What constitutes ‘good care’ and ‘good carers’?: The normative implications of introducing reablement in Danish home care
Journal article
Åpne
Permanent lenke
https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3094414Utgivelsesdato
2019Metadata
Vis full innførselSamlinger
Originalversjon
Bødker, M. N., Langstrup, H., & Christensen, U. (2019). What constitutes ‘good care’ and ‘good carers’?: The normative implications of introducing reablement in Danish home care. Health & social care in the community, 27(5), e871-e878. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12815Sammendrag
As populations worldwide are ageing, Western welfare states are currently implementing welfare reforms aimed at curbing the rising need for social and healthcare services for ageing populations. A central element in home-care reforms in several welfare countries is reablement: short-term home-based training programmes aimed at re-enabling older people to live in their own homes independently of care. In this paper, we explore how transitioning from compensatory care to reablement care is not merely a practical process, but also a deeply normative one. Drawing on Annemarie Mol's concept of ‘ontonorms’ we analyse the normative dynamics involved in transitioning from one form of care to another as reflected in reablement professionals' practices and discourses. The paper draws on 10 months of multisited ethnographic fieldwork carried out from April 2015 to February 2016 in a Danish municipality, including participant observations of reablement practices as well as qualitative interviews with 13 professionals working with reablement. We demonstrate that professionals generally consider reablement to represent a desirable shift in home care from ‘bad care’ practices of making people passive through compensatory care, towards ‘good care’ practices of ‘keeping people going’ despite their limitations. Moreover, we demonstrate that while therapists are valued as ‘good carers’ due to their ability to focus on development and training, nurses and in particular home helpers are devalued as ‘bad carers’ due to their ‘caring genes’ and lack of technical and theoretical skills necessary for documentation work. Finally, we discuss the implications of these normative dynamics, which may risk stigmatising compensating care practices, although this form of care to a large extent continues to coexist with reablement practices. In conclusion, we argue for a more nuanced approach to care, recognising compensatory care and reablement as complementary forms of care, each doing good under different circumstances.