IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v69y2009i12p1713-1721.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sociological refigurations of patient safety; ontologies of improvement and 'acting with' quality collaboratives in healthcare

Author

Listed:
  • Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
  • Strating, Mathilde
  • Nieboer, Anna
  • Bal, Roland

Abstract

The increasing focus on patient safety in the field of health policy is accompanied by research programs that articulate the role of the social sciences as one of contributing to enhancing safety in healthcare. Through these programs, new approaches to studying safety are facing a narrow definition of 'usefulness' in which researchers are to discover the factors that support or hamper the implementation of existing policy agendas. This is unfortunate since such claims for useful involvement in predefined policy agendas may undo one of the strongest assets of good social science research: the capacity to complexify the taken-for-granted conceptualizations of the object of study. As an alternative to this definition of 'usefulness', this article proposes a focus on multiple ontologies in the making when studying patient safety. Through such a focus, the role of social scientists becomes the involvement in refiguring the problem space of patient safety, the relations between research subjects and objects, and the existing policy agendas. This role gives medical sociologists the opportunity to focus on the question of which practices of 'effective care' are being enacted through different approaches for dealing with patient safety and what their consequences are for the care practices under study. In order to explore these questions, this article draws on empirical material from an ongoing evaluation of a large quality improvement collaborative for the care sectors in the Netherlands. It addresses how issues like 'effectiveness' and 'client participation' are at present articulated in this collaborative and shows that alternative figurations of these notions dissolve many 'implementation problems' presently experienced. Further it analyzes how such a focus of medical sociology on multiple ontologies engenders new potential for exploring particular spaces for 'acting with' quality improvement agents.

Suggested Citation

  • Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun & Strating, Mathilde & Nieboer, Anna & Bal, Roland, 2009. "Sociological refigurations of patient safety; ontologies of improvement and 'acting with' quality collaboratives in healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1713-1721, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:69:y:2009:i:12:p:1713-1721
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(09)00653-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. May, Carl & Rapley, Tim & Moreira, Tiago & Finch, Tracy & Heaven, Ben, 2006. "Technogovernance: Evidence, subjectivity, and the clinical encounter in primary care medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 1022-1030, February.
    2. Iedema, Rick & Flabouris, Arthas & Grant, Susan & Jorm, Christine, 2006. "Narrativizing errors of care: Critical incident reporting in clinical practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 134-144, January.
    3. Iedema, Roderick Aren Michael & Jorm, Christine & Long, Debbi & Braithwaite, Jeffrey & Travaglia, Jo & Westbrook, Mary, 2006. "Turning the medical gaze in upon itself: Root cause analysis and the investigation of clinical error," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(7), pages 1605-1615, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ovretveit, John, 2009. "The contribution of new social science research to patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1780-1783, December.
    2. Iedema, Rick, 2009. "New approaches to researching patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1701-1704, December.
    3. Stoopendaal, Annemiek & Bal, Roland, 2013. "Conferences, tablecloths and cupboards: How to understand the situatedness of quality improvements in long-term care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 78-85.
    4. Ducey, Ariel & Donoso, Claudia & Ross, Sue & Robert, Magali, 2020. "From anatomy to patient experience in pelvic floor surgery: Mindlines, evidence, responsibility, and transvaginal mesh," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ferlie, Ewan & Mcgivern, Gerry & FitzGerald, Louise, 2012. "A new mode of organizing in health care? Governmentality and managed networks in cancer services in England," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 340-347.
    2. Timmermans, Stefan & Almeling, Rene, 2009. "Objectification, standardization, and commodification in health care: A conceptual readjustment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 21-27, July.
    3. Waring, Justin J., 2009. "Constructing and re-constructing narratives of patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1722-1731, December.
    4. Greenhalgh, Joanne & Flynn, Rob & Long, Andrew F. & Tyson, Sarah, 2008. "Tacit and encoded knowledge in the use of standardised outcome measures in multidisciplinary team decision making: A case study of in-patient neurorehabilitation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 183-194, July.
    5. Geltzer, Anna, 2009. "When the standards aren't standard: Evidence-based medicine in the Russian context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 526-532, February.
    6. Iedema, Roderick Aren Michael & Jorm, Christine & Braithwaite, Jeffrey & Travaglia, Jo & Lum, Martin, 2006. "A root cause analysis of clinical error: Confronting the disjunction between formal rules and situated clinical activity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 1201-1212, September.
    7. May, Carl, 2013. "Agency and implementation: Understanding the embedding of healthcare innovations in practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 26-33.
    8. Nicolini, Davide & Waring, Justin & Mengis, Jeanne, 2011. "Policy and practice in the use of root cause analysis to investigate clinical adverse events: Mind the gap," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 217-225, July.
    9. Hardman, Doug & Geraghty, Adam W.A. & Lown, Mark & Bishop, Felicity L., 2020. "Subjunctive medicine: Enacting efficacy in general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    10. Dixon-Woods, Mary & Suokas, Anu & Pitchforth, Emma & Tarrant, Carolyn, 2009. "An ethnographic study of classifying and accounting for risk at the sharp end of medical wards," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 362-369, August.
    11. Wibe, Torunn & Hellesø, Ragnhild & Slaughter, Laura & Ekstedt, Mirjam, 2011. "Lay people's experiences with reading their medical record," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(9), pages 1570-1573, May.
    12. Kendall, Kathleen & Wiles, Rose, 2010. "Resisting blame and managing emotion in general practice: The case of patient suicide," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1714-1720, June.
    13. Kerr, Anne, 2009. "A problem shared...? Teamwork, autonomy and error in assisted conception," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1741-1749, December.
    14. Shaw, Sara E. & Petchey, Roland P. & Chapman, Jenifer & Abbott, Stephen, 2009. "A double-edged sword? Health research and research governance in UK primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 912-918, March.
    15. Elstad, Emily A. & Lutfey, Karen E. & Marceau, Lisa D. & Campbell, Stephen M. & von dem Knesebeck, Olaf & McKinlay, John B., 2010. "What do physicians gain (and lose) with experience? Qualitative results from a cross-national study of diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1728-1736, June.
    16. Andreassen, Hege K., 2011. "What does an e-mail address add? - Doing health and technology at home," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(4), pages 521-528, February.
    17. Fischer, Michael Daniel & Ferlie, Ewan, 2013. "Resisting hybridisation between modes of clinical risk management: Contradiction, contest, and the production of intractable conflict," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 30-49.
    18. Paul Stenner & Raffaele De Luca Picione, 2023. "A Theoretically Informed Critical Review of Research Applying the Concept of Liminality to Understand Experiences with Cancer: Implications for a New Oncological Agenda in Health Psychology," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(11), pages 1-21, May.
    19. Turner, Simon & Higginson, Juliet & Oborne, C. Alice & Thomas, Rebecca E. & Ramsay, Angus I.G. & Fulop, Naomi J., 2014. "Codifying knowledge to improve patient safety: A qualitative study of practice-based interventions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 169-176.
    20. Assing Hvidt, Elisabeth & Grønning, Anette & Nisbeth Brøgger, Matilde & Møller, Jane Ege & Fage-Butler, Antoinette, 2021. "Multilevel structures and human agency in relation to email consultations: A strong structuration theory analysis of the Danish general practice setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:69:y:2009:i:12:p:1713-1721. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.