Same, Same but Different: Norwegian Nursing Homes Betwixt Equality and Autonomy

Article
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

Nursing homes in Norway – as the health care sector in general – are generally presented and perceived as promoting the ideal of equality and universality. Nursing homes are meant to be similar or even “equal”; offering not only universal access but also similar care and support for its residents. Such is not necessarily the reality for Norwegian nursing homes. Nursing homes differ, not only in formal characteristics such as size, ownership and location, but also in degree of autonomy and independence. In general, nursing homes in Norway can be described as being in a perpetual tension between ideals of equality and universality on one side and autonomy and independence on the other. Consequently, nursing homes exhibit varying degrees of autonomy and self-governance. Such relative autonomy, we will argue in this paper, is grounded in the regulatory framework for Norwegian nursing homes. Exemplified with a municipality and a specific nursing home, we will demonstrate that a large bulk of the decision-making concerning the daily operations of nursing homes is placed locally. We see this premise as facilitating diversity and autonomy, producing variation between nursing homes. Nursing homes can, given this context, adapt to a flexible framework, securing local adjustments suitable for the local needs of administrators, staff and residents. The non-specific modes of governance can, in other words, contribute to flexibility and autonomy, although not necessarily in line with an overall ideal of universality.

Keywords

Nursing home Governance Care work Regulations Accountability 

References

  1. Ågotnes, G. (2016). The institutional practice. In Dynamics of practice at nursing homes: A ethnographic study of variation of hospitalization amidst uncertainty and continuity. Doctoral thesis: The University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  2. Baines, D., & Cunningham, I. (2011). Using comparative perspective rapid ethnography in international case studies: Strengths and challenges. Qualitative Social Work, 12(1), 73–88. doi:10.1177/1473325011419053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borge, L.-E., et al. (2012). Bedre måling av kvalitet i kommunene [better measurements of quality for the municipalities] (p. 02/12). Oslo: SØF-rapport nr.Google Scholar
  4. Bratt, C. & Gautun, H. (2015). Bemanningsnormer i sykehjem. Tidsskrift for Omsorgsforskning. Nr. 2. 1: 98-107.Google Scholar
  5. Choinere, J., Doupe, M., Goldman, M., Harrington, C., Jacobsen, F. F., Lloyd, L., Rootham, M. & Szebehely, M. (2015). Mapping nursing home inspections & audits in six countries. Ageing International 12/2015: doi:10.1007/s12126-015-9230-6.
  6. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gautun, H., & Hermansen, Å. (2011). Eldreomsorgen under press: Kommunenes helse – og omsorgstilbud til eldre. Fafo-rapport, 2011, 12.Google Scholar
  8. Harrington, C., et al. (2012). Nursing Home Staffing Standards and Staffing Levels in Six Countries. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 44(1), 88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Husebø, B.S. & Husebø, S. (2005). Sykehjemmene som arena for terminal omsorg – hvordan gjør vi det i praksis? Tidsskrift for den norske legeforening (2005; 125: 1352–4).Google Scholar
  10. Jacobsen, F. F., & Mekki, T. E. (2012). Health and the changing welfare state in Norway: A focus on municipal health Care for Elderly Sick. Ageing Int., 37, 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krüger, K., Jansen, K., Grimsmo, A., Eide, G. E., & Geitung, J. T. (2011). Hospital admissions from nursing homes: Rates and reasons. Nursing research and practice. Volume, 2011.Google Scholar
  12. Lian, O. S. (1996). Norsk helsevesen—utfordringer og utviklingstrekk. In O. S. Lian (Ed.), Helsetjenesten i samfunnsvitenskapens lys (pp. 11–26). Tano Aschehoug: Oslo.Google Scholar
  13. Ministry of Health and Care Services (HOD). (1989), Forskrift for sykehjem og boform for heldøgns omsorg og pleie [regulations for nursing homes and facilities with 24 hour services]. Oslo.Google Scholar
  14. Ministry of Health and Care Services (HOD). (2003). [1997] Forskrift om kvalitet i pleie- og omsorgstjenestene for tjenesteyting, [Regulations for quality in care services]. Oslo.Google Scholar
  15. National Center for Health Statistics (2013). Long Term Care Services in the United States: 2013 Overerview. National Health Care Statistics Report, Number. 1.Google Scholar
  16. Norwegian Board of Health Supervision (NBHS). (2011). Annual supervision report. Oslo.Google Scholar
  17. NOU 2004: 18. (2004). Norges Offentlige Utredninger. Helhet og Plan i Sosial- og Helsetjenestene: Samhandling og Samordning i Kommunale Sosial- og Helsetjenester. Statens Forvaltningstjeneste. Informasjonsforvaltning: Oslo.Google Scholar
  18. OECD. (2013). Health at a glance 2013: OECD indicators. OECD: Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Sandvoll, A. M. (2013). Vi berre gjer det: beskrivingar av skjult pleiepraksis i sjukeheim. In Avhandling for graden philosophiae doctor (PhD). Bergen: Universitetet i.Google Scholar
  20. SINTEF. (2009). Eldreomsorgen i Norge: Helt utilstrekkelig – eller best i verden (Huseby & Paulsen). Sintef helsetjenesteforskning, 2009.Google Scholar
  21. Stortingsmelding nr 26 (2014–2015). (2015). Fremtidens primærhelsetjeneste – nærhet og omsorg. Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet, Oslo.Google Scholar
  22. Vabø, M., Christensen, K., Trætteberg, H. D., & Jacobsen, F. F. (2013). Marketization in Norwegian eldercare. Preconditions, trends and resistance. In G. Meagher & M. Szebehely (Eds.), Marketisation in Nordic eldercare: Legislation, oversight, extent and consequences. Department of Social Work: Stockholm University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Care ResearchBergen University CollegeBergenNorway
  2. 2.Department of Global Public Health and Social MedicineThe University of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations