding the Personalisation Narrative. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, C and Glasby, J (2014) Taking stock of personalisation. In Needham, C and Glasby, J (eds). Debates in Personalisation. Bristol, UK: Policy Press, pp. 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, MR, Davies, S, Brown, J, Keady, J and Nolan, J (2004) Beyond ‘person-centred’ care: a new vision for gerontological nursing. Journal of Clinical Nursing 332, 1180–1184.Google Scholar
O'Dwyer, C (2013) Official conceptualizations of person-centred care. Which person counts? Journal of Aging Studies 27, 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petch, A, Cook, A and Miller, E (2013) Partnership working and outcomes: do health and social care partnerships deliver for users and carers? Health and Social Care in the Community 21, 623–633.Google ScholarPubMed
Qureshi, H, Patmore, C, Nicholas, E and Bamford, C (1998) Overview: Outcomes of Social Care for Older People and Carers (Outcomes in Community Care Practice No. 5). York, UK: Social Policy Research Unit, University of York.Google Scholar
Royal College of Nursing (2012) Persistent Challenges to Providing Quality Care: An RCN Report on the Views and Experiences of Frontline Nurses Working in Care Homes in England. London: Royal College of Nursing.Google Scholar
Rummery, K (2011) A comparative analysis of personalisation: balancing an ethic of care with user empowerment. Ethics of Social Welfare 5, 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuel, M (2010) The doubts remain. Community Care, May 20, pp. 16-17.Google Scholar
Scottish Care (2012) Organisational and Infrastructure Challenges in Relation to Self-directed Support in Care Home Services. Available at http://www.scottishcare.org/people-as-partners/blog/wp-content/uploads/Paper-on-SDS-and-residential-care-challenges1.pdf.Google Scholar
Scottish Government (2014) The Future of Residential Care in Scotland: Taskforce Report. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Scottish Parliament (2013) Self-Directed Support Act (Scotland) 2013. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office. Available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2013/1/contents/enacted.Google Scholar
Sevenhuijsen, S (1998) Citizenship and the Ethics of Care: Feminist Considerations of Justice, Morality and Politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sevenhuijsen, S (2003) The place of care: the relevance of the feminist ethic of care for social policy. Feminist Theory 4, 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, C, Dewar, B, Barrie, K and Meyer, J (2017) How being appreciative creates change – theory in practice from health and social care in Scotland. Action Research 16, 223–243.10.1177/1476750316684002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smale, G, Tuson, G, Biehal, N and Marsh, P (1993) Empowerment, Assessment, Care Management and the Skilled Worker. London: National Institute for Social Work Practice and Development Exchange/HMSO.Google Scholar
Tanner, D, Ward, L and Ray, M (2017) Paying our own way: application of the capability approach to explore older people's experiences of self-funding social care. Critical Social Policy 38, 262–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tronto, JC (1993) Moral Boundaries. A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
United Nations (2019) World Population Ageing. New York, NY: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
Ward, L and Gahagan, B (2010) Crossing the divide between theory and practice: research and an ethic of care. Ethics and Social Welfare 4, 210–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whear, R, Abbott, R, Thompson-Coon, J, Bethel, A, Hemsley, A, Stahl-Timmons, W and Stein, K (2014) Effectiveness of mealtime interventions on behavior symptoms of people with dementia living in care homes: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 15, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, K (2020) Where is the Person in Personalisation? Experiences of People with Learning Disabilities and Their Families in Glasgow (PhD thesis). University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. Available at http://theses.gla.ac.uk/81447/.Google Scholar