以人为本的开放标准如何在监管实践中再次成为清单:潜在机制解释

IF 3.8 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Mirjam Kalisvaart, Lieke Oldenhof, Roland Bal, Anne Margriet Pot
{"title":"以人为本的开放标准如何在监管实践中再次成为清单:潜在机制解释","authors":"Mirjam Kalisvaart, Lieke Oldenhof, Roland Bal, Anne Margriet Pot","doi":"10.1111/rego.70075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In health care regulation, open outcome‐oriented standards are used to provide flexibility for care organizations to determine how to deal with complex issues. What remains understudied is how this works out in practice. This paper studies how inspectors use open standards to regulate the complex issue of person‐centered care. An exploratory qualitative multiple‐method design was used to study the work of inspectors who assess the quality of nursing homes within the Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate. Five mechanisms were found that hamper the assessment of open outcome‐oriented standards for person‐centered care: difficulties in triangulating information, estimating the reliability of the information, deviating from the schedule of the inspection program, judging direct care provision negatively, and indicating a clear boundary between sufficient and insufficient. When using open outcome‐oriented standards, it is important to reflect on these mechanisms and evaluate whether outcomes still align with the societal values they attempt to regulate.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Open Standards for Person‐Centered Care Become Checklists Again in Regulatory Practice: Underlying Mechanisms Explained\",\"authors\":\"Mirjam Kalisvaart, Lieke Oldenhof, Roland Bal, Anne Margriet Pot\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/rego.70075\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In health care regulation, open outcome‐oriented standards are used to provide flexibility for care organizations to determine how to deal with complex issues. What remains understudied is how this works out in practice. This paper studies how inspectors use open standards to regulate the complex issue of person‐centered care. An exploratory qualitative multiple‐method design was used to study the work of inspectors who assess the quality of nursing homes within the Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate. Five mechanisms were found that hamper the assessment of open outcome‐oriented standards for person‐centered care: difficulties in triangulating information, estimating the reliability of the information, deviating from the schedule of the inspection program, judging direct care provision negatively, and indicating a clear boundary between sufficient and insufficient. When using open outcome‐oriented standards, it is important to reflect on these mechanisms and evaluate whether outcomes still align with the societal values they attempt to regulate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regulation & Governance\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Regulation & Governance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70075\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70075","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在医疗保健监管中,开放的结果导向标准用于为医疗机构提供灵活性,以确定如何处理复杂问题。这在实践中是如何实现的仍有待研究。本文研究了检查员如何使用开放标准来规范以人为本的复杂问题。采用探索性定性多方法设计来研究荷兰卫生和青年护理监察局内评估养老院质量的监察员的工作。研究发现,有五种机制阻碍了对以人为本的护理开放结果导向标准的评估:信息三角化的困难、信息可靠性的估计、偏离检查计划的时间表、对直接护理提供的负面判断,以及表明充分和不充分之间的明确界限。当使用开放的以结果为导向的标准时,重要的是要反思这些机制,并评估结果是否仍然符合他们试图规范的社会价值观。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Open Standards for Person‐Centered Care Become Checklists Again in Regulatory Practice: Underlying Mechanisms Explained
In health care regulation, open outcome‐oriented standards are used to provide flexibility for care organizations to determine how to deal with complex issues. What remains understudied is how this works out in practice. This paper studies how inspectors use open standards to regulate the complex issue of person‐centered care. An exploratory qualitative multiple‐method design was used to study the work of inspectors who assess the quality of nursing homes within the Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate. Five mechanisms were found that hamper the assessment of open outcome‐oriented standards for person‐centered care: difficulties in triangulating information, estimating the reliability of the information, deviating from the schedule of the inspection program, judging direct care provision negatively, and indicating a clear boundary between sufficient and insufficient. When using open outcome‐oriented standards, it is important to reflect on these mechanisms and evaluate whether outcomes still align with the societal values they attempt to regulate.
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
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Regulation & Governance serves as the leading platform for the study of regulation and governance by political scientists, lawyers, sociologists, historians, criminologists, psychologists, anthropologists, economists and others. Research on regulation and governance, once fragmented across various disciplines and subject areas, has emerged at the cutting edge of paradigmatic change in the social sciences. Through the peer-reviewed journal Regulation & Governance, we seek to advance discussions between various disciplines about regulation and governance, promote the development of new theoretical and empirical understanding, and serve the growing needs of practitioners for a useful academic reference.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信