Search

In Nordic countries, 'welfare technology' is a concept used increasingly by policymakers when discussing the promise of digitalisation in care for older people. In this paper, I draw on data from 14 qualitative ethnographic interviews with employees in municipal eldercare in Sweden, as well as observations carried out at a nursing home, to suggest the importance of studying how good care is enacted through welfare technology, whilst simultaneously attending to the adverse effects sometimes consequent from these practices. In this article, I explore what values are supported when doing care with welfare technology, and what values are neglected in this process. The theoretical starting point for this article takes its inspiration from recent discussions of care within Science and Technology Studies (STS). Employing a double vision of care, the article argues for the importance of understanding how good care is enacted with technology, while also attending to what these care practices exclude and neglect. Focusing on the use of social alarms, the article shows that when doing care with such technology, values such as independence, safety and some forms of togetherness and availability were enhanced; while other values such as other forms togetherness and availability, a stress-free working environment and functionality were neglected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article uses a material semiotic perspective to study a highly influential model of healthcare policy and practice today: person-centred care. While person-centred care is often regarded as implying a turn away from technology and standardization towards more humanistic values in care, this article shows that mundane standardization technologies, such as an assessment protocol, are integral components of person-centred care. Building on interviews and observational studies at a Swedish hospital introducing person-centred care, the article analyses the person-centred protocol in situ. The article teases out three core concerns inscribed in the protocol: a concern for the patient experience and perspective, a valuing of evidence-based knowledge and a managerial imperative. The article illustrates how these contrasting values were rendered compatible through the continuous tinkering of healthcare professionals. Finally, it shows how users modified the script of the protocol under analysis and how relations between the three core concerns were adjusted in the process. The article concludes that tinkering and user–technology relations are of significance for the fate of person-centred care at large. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The introduction of innovative models of healthcare does not necessarily mean that they become embedded in everyday clinical practice. This study has two aims: first, to analyse deliberate and emergent strategies adopted by healthcare professionals to overcome barriers to normalization of a specific framework of person-centred care (PCC); and secondly, to explore how the recipients of PCC understand these strategies.Methods: This paper is based on a qualitative study of the implementation of PCC in a Swedish context. It draws on semi-structured interviews with 18 researchers and 17 practitioners who adopted a model of PCC on four different wards and 20 patients who were cared for in one of these wards. Data from these interviews were first coded inductively and emerging themes are analysed in relation to normalization process theory (NPT).Results: In addition to deliberate strategies, we identify emergent strategies to normalize PCC by (i) creating and sustaining coherence in small but continuously communicating groups (ii) interpreting PCC flexibly when it meets specific local situations and (iii) enforcing teamwork between professional groups. These strategies resulted in patients perceiving PCC as bringing about (i) a sense of ease (ii) appreciation of inter-professional congruity (ii) non-hierarchical communication.Conclusion: NPT is useful to identify and analyse deliberate and emergent strategies relating to mechanisms of normalization. Emergent strategies should be interpreted not as trivial solutions to problems in implementation, but as a possible repertoire of tools, practices and skills developed in situ. As professionals and patients may have different understandings of implementation, it is also crucial to include patients' perceptions to evaluate outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]