Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T11:38:10.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supporting Personalisation: The Challenges in Translating the Expectations of National Policy into Developments in Local Services and Their Underpinning Information Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2014

Penelope Hill
Penelope Hill*
Affiliation:
Mortimore Hill Associates, Churcham, Gloucestershire E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Social care policy is actively promoting integrated and personalised care. Local organisations are starting to re-engineer their business processes, review front line practice, develop new operational tools and revise their information systems to support and deliver these new approaches. This article draws on a study undertaken in one local organisation as it began to implement its response to these expectations. It uses structuration theory to explore how the macro agendas described by policy and legislation are translated into local perspectives and then further refracted through the lens of operational practice, shaping the business tools which deliver the change. The evidence suggests that there needs to be a better understanding of how the expectations of policy are interpreted – and potentially distorted – through their translation into local practice, and of the role that information and information services play in enabling, or disabling the delivery of those expectations at the front line.

Keywords

Social caresocial care informaticspolicy implementationpersonalisationstructuration
Type
Themed Section on Hiding in plain sight or Disappearing in the rear view mirror?: Whatever happened to the revolution in information for Health and Social Care – Learning from England and Australia
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 593 - 607
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bergen, A. and While, A. (2005) ‘“Implementation deficit” and “street-level bureaucracy”: policy, practice and change in the development of community nursing issues’, Health and Social Care in the Community, 13, 1, 1–10.Google Scholar
Berman, P. (1978) The Study of Macro and Micro Implementation of Social Policy, Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
Chisalita, C. (2006) ‘Understanding technology use in the public sector: a structuration theory perspective with a focus on emerging meanings’, Intervention Research, 2, 1–2, 91–111.Google Scholar
Coulshed, V. and Orme, J. (2006) Social Work Practice, 4th edn, Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Health (2001) National Service Framework for Older People, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2002) Guidance on the Single Assessment Process, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2003) Social Care Access To and Use of the NHS Number, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2005) Independence, Well Being and Choice, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2006) Our health, Our Care, Our Say, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2007) Putting People First, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2008) Transforming Social Care, LAC(DH) (2008) 1, Local Authority Circular, London: Department of HealthGoogle Scholar
Department of Health (2010) A Vision for Adult Social Care: Capable Communities and Active Citizens, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2011) An Information Revolution: Time for the NHS to Step Up to the Challenge, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Fisher, J., Baines, S. and Rayner, M. (2012) ‘Personalisation and the co-operative tradition’, Social Policy and Society, 11, 4, 507–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, M., Henman, P., Fleming, J., Tilse, C. and Harrington, R. (2012) ‘The politics of entitlement and personalisation: perspectives on a proposed National Disability Long-term Care and Support Scheme in Australia’, Social Policy and Society, 11, 3, 331–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, T. and Peck, E. (2008) ‘Adult care joint ventures: the art of the possible’, Journal of Integrated Care, 16, 1, 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society, Berkely, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Harlow, E. and Webb, S. A. (eds.) (2003) Information and Communication Technologies in the Welfare services, London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Hicklin, A. and Godwin, E. (2009) ‘Agents of change: the role of public managers in public policy’, Policy Studies Journal, 37, 1, 13–20.Google Scholar
Hill, P. (2012) ‘Supporting social care practice: axploring the role of information and information systems in social care assessment’, 25th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, 20–22 June.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M. R. and Karsten, H. (2008) ‘Giddens’ structuration theory and information systems research’, MIS Quarterly, 32, 1, 127–57.Google Scholar
Kouroubali, A. (2002) ‘Structuration theory and conception–reality gaps: addressing cause and effect of implementation outcomes in health care information systems’, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Washington, DC: Computer Society Press, 1975–84.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (2010) Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service, 30th Anniversary Edition, New York: Rusell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Matland, R. (1995) ‘Synthesizing the implementation literature: the ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 2, 145–74.Google Scholar
May, P. J. and Winter, S. C. (2007) ‘Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: influences on policy implementation’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 3, 453–76.Google Scholar
Milner, J. and O'Byrne, P. (2009) Assessment in Social Work, 3rd edn, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J., Glendinning, C. and Hughes, M. (2008) ‘Beyond modernisation? Social care and the transformation of welfare governance’, Journal of Social Policy, 37, 4, 531–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992) ‘The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations’, Organization Science, 3, 3, 398–427, doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.398.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000) ‘Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations’, Organization Science, 11, 4, 255–305.Google Scholar
Rigby, M., Hill, P., Koch, S. and Keeling, D. (2011) ‘Social care informatics as an essential part of holistic health care: a call for action’, International Journal of Medical Informatics, 80, 8, 544–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, J. (1998) ‘Evaluating the contribution of structuration theory to the information systems discipline’, in Baets, W. (ed.), Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Information Systems Development, Aix-en-Provence, France: Euro-Arab Management School, pp. 910–24.Google Scholar
Social Care Information Policy Unit (SCIPU) (2001) Information for Social Care, London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Stillman, L. J. H. (2006) Understandings of Technology in Community-Based Organisations: A Structurational Analysis, Melbourne: Monash University.Google Scholar
Wilson, R., Walsh, S. and Vaughan, R. (2008) ‘Developing an electronic social care record: a tale from the Tyne’, Informatics in Primary Care, 15, 4, 239–44.Google Scholar