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]

Background To empower patients and improve the quality of care, policy-makers increasingly adopt systems to enhance person-centred care. Although models of person-centredness and patient-centredness vary, respecting the needs and preferences of individuals receiving care is paramount. In Sweden, as in other countries, healthcare providers seek to improve person-centred principles and address gaps in practice. Consequently, researchers at the University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care are currently delivering person-centred interventions employing a framework that incorporates three routines. These include eliciting the patient's narrative, agreeing a partnership with shared goals between patient and professional, and safeguarding this through documentation. Aim To explore the barriers and facilitators to the delivery of person-centred care interventions, in different contexts. Method Qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample of 18 researchers from seven research studies across contrasting healthcare settings. Interviews were transcribed, translated and thematically analysed, adopting some basic features of grounded theory. Ethical issues The ethical code of conduct was followed and conformed to the ethical guidelines adopted by the Swedish Research Council. Results Barriers to the implementation of person-centred care covered three themes: traditional practices and structures; sceptical, stereotypical attitudes from professionals; and factors related to the development of person-centred interventions. Facilitators included organisational factors, leadership and training and an enabling attitude and approach by professionals. Trained project managers, patients taking an active role in research and adaptive strategies by researchers all helped person-centred care delivery. Conclusion At the University of Gothenburg, a model of person-centred care is being initiated and integrated into practice through research. Knowledgeable, well-trained professionals facilitate the routines of narrative elicitation and partnership. Strong leadership and adaptive strategies are important for overcoming existing practices, routines and methods of documentation. This study provides guidance for practitioners when delivering and adapting person-centred care in different contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Person-centred care ( PCC) is increasingly advocated as a new way of delivering health care, but there is little evidence that it is widely practised. The University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care ( GPCC) was set up in 2010 to develop and implement person-centred care in clinical practice on the basis of three routines. These routines are based on eliciting the patient's narrative to initiate a partnership; working the partnership to achieve commonly agreed goals; and using documentation to safeguard the partnership and record the person's narrative and shared goals. Objective In this paper, we aimed to explore professionals' understanding of PCC routines as they implement the GPCC model in a range of different settings. Methods We conducted a qualitative study and interviewed 18 clinician-researchers from five health-care professions who were working in seven diverse GPCC projects. Results Interviewees' accounts of PCC emphasized the ways in which persons are seen as different from patients; the variable emphasis placed on the person's goals; and the role of the person's own resources in building partnerships. Conclusion This study illustrates what is needed for health-care professionals to implement PCC in everyday practice: the recognition of the person is as important as the specific practical routines. Interviewees described the need to change the clinical mindset and to develop the ways of integrating people's narratives with clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]