L’outil d’évaluation multi-clientèle comme mécanisme de contrôle des soins à domicile : une analyse poststructuraliste.

IF 0.3 Q4 Medicine
Pier-Luc Turcotte, Dave Holmes, Amélie Perron
{"title":"L’outil d’évaluation multi-clientèle comme mécanisme de contrôle des soins à domicile : une analyse poststructuraliste.","authors":"Pier-Luc Turcotte,&nbsp;Dave Holmes,&nbsp;Amélie Perron","doi":"10.3917/rsi.146.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and background: </strong>In Quebec (Canada), the Multi-clientele Assessment Tool (Outil d'évaluation multi-clientèle, OEMC) profoundly transformed the practice of home care professionals (HCP), including nurses. Since 2015, all home care patients with a completed OEMC have been counted to assess the performance of services. If performance targets are not reached, funding renewal is threatened, exerting pressure on HCPs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this article is to review the OEMC's implementation in order to understand its political nature and its impacts on the practice of HCPs and patients' lives.</p><p><strong>Material and method: </strong>Drawing on the works of Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, we propose a poststructuralist analysis of OEMC documents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Shifting from disciplinary societies to societies of control, the OEMC insidiously contributes to the regulation of home care services as well as patients' lives. The will of HCPs to apply their field of expertise is in opposition with the OEMC's purposes.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>To not complete the OEMC when it is deemed unnecessary would require a negotiation by HCPs. However, HCPs' autonomy is compromised by discourses repressing all forms of resistance.</p>","PeriodicalId":44071,"journal":{"name":"Recherche en Soins Infirmiers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Recherche en Soins Infirmiers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3917/rsi.146.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction and background: In Quebec (Canada), the Multi-clientele Assessment Tool (Outil d'évaluation multi-clientèle, OEMC) profoundly transformed the practice of home care professionals (HCP), including nurses. Since 2015, all home care patients with a completed OEMC have been counted to assess the performance of services. If performance targets are not reached, funding renewal is threatened, exerting pressure on HCPs.

Objective: The objective of this article is to review the OEMC's implementation in order to understand its political nature and its impacts on the practice of HCPs and patients' lives.

Material and method: Drawing on the works of Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, we propose a poststructuralist analysis of OEMC documents.

Results: Shifting from disciplinary societies to societies of control, the OEMC insidiously contributes to the regulation of home care services as well as patients' lives. The will of HCPs to apply their field of expertise is in opposition with the OEMC's purposes.

Discussion and conclusion: To not complete the OEMC when it is deemed unnecessary would require a negotiation by HCPs. However, HCPs' autonomy is compromised by discourses repressing all forms of resistance.

作为家庭护理控制机制的多客户评估工具:后结构主义分析。
简介和背景:在加拿大魁北克省,多客户评估工具(OEMC)深刻地改变了包括护士在内的家庭护理专业人员(HCP)的做法。自2015年以来,所有完成OEMC的家庭护理患者都被计算在内,以评估服务的绩效。如果没有达到绩效目标,就会威胁到资金的更新,从而对卫生保健提供者施加压力。目的:本文的目的是回顾OEMC的实施,以了解其政治性质及其对HCPs实践和患者生活的影响。材料与方法:借鉴米歇尔·福柯和吉尔·德勒兹的作品,我们对OEMC文件提出了一种后结构主义的分析。结果:从纪律社会到控制社会的转变,OEMC对家庭护理服务和患者生活的调节起到了潜移默默地作用。医疗保健专业人员应用其专业领域的意愿与OEMC的宗旨相抵触。讨论和结论:如果不完成OEMC,则需要hcp进行协商。然而,HCPs的自主性受到压制各种形式抵抗的话语的损害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信