Post-capitalist property

When writing about property and property rights in his imagined post-capitalist society of the future, Marx seemed to envisage ‘individual property’ co-existing with ‘socialized property’ in the means of production. As the social and political consequences of faltering growth and increasing inequality, debt and insecurity gradually manifest themselves, and with automation and artificial intelligence lurking in the wings, the future of capitalism, at least in its current form, looks increasingly uncertain. With this, the question of what property and property rights might look like in the future, in a potentially post-capitalist society, is becoming ever more pertinent. Is the choice simply between private property and markets, and public (state-owned) property and planning? Or can individual and social property in the (same) means of production co-exist, as Marx suggested? This paper explores ways in which they might, through an examination of the Chinese household responsibility system (HRS) and the ‘fuzzy’ and seemingly confusing regime of land ownership that it instituted. It examines the HRS against the backdrop of Marx’s ideas about property and subsequent (post-Marx) theorizing about the legal nature of property in which property has come widely to be conceptualized not as a single, unitary ‘ownership’ right to a thing (or, indeed, as the thing itself) but as a ‘bundle of rights’. The bundle-of-rights idea of property, it suggests, enables us to see not only that ‘individual’ and ‘socialized’ property’ in the (same) means of production might indeed co-exist, but that the range of institutional possibility is far greater than that between capitalism and socialism/communism as traditionally conceived

CHOICE: Choosing Health Options In Chronic Care Emergencies

Background Over 70% of the health-care budget in England is spent on the care of people with long-term conditions (LTCs), and a major cost component is unscheduled health care. Psychological morbidity is high in people with LTCs and is associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including increased mortality, poorer physical health outcomes, increased health costs and service utilisation. Objectives The aim of this programme of research was to examine the relationship between psychological morbidity and use of unscheduled care in people with LTCs, and to develop a psychosocial intervention that would have the potential to reduce unscheduled care use. We focused largely on emergency hospital admissions (EHAs) and attendances at emergency departments (EDs). Design A three-phase mixed-methods study. Research methods included systematic reviews; a longitudinal prospective cohort study in primary care to identify people with LTCs at risk of EHA or ED admission; a replication study in primary care using routinely collected data; an exploratory and feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care; and qualitative studies to identify personal reasons for the use of unscheduled care and factors in routine consultations in primary care that may influence health-care use. People with lived experience of LTCs worked closely with the research team. Setting Primary care. Manchester and London. Participants People aged ≥ 18 years with at least one of four common LTCs: asthma, coronary heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and diabetes. Participants also included health-care staff. Results Evidence synthesis suggested that depression, but not anxiety, is a predictor of use of unscheduled care in patients with LTCs, and low-intensity complex interventions reduce unscheduled care use in people with asthma and COPD. The results of the prospective study were that depression, not having a partner and life stressors, in addition to prior use of unscheduled care, severity of illness and multimorbidity, were independent predictors of EHA and ED admission. Approximately half of the cost of health care for people with LTCs was accounted for by use of unscheduled care. The results of the replication study, carried out in London, broadly supported our findings for risk of ED attendances, but not EHAs. This was most likely due to low rates of detection of depression in general practitioner (GP) data sets. Qualitative work showed that patients were reluctant to use unscheduled care, deciding to do so when they perceived a serious and urgent need for care, and following previous experience that unscheduled care had successfully and unquestioningly met similar needs in the past. In general, emergency and primary care doctors did not regard unscheduled care as problematic. We found there are missed opportunities to identify and discuss psychosocial issues during routine consultations in primary care due to the ‘overmechanisation’ of routine health-care reviews. The feasibility trial examined two levels of an intervention for people with COPD: we tried to improve the way in which practices manage patients with COPD and developed a targeted psychosocial treatment for patients at risk of using unscheduled care. The former had low acceptability, whereas the latter had high acceptability. Exploratory health economic analyses suggested that the practice-level intervention would be unlikely to be cost-effective, limiting the value of detailed health economic modelling. Limitations The findings of this programme may not apply to all people with LTCs. It was conducted in an area of high social deprivation, which may limit the generalisability to more affluent areas. The response rate to the prospective longitudinal study was low. The feasibility trial focused solely on people with COPD. Conclusions Prior use of unscheduled care is the most powerful predictor of unscheduled care use in people with LTCs. However, psychosocial factors, particularly depression, are important additional predictors of use of unscheduled care in patients with LTCs, independent of severity and multimorbidity. Patients and health-care practitioners are unaware that psychosocial factors influence health-care use, and such factors are rarely acknowledged or addressed in consultations or discussions about use of unscheduled care. A targeted patient intervention for people with LTCs and comorbid depression has shown high levels of acceptability when delivered in a primary care context. An intervention at the level of the GP practice showed little evidence of acceptability or cost-effectiveness. Future work The potential benefits of case-finding for depression in patients with LTCs in primary care need to be evaluated, in addition to further evaluation of the targeted patient intervention

General anaesthetic and airway management practice for obstetric surgery in England: a prospective, multi-centre observational study

There are no current descriptions of general anaesthesia characteristics for obstetric surgery, despite recent changes to patient baseline characteristics and airway management guidelines. This analysis of data from the direct reporting of awareness in maternity patients' (DREAMY) study of accidental awareness during obstetric anaesthesia aimed to describe practice for obstetric general anaesthesia in England and compare with earlier surveys and best-practice recommendations. Consenting patients who received general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals from May 2017 to August 2018 were included. Baseline characteristics, airway management, anaesthetic techniques and major complications were collected. Descriptive analysis, binary logistic regression modelling and comparisons with earlier data were conducted. Data were collected from 3117 procedures, including 2554 (81.9%) caesarean deliveries. Thiopental was the induction drug in 1649 (52.9%) patients, compared with propofol in 1419 (45.5%). Suxamethonium was the neuromuscular blocking drug for tracheal intubation in 2631 (86.1%), compared with rocuronium in 367 (11.8%). Difficult tracheal intubation was reported in 1 in 19 (95%CI 1 in 16-22) and failed intubation in 1 in 312 (95%CI 1 in 169-667). Obese patients were over-represented compared with national baselines and associated with difficult, but not failed intubation. There was more evidence of change in practice for induction drugs (increased use of propofol) than neuromuscular blocking drugs (suxamethonium remains the most popular). There was evidence of improvement in practice, with increased monitoring and reversal of neuromuscular blockade (although this remains suboptimal). Despite a high risk of difficult intubation in this population, videolaryngoscopy was rarely used (1.9%)

Why do patients with long-term conditions use unscheduled care? A qualitative literature review

Unscheduled care (UC) refers to non-routine face-to-face care, such as accident and emergency care, out-of-hours care, or walk-in centres. Current health service policy aims to reduce its use. Unscheduled care is common in people with long-term conditions such as diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and coronary heart disease. By reviewing qualitative research literature, we aimed to understand the breadth of psychosocial and other influences on UC use in people with long-term conditions. Few qualitative papers specifically address UC in patients in these disease groups. Therefore, our literature search also included qualitative research that explored factors potentially relevant to UC use, including attitudes to healthcare use in general. By searching Medline, Embase, Psycinfo and Cinahl from inception to 2011, we identified 42 papers, published since 1984, describing relevant original research and took a meta-ethnographic approach in reviewing them. The review was conducted between Spring 2009 and April 2011, with a further search in December 2011. Most papers reported on asthma (n = 13) or on multiple or unspecified conditions (n = 12). The most common methods reported were interviews (n = 33) and focus groups (n = 13), and analyses were generally descriptive. Theoretical and ethical background was rarely explicit, but the implicit starting point was generally the ‘problem’ of UC, and health-care, use in general, decontextualised from the lives of the patients using it. Patients’ use of UC emerged as understandable, rational responses to pressing clinical need in situations in which patients thought it the only option. This belief reflected the value that they had learned to attach to UC versus routine care through previous experiences. For socially or economically marginalised patients, UC offered access to clinical or social care that was otherwise unavailable to them