BackgroundElderly patients admitted to Geriatric Assessment Units (GAU) typically have complex health problems that require multi-professional care. Considering the scope of human and technological resources solicited during hospitalization, as well as the many risks and discomforts incurred by the patient, it is important to ensure the communication of pertinent information for quality follow-up care in the community setting. Conventional discharge summaries do not adequately incorporate the elements specific to an aging clientele.ObjectiveTo develop a discharge summary adapted to the frail elderly patient (D-SAFE) in order to communicate relevant information from hospital to community services.MethodsThe items to be included in the D-SAFE have been determined by means of a modified Delphi method through consultation with clinical experts from GAUs (11 physicians and 5 pharmacists) and the community (10 physicians and 5 pharmacists). The consensus analysis and the level of agreement among the experts were reached using a modified version of the RAND®/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method.ResultsA consensus was reached after two rounds of consultation for all the items evaluated, where none was judged «inappropriate». Among the items proposed, four were judged to be « uncertain » and were eliminated from the final D-SAFE, which was divided into two sections: the medical discharge summary (22 main items) and the discharge prescription (14 main items).ConclusionsThe D-SAFE was developed as a more comprehensive tool specifically designed for GAU inpatients. Additional research to validate its acceptability and practical impact on the continuity of care is needed before it can be recommended for use on a broader scale.

Les textes du présent numéro spécial sur les lieux du droit ont été rassemblés à la suite d'un colloque organisé dans le cadre du 88 e Congrès de l'Acfas (Association francophone pour le savoir) par le Groupe de recherche sur les humanités juridiques. Ce dernier est lui-même un lieu du droit tout récent. Inauguré en 2019, le Groupe réunit de jeunes chercheur•euses ainsi que des chercheur•euses établi•es de tous les horizons qui souhaitent réfléchir ensemble au droit comme activité culturelle et poétique. Partant de l'idée que le droit est une discipline tenant des arts et des lettres, cette manière d'aborder le droit met l'accent sur ses contextes, ses styles, ses genres, ses histoires, ses entrelacements dans toutes les activités culturelles d'une société. Ainsi, le droit n'y est pas compris simplement comme une discipline, mais plutôt comme une sensibilité, une manière d'être dans le monde, une manière de vivre et de penser les mondes.Ce colloque se voulait un lieu (bien qu'il fût virtuel en raison du contexte pandémique) où des chercheur•euses se réuniraient pour réfléchir en commun (est-ce un lieu commun?) à la question suivante : où le droit at-il lieu? L'idée était certes de trouver le droit dans des livres, des livres de droit, mais également ailleurs, dans des contrées lointaines à mille lieues des lieux indiqués, hors des lieux d'aisance, ou dans des lieux si proches qu'on en oublie l'existence.

Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne. https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit. Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l'

No abstract

In 2018, the American and Canadian supreme courts released two high-profile decisions: the case of a Christian baker from Colorado who refused to create a cake for the celebration of a same-sex couple’s union, and the case of an evangelical Christian law school in British Columbia whose code of conduct prohibiting same-sex intimacy led to accreditation refusals by three provincial law societies. In both cases, religious believers argued that modern LGBTQ2+ anti-discrimination protections required them to act in ways that proved incompatible with their religious beliefs. While such “conflict of rights” are familiar to liberal democracies, this article demonstrates how these cases operate within a new paradigm in which religious actors, seeking exemptions from legal protections accorded to a vulnerable minority, claim minority status for themselves. Hoping to have their policy agenda seen in a new light, such opponents of LGBTQ2+ rights have replaced their discourse defending traditional mores with one arguing that the broadly cherished value of pluralism guarantees them a religious right to “dissent” from anti-discrimination protections. We dub this discursive process the mobilization of the “minority label.” In this article, we retrace the emergence of this new discourse by turning to the narratives crafted by parties, courts, and media in the two cases. We discuss the three main argumentative strategies through which the minority label manifests in discourses: language framing, moral symmetry arguments, and respectability claims. We then offer a comparative analysis which explores the different ways both courts reacted to this discourse. We conclude with a brief discussion of some of the long-term risks that the rise of such a discourse implies for LGBTQ2+ rights.