Who owns the child in hospital? A preliminary discussion

Aim. To 'own' a person is considered an infringement of human rights, but we suggest that concepts of ownership influence interactions between parents and staff when a child is admitted to hospital. This paper aims to stimulate debate and contains an explanation of the exploration of the literature for research and discussion of ownership of the child. Method. A wide variety of library indexes, databases and populist media were examined although it was impossible to examine all literature which may have contained references to this topic, and, apart from databases which contained abstracts in English, we could not include literature written in any language other than English, Swedish, and Icelandic. Findings. We found no research that examines how concepts of ownership of a child affects communication between health professionals and parents and, ultimately, the delivery of health care. This paper begins discussion on the issues. Discussion. Historical literature shows that ownership of humans has been a part of many cultures, and parents were once considered to own their children. Ownership of another has legal connotations, for instance in guardianship struggles of children during marriage breakup and in ethical debates over surrogacy and products of assisted conception. Within health care, it becomes a contentious issue in transplantation of body parts, in discourse on autonomy and informed consent, and for religious groups who refuse blood transfusions. In health care, models such as family centred care and partnership in care depend on positive communication between parents and staff. If a hospital staff member feels that he/she owns a child for whom he/she is caring, then conflict between the staff member and the parents over who has the 'best interests of the child' at heart is possible. Conclusion. We encourage debate about concepts of who owns the hospitalized child - the parents or the staff? Should it be argued at all? Is the whole concept of ownership of another, be it adult or child, the ethical antithesis to modern beliefs about human rights? Comment on this issue is invited.

Family centred care: a review of qualitative studies

Aim. To review systematically qualitative studies, which were found during a literature search for a Cochrane systematic review of the use of family centred care in children's hospitals. Background. Family centred care has become a cornerstone of paediatric practice, however, its effectiveness is not known. No single definition exists, rather a list of elements that constitute family centred care. However, it is recognized to involve the parents in care planning for a child in health services. A new definition is presented here. Methods. The papers were found in wide range of databases, by hand searching and by contacting the authors where necessary, using terms given in detail in the protocol in the Cochrane Library, in 2004. Qualitative studies could not be used for statistical analysis, but are still important to the review and so are described separately in this paper. Results. Negotiation between staff and families, perceptions held by both parents and staff roles influenced the delivery of family centred care. A sub-theme of cost of family centred care to families and staffs was discovered and this included both financial and emotional costs. Conclusion. Further research is needed to generate evidence about family centred care in situations arising from modern models of care in which family centred care is thought to be an inherent part, but which leave families with the care of sick children with little or no support. Relevance to clinical practice. Family centred care is said to be used widely in practice. More research is needed to ensure that is it being implemented correctly.

Conditional release: A less restrictive alternative to hospitalization?

Objective: This study examined conditional release - that is, involuntary outpatient commitment orders upon release from hospitalization - as a least restrictive alternative to psychiatric hospitalization in Victoria, Australia. Methods: Records were obtained from the Victorian Psychiatric Case Register for patients who experienced psychiatric hospitalization: between 1990 and 2000 a total of 8,879 patients were given conditional release and 16,094 were not. Results: Compared with the group that was hospitalized but did not receive a conditional release, the group that received a conditional release was more likely to have more prior hospitalizations of greater than average duration. Patients with schizophrenia were more likely to be given conditional release. Patients given conditional release experienced a care pattern involving briefer inpatient episodes (8.3 fewer days per episode), more inpatient days, and longer duration of restrictive care - that is, combined inpatient and conditional release periods (5.1 more days per month in care). Conclusions: For patients at risk of long-term hospitalization, conditional release may help to shorten inpatient episodes by providing a least restrictive alternative to continued hospitalization. However, patients who were given conditional release doubled the amount of days they spent under restrictive care, compared with the amount of time they previously spent in the hospital before entering a period of combined inpatient and conditional release commitment. Additional oversight may have led to more frequent hospitalization. This consequence raises new questions regarding the possible benefits of such extended oversight and new challenges for release planning using conditional release as a least restrictive method of care.