2 Jun 2021
When is the best possible option not the best possible option? When it doesn't take into consideration the input of the client or the true needs of the patient, claims Jane Davidson.
Jane Davidson
Job Title
Image © Hernan Schmidt / Adobe Stock
I started writing this about three years ago and could never find the right tone… so I am very grateful to be in the Veterinary Humanities group where we have had some great discussions on this. It has really helped me consider the right tone to discuss this issue.
What is this Holy Grail of gold standard care we seem to be forever working towards, but feel like we never get there? Where is this mythical land that, from my experience, seems to mean a place where all options are possible and no limitations exist on those options?
Have you worked in this place? Because I haven’t.
Gold standard care is commonly defined as a “treatment or procedure widely deemed to be the best available”, and I feel this definition is used to browbeat people into treatments or procedures deemed “the best” when only a theoretical client and patient are involved.
Once we introduce real clients and patients then “the best available option” needs to be put into context of their needs and abilities. This is the skill of a medical care provider; not offering every possible combination of treatments, but listening to the client and assessing the patient.
Is there a way we can have conversations about treatment options and not use “gold standard” or other terms that don’t feel like they should belong in medical care?
Gold standard feels more like a marketing term than one suitable for patient welfare; it feels like using that term means any deviation from “gold standard” is a lower level of care, and this isn’t the case – we know that, but we seem trapped by the language we use.
Within the veterinary humanities group it was also commented that applying labels to different types of care is commonly used in many areas. These include club memberships and insurance policies. The language creates an “inclusive” or, more realistically, a “non-inclusive” approach.
Are you a better person if you have a Platinum Card or Gold Members Lounge access?
It’s a common human fallacy to want to be better than others, but should we be encouraging that attitude in relation to medical care? Especially medical care for those who cannot make the decision for themselves.
Our duty of care as owners and medical care providers is not to achieve some sort of idealised model, but to provide achievable and individually appropriate care.
It’s not as catchy as “gold standard” but its much better for the patient.
