Covid-19大流行期间从业人员对护理法案缓解的看法

Q2 Social Sciences
Emily Thomas, Mary Baginsky, Jill Manthorpe
{"title":"Covid-19大流行期间从业人员对护理法案缓解的看法","authors":"Emily Thomas, Mary Baginsky, Jill Manthorpe","doi":"10.1080/09503153.2023.2261664","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The easements of the Care Act 2014, permitted by the Coronavirus Act 2020, were in place in very few English local authorities and then only for a short time, but they still rippled across the wider social care workforce. This paper reports findings from interviews with social workers in ten non-easement authorities and with other professionals in easement and non-easement authorities to explore their understandings of easements and their reflections on their use and impact on practice. The interview data are set in the context of a wider study that explored decision-making about the adoption of easements in local authorities. Frontline practitioners (N = 30) confirmed confusion about easements and suspicion that they were a retrograde step in people’s entitlements to care and support. These views were also set in a context of lack of pandemic preparedness in social care and reflections that the care system was already fragile after a sustained period of reductions to local authority budgets and rising need. Both a robust care infrastructure was needed, as well as better crisis or disaster preparedness and planning.","PeriodicalId":35184,"journal":{"name":"Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Views of Practitioners on Care Act Easements during the Covid-19 Pandemic\",\"authors\":\"Emily Thomas, Mary Baginsky, Jill Manthorpe\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09503153.2023.2261664\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The easements of the Care Act 2014, permitted by the Coronavirus Act 2020, were in place in very few English local authorities and then only for a short time, but they still rippled across the wider social care workforce. This paper reports findings from interviews with social workers in ten non-easement authorities and with other professionals in easement and non-easement authorities to explore their understandings of easements and their reflections on their use and impact on practice. The interview data are set in the context of a wider study that explored decision-making about the adoption of easements in local authorities. Frontline practitioners (N = 30) confirmed confusion about easements and suspicion that they were a retrograde step in people’s entitlements to care and support. These views were also set in a context of lack of pandemic preparedness in social care and reflections that the care system was already fragile after a sustained period of reductions to local authority budgets and rising need. Both a robust care infrastructure was needed, as well as better crisis or disaster preparedness and planning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09503153.2023.2261664\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09503153.2023.2261664","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《2020年冠状病毒法案》允许的《2014年护理法案》的缓和措施,只在极少数英国地方当局实施了很短的时间,但它们仍然在更广泛的社会护理队伍中产生了涟漪。本文报告了对十个非地役权管理机构的社会工作者以及其他地役权和非地役权管理机构的专业人员的访谈结果,以探讨他们对地役权的理解,以及他们对地役权的使用和对实践的影响的思考。访谈数据是在一项更广泛的研究的背景下设定的,该研究探讨了地方当局关于采用地役权的决策。一线从业人员(N = 30)证实了对地役权的困惑,并怀疑它们是人们获得照顾和支持权利的倒退。这些观点也是在社会护理方面缺乏大流行病防范的背景下提出的,并且考虑到在地方当局预算持续削减和需求不断增加之后,护理系统已经很脆弱。既需要健全的护理基础设施,也需要更好的危机或灾难准备和规划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Views of Practitioners on Care Act Easements during the Covid-19 Pandemic
The easements of the Care Act 2014, permitted by the Coronavirus Act 2020, were in place in very few English local authorities and then only for a short time, but they still rippled across the wider social care workforce. This paper reports findings from interviews with social workers in ten non-easement authorities and with other professionals in easement and non-easement authorities to explore their understandings of easements and their reflections on their use and impact on practice. The interview data are set in the context of a wider study that explored decision-making about the adoption of easements in local authorities. Frontline practitioners (N = 30) confirmed confusion about easements and suspicion that they were a retrograde step in people’s entitlements to care and support. These views were also set in a context of lack of pandemic preparedness in social care and reflections that the care system was already fragile after a sustained period of reductions to local authority budgets and rising need. Both a robust care infrastructure was needed, as well as better crisis or disaster preparedness and planning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Practice
Practice Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
×
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