The Consumer Directed Care (CDC) provides a variety of care options for the aged individuals. The old individuals who can assess the CDC have the priority of deciding on the treatment option that suits their preferences (Kaambwa et al., 2015). The aged individuals can also choose the physicians that they need to attend to them (Prgomet et al., 2017). Moreover, the individuals even select the time when they require medical attention (Douglas et al., 2017). The commonwealth nations formulated the model of care in 2011. The model of care routes for increased flexibility and options in the healthcare sector. Caregivers have the responsibility of training the aged individuals on the available treatment options. On the other hand, the individuals must make informed decisions on options of care. All stakeholders must join hand together with patients to enhance the CDC. The model of care the responsibility of improving health conditions of the aged individuals.
The CDC should lead to the wellness of an individual. The caregivers should be transparent in their line of duty (Warburton, & Mahoney, 2016). The physicians should disclose both the advantages and the weakness of a given treatment plan. The caregivers should discuss the objectives and the needs of the clients. The government and health stakeholders should involve the clinicians in formulating the methods of treatment (Prgomet et al., 2017). The national administration should alert the health care providers of the funds that help in implementing the CDC. The model provides a platform for the patient to create their treatment plan with the help of caregivers (Prgomet et al., 2017). This paper will look at the components of Consumer Directed Model for aged care. Moreover, the essay will look at the strengths and weaknesses of the model. The article will also discuss the legal, ethical, philosophical and political issues in the model.
Positives of CDC
The CDC for aged care has numerous advantages geared towards improving health care. The first advantage is the availability of choices (McCaffrey et al., 2015). The model of care exposes the aged individuals with a wide range of treatment options. The clients choose the option that best suits cultural beliefs and preferences. The caregivers have the obligation of educating the elderly individuals on the different treatment methods (Wilson, Kenny, & Dickson-Swift, 2018). The clinicians should explain the advantages and disadvantages of each treatment option to the patient. Moreover, the healthcare providers should reveal the side effects of the methods of treatment to the clients (Ratcliffe et al., 2014). Whenever the clients are making the decisions, the clinicians should not force the clients into making the wrong choices (Croft, & Croft, 2018). Therefore, the CDC offers a variety of options from which the clients make their decisions.
The second strength of the model is its flexibility. The clients, especially the aged individuals have the advantage to alter the health care protocols (Moyle, Parker, & Bramble, 2014). The patients can decide on the doctor who treats them. The level of flexibility lacks in other models of care. The client also has the right of deciding on the venue of the health care provision (Ratcliffe et al., 2014). It is not a must that the provision of medical treatment takes place at the health facility. The aged individual can decide to receive treatment either at home or any other place apart from the hospital (Ratcliffe et al., 2014). The CDC principles ensure that the caregivers respect the opinions of the clients.
The third strength is the empowerment ability of the model. The government incurs significant costs of treatment thereby relieving the burden on the consumers (McCaffrey et al., 2015). Additionally, the nurses can contribute their thoughts in the formulation of care policies. Caregivers provide relevant information to the patients. Thus, the clients gain the ability to make treatment decisions independently. The collaboration between the government, the, and the consumers make the patients feel that the model values them. The model permits the care providers to hold critical deliberations about the objectives and needs of the clients (McCaffrey et al., 2015). Therefore, the model encourages the empowerment of both the consumers and the health practitioners.
The fourth strength is the autonomy, beneficence, and justice. The caregivers and all health stakeholders must respect the treatment decisions of the client (Wilson, Kenny, & Dickson-Swift, 2018). Otherwise, they go against autonomy and consequently undermining Autonomy. The model of care supports beneficence as it routes for good deeds towards the patients (McCaffrey et al., 2015). The provision of relevant health information to the patients is beneficial. Additionally, the ability of the patients to make independent decisions serves to their advantage. The model obeys the principle of justice (McCaffrey et al., 2015). Moreover, the health stakeholders must ensure that the medical treatment is of exemplary quality. Thus, the model obeys the three ethical principles.
Negatives of CDC for Aged Care
Apart from the numerous advantages, the model of care has some disadvantages. The first disadvantage is the hassle involved in the model (Laragy, & Allen, 2015). CDC entirely affects and mind-boggling at the same time. The model has numerous doctrines that might confuse the elderly individual. The range of choices is many that the patient can have difficulty in choosing the appropriate treatment plan (O’Loughlin, Kendig, & Browning, 2017). The individual might end up choosing the wrong treatment method. The caregivers should narrow down on the relevant treatment methods to enable the consumers to make a wise choice (Stacey et al., 2016). Therefore, the huddle of hassle is a major undoing of the model.
The second disadvantage is the responsibility that the model imposes on the relevant stakeholders. The CDC model requires the patient to choose the treatment from the options that exist. An incapacitated patient cannot make an informed decision (Zhang, Yu, Yan, & Spil, 2015). Additionally, an illiterate patient needs the assistance of a translator or relatives to make informed decisions. The enormous resources that go into the model derive other health care plans of finances. The choice of the patient about the venue of care provision might inconvenience the schedule of the caregivers (Walsh et al., 2016). Additionally, the time that the consumer proposes might contradict the program of the physician. Thus, the physician might not provide quality care due to the contradiction in schedules between them and the consumers. The caregivers might be lacking relevant experience to handle the choice of the consumer. Moreover, the consumer might choose a treatment plan that has numerous side effects (Walsh et al., 2016). Therefore, the model levies many responsibilities to all health stakeholders.
Ethical and Philosophical issues in CDC
There is an importance of looking at the relationship between the aged care model and the moral principles. Autonomy, beneficence, justice, and nonmaleficence are necessary principles in the provision of healthcare. The four principles aid in aged consumers to make appropriate decisions on the treatment plans.
For this model, the principle goes hand in hand with nonmaleficence. The caregivers have applied the policy for a long time now. However, the law of paternalism has overridden beneficence in the current provision of health care (Waycott et al., 2015). The clinicians have the responsibility of caring for aged individuals who are sick. Moreover, the clinicians should not leave any patient unattended to during their line of duty (Meurk et al., 2016). The caregivers should carefully listen to the treatment options by the clients. Moreover, the physicians should perform the requests of the consumers. The care provides should also obey the treatment refusal by the clients (Lopes, Street, Carter, & Merlin, 2016). However, the model of care permits the clinician to turn down an unfortunate decision by the client. An improper patients' choice put their lives in danger. However, the principle of beneficence insists on doing well to the patient (Harris et al., 2017). Similarly, nonmaleficence requires that doctors refrain from harming the patients.
The principle is the most integral of the others in the healthcare field. Independence is equally essential in aged care. The law refers to the respect towards the decision of an individual (Bernoth, Dietsch, Burmeister, & Schwartz, 2014). The political class has over the years gunned for the principle of autonomy. However, in the medical field, the policy serves the patient in a contrary manner (Kagan, & Melendez?Torres, 2015). The patient can choose a healthcare plan that has numerous side effects. Additionally, incapacitated individuals need assistance in making medical decisions (Bernoth et al., 2014). Otherwise, the persons lacking capacity are prone to errors in the decision-making process. Moreover, illiterate patients cannot understand the various treatment options hence cannot make proper decisions.
The principle of Autonomy permits the clients to reject the treatment options that contradict their cultural beliefs. On the other hand, the law allows them not to ask for the care that might be necessary. Therefore, the patient might receive the wrong treatment option at the expense of the right medication (Bernoth et al., 2014). In that manner, autonomy works against the personal good of the patient. The decisions of the patients are limited as they consider desires, needs, and the values of that client (Bernoth et al., 2014). On the other hand, the decisions by the caregivers conform to those of the patients. That is, the care providers respect the consumer’s choices. However, the options of the clients might be harmful as opposed to the possibilities that they have rejected (Lopes et al., 2016). In the line of healthcare provision, the patients and the practitioners should disregard autonomy to avoid any harm.
Autonomy emphasizes on the client more than the treatment options. Therefore, whether good or bad, the caregiver is obliged to attend to the patients according to their decision (Meurk et al., 2016). Thus, autonomy is proving to be detrimental to the citizens and the society in the same manner. The Australian government should replace sovereignty with a principle that is flexible (Lopes et al., 2016). The doctrine in the place of Autonomy should respect the right decisions by the patients. However, the declaration should create a room for disagreement and further discussion in the case of a wrong decision. Before accepting the choice of an individual, the caregivers should provide adequate information about the treatment options. The ethical principle should explain how to handle a decision from an incapacitated patient (Lopes et al., 2016). The new recommendations should allow the caregivers to partner with the relatives of the patients in making decisions. In the case of incapacitated clients, a joint decision making is necessary.
The principle demands quality health care for all citizens regardless of their diverse backgrounds. The policy of truth for all citizens contradicts the principle of autonomy for every individual (Lopes et al., 2016). Justice is a universal principle that makes crucial decisions for the plans of health care. Moreover, the law ensures that healthcare is affordable for all citizens regardless of their ethnicities. Justice provides equity in the distribution of the burdens and the advantages of care among the healthcare stakeholders (Meurk et al., 2016). Contrary to the clinicians and the consumers, the treatment options have to make essential decisions for every stakeholder. The principle of justice has to respect the desires, needs, and values of the consumers (Meurk et al., 2016). However, the policy must strike a balance between respecting personal choices and honoring collective interests.
Justice bares both the economic and ethical responsibilities in the equal distribution of resources to every stakeholder. The primary determinants of CDC are choices of patients and the regulation of treatment costs. In moral terms, CDC relies on autonomy and utilitarianism (Meurk et al., 2016). CDC emphasizes the freedom of choice by the patient. Therefore, the principle of independence matters most in the aged care model. However, research shows that the laws of beneficence and justice contradict with that of autonomy (Meurk et al., 2016). The principle of justice has to oppose independence to fight for the rights of the less privileged members of the society. Autonomy leads to inequality in the provision of health care (Meurk et al., 2016). However, justice tries to close the inequality gap.
The varied options of all citizens in a given nation make the cost of healthcare to be expensive. Therefore, autonomy stretches the finances of the government (Meurk et al., 2016). On the other hand, justice conserves the funds as it consolidates the vast choices of a population. The government may increase the cost of treatment, to respond to the high expenses that result from autonomy (Meurk et al., 2016). The structures of CDC need restructuring to ensure that increment in treatment costs do not affect the elderly (Meurk et al., 2016). The principle of beneficence must contradict autonomy to prevent patients from undesirable treatment consequences (Meurk et al., 2016). Although the CDC emphasizes the need to respect the choice of the patients, they need assistance to make the necessary decisions. Patients can make wrong decisions due to inadequate or missing, treatment information (Meurk et al., 2016). Moreover, improper decision emanates due to the lack of comprehension and the incapability of making the right choices.
It is necessary for the principles of beneficence and justice to disagree with the autonomy if the health of the patient is at risk. The condition that leads to the beneficial contradiction between the three principles is called liberal paternalism (Waycott et al., 2015). CDC needs to formulate option that can resonate with incapacitated patients. The model should streamline the range of options to make the responsibility of the patient to ease. The CDC should elevate the high cost of care by reducing the choices of care available to the patients (Waycott et al., 2015). The model should cut out the treatment choices that can harm the client (Waycott et al., 2015). On the other hand, the aged care should make the viable options easy to understand by the patients.
Legal and Political issues in Consumer Directed Care
The caregivers find a hard time in respecting the doctrines of the model. Additionally, the clinicians can go against the law if they do not allow the clients to make their treatment choices. Moreover, the law requires the caregivers to allow for flexibility in service delivery (Flo et al., 2016). Both legal and the doctrines of CDC prioritize the patient’s preferences. The laws of Australia disallow the clinicians to stand in the way of the patient's autonomy (Bauer et al., 2014). The clinicians should shield the patients from an imminent risk due to the treatment choices of the clients. The care providers need to be keen and handle one patient at a time (Jeon et al., 2015). In so doing, they can provide relevant information to allow the patients to make informed choices.
The caregivers should consider and alert the consumers of precautions on their treatment choices. The precautions are necessary when their applications can minimize the potential harm that the selection of a consumer poses (Fetherstonhaugh et al., 2016). The law of negligence is a rule that chargers caregivers for not discharging their duties in an appropriate manner (Hillen, Vitry, & Caughey, 2015). When the caregivers cannot allow the patients to make, treatment choices are negligent. Moreover, a care provider who fails to provide adequate information to the client is subject to the law of negligence. It is also legally wrong for the clinicians to allow harm on to the patient during and after treatment.
Apart from negligence, there is an act of parliament formulated by politicians to protect the CDC model. Politicians expressed the actin 1997 and named it after the aged individuals (Mahieu et al., 2016). The law protects the right to equal distribution of resources to the health facilities. Moreover, the regulations protect the flexibility and the freedom of choice by the patients (Mahieu et al., 2016). The first principle under the act is accountability (Mahieu et al., 2016). The government should account for the distribution of resources in the health facilities. The health practitioners should explain the range of options that they offered to the clients. Moreover, the care providers are accountable for any harm that occurs to the client.
The second principle under the act is that of allocation of resources. The government in conjunction with the stakeholders should ensure even distribution of medical supplies (Mahieu et al., 2016). The next principle talks about the payment options and the fees that customers incur during treatment. The government subsidizes the cost of treatment so that the consumers pay less for adequate treatment (Mahieu et al., 2016). Any caregiver who extorts the patient is subject to charges in the court of law. The principle also emphasizes the quality of healthcare towards the aged individuals. The law requires the caregivers to offer exemplary services to the senior citizens (Mahieu et al., 2016). The next principle allows the patient to complain in the court of law if they receive substandard care.
There are also laws that prohibit discrimination in the provision of care for the aged individuals. Every individual needs to receive quality care regardless of their financial strengths (Mahieu et al., 2016). The provisions of the principles protect the vulnerable members of the society such as the Aboriginals and Torres Islanders (Mahieu et al., 2016). The lawmakers have named a specific law after the consumers (Mahieu et al., 2016). The legislation protects the flexibility and choice of the patient on the treatment options.
The consumer-directed model for aged care provides flexibility and a range of choices for the old individuals during treatment. The CDC indicates that the caregivers should provide information to enable the patients in making informed decisions. The government must also partner with all stakeholders and care providers to ensure a seamless process. The care providers need to be transparent when offering medical services. The plan allows the caregivers to provide their opinions on treatment methods. The advantages of the model include the range of choices and the ease of flexibility. The consumer can choose a treatment plan from a variety of options. The care providers should respect the decisions of the patient.
The CDC for aged care also provides excellent flexibility to the patients. The model allows the clients to choose the time for treatment. Additionally, an individual has the privilege of deciding on the venue of therapy. Moreover, the clients can select on the caregivers who attend to them. The disadvantage is the hassle that involves the implementation process. Additionally, the care is expensive due to the countless choices of the consumers. The primary ethical issue that dominates the attention is autonomy. The principle of beneficence overrides nonmaleficence in the context of CDC. However, the laws of justice and beneficence must contradict the freedom of choice to prevent harm. The legal issues that protect CDC include accountability and anti-discrimination. The acts of parliament preserve the right of the consumers to make independent and informed choices.
Bauer, M., Nay, R., Tarzia, L., Fetherstonhaugh, D., Wellman, D., & Beattie, E. (2014). ‘We need to know what’s going on’: Views of family members toward the sexual expression of people with dementia in residential aged care. Dementia, 13(5), 571-585.
Bernoth, M., Dietsch, E., Burmeister, O. K., & Schwartz, M. (2014). Information management in aged care: cases of confidentiality and elder abuse. Journal of business ethics, 122(3), 453-460.
Croft, H., & Croft, S. (2018). The Australian Carer: A Training Manual for Aged Care Workers. Cengage AU.
Douglas, H. E., Georgiou, A., Tariq, A., Prgomet, M., Warland, A., Armour, P., & Westbrook, J. I. (2017). Implementing information and communication technology to support community aged care service integration: Lessons from an Australian aged care provider. International journal of integrated care, 17(1).
Fetherstonhaugh, D., Tarzia, L., Bauer, M., Nay, R., & Beattie, E. (2016). “The Red Dress or the Blue?” How Do Staff Perceive That They Support Decision Making for People With Dementia Living in Residential Aged Care Facilities?. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 35(2), 209-226.
Flo, E., Husebo, B. S., Bruusgaard, P., Gjerberg, E., Thoresen, L., Lillemoen, L., & Pedersen, R. (2016). A review of the implementation and research strategies of advance care planning in nursing homes. BMC Geriatrics, 16(1), 24.
Harris, C., Green, S., Ramsey, W., Allen, K., & King, R. (2017). Sustainability in Healthcare by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 1: Introducing a series of papers reporting an investigation of disinvestment in a local healthcare setting.
Hillen, J. B., Vitry, A., & Caughey, G. E. (2015). Evaluating the medication-related quality of care in residential aged care: a systematic review. SpringerPlus, 4(1), 220.
Jeon, Y. H., Conway, J., Chenoweth, L., Weise, J., Thomas, T. H., & Williams, A. (2015). Validation of a clinical leadership qualities framework for managers in aged care: a Delphi study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24(7-8), 999-1010.
Kaambwa, B., Lancsar, E., McCaffrey, N., Chen, G., Gill, L., Cameron, I. D., ... & Ratcliffe, J. (2015). Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer-directed care: A discrete choice experiment. Social Science & Medicine, 140, 81-94.
Kagan, S. H., & Melendez?Torres, G. J. (2015). Ageism in nursing. Journal of nursing management, 23(5), 644-650.
Laragy, C., & Allen, J. (2015). Community aged care case managers transitioning to consumer-directed care: More than procedural change required. Australian Social Work, 68(2), 212-227.
Lopes, E., Street, J., Carter, D., & Merlin, T. (2016). Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia. Health Expectations, 19(2), 331-344.
Mahieu, L., de Casterl?, B. D., Acke, J., Vandermarliere, H., Van Elssen, K., Fieuws, S., & Gastmans, C. (2016). Nurses’ knowledge and attitudes toward aged sexuality in Flemish nursing homes. Nursing Ethics, 23(6), 605-623.
McCaffrey, N., Gill, L., Kaambwa, B., Cameron, I. D., Patterson, J., Crotty, M., & Ratcliffe, J. (2015). Essential features of home?based support services for older Australians and their informal carers. Health & social care in the community, 23(6), 654-664.
Meurk, C., Leung, J., Hall, W., Head, B. W., & Whiteford, H. (2016). Establishing and governing e-mental health care in Australia: a systematic review of challenges and a call for policy-focused research. Journal of medical Internet research, 18(1).
Moyle, W., Parker, D., & Bramble, M. (2014). Care of older adults: A strengths-based approach. Cambridge University Press.
O'Loughlin, K., Kendig, H., & Browning, C. (2017). Challenges and Opportunities for an Ageing Australia. In Ageing in Australia (pp. 1-10). Springer, New York, NY.
Prgomet, M., Douglas, H. E., Tariq, A., Georgiou, A., Armour, P., & Westbrook, J. I. (2017). The work of front-line community aged care staff and the impact of a changing policy landscape and consumer-directed care. The British Journal of Social Work, 47(1), 106-124.
Ratcliffe, J., Lancsar, E., Luszcz, M., Crotty, M., Gray, L., Paterson, J., & Cameron, I. D. (2014). A health economic model for the development and evaluation of innovations in aged care: an application to consumer-directed care—study protocol. BMJ Open, 4(6), e005788.
Stacey, A. F., Gill, T. K., Price, K., Warmington, R., & Taylor, A. W. (2016). Unpaid Informal Caregivers in South Australia: Population Characteristics, Prevalence and Age-Period-Cohort Effects 1994–2014. PloS one, 11(9), e0161994.
Walsh, L., Hill, S., Wluka, A. E., Brooks, P., Buchbinder, R., Cahill, A., ... & Tugwell, P. (2016). Harnessing and supporting consumer involvement in the development and implementation of models of care for musculoskeletal health. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology, 30(3), 420-444.
Warburton, J., & Mahoney, A. M. (2016). The aged care sector: Residential and community care. Understanding the Australian Health Care System, 121.
Waycott, J., Morgans, A., Pedell, S., Ozanne, E., Vetere, F., Kulik, L., & Davis, H. (2015). Ethics in evaluating a sociotechnical intervention with socially isolated older adults. Qualitative health research, 25(11), 1518-1528.
Wilson, E., Kenny, A., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2018). Rural health services and the task of community participation at the local community level: a case study. Australian Health Review, 42(1), 111-116.
Zhang, X., Yu, P., Yan, J., & Spil, I. T. A. (2015). Using diffusion of innovation theory to understand the factors impacting patient acceptance and use of consumer e-health innovations: a case study in a primary care clinic. BMC health services research, 15(1), 71