Mot en situerad standardisering inom socialtjänsten

Abstract

<jats:p>Under de senaste två decennierna har det ställts allt högre krav på standardiserad dokumentation och uppföljning inom socialtjänstens fält, både nationellt och internationellt (Socialstyrelsen, 2004; Tilbury, 2004; Lynch-Cerullo &amp; Cooney, 2011). Utvecklingen hänger ihop med övergripande strömningar som Evidensbaserad praktik (EBP) och New Public Management (NPM) som sätter fokus på att mäta effektiviteten av offentlig verksamhet utifrån kvantitativa mått. Den grundläggande idé som förts fram är att standardiserad dokumentation inom den reguljära verksamheten ska möjliggöra kontinuerlig mätning av socialtjänstens utfall, både på individuell och aggregerad nivå, och att informationen ska användas till att förbättra insatsernas kvalitet.</jats:p>

Balancing standards and flexibility – Preconditions for a recovery-based tool in a Swedish alcohol and drug treatment context

“…The progress of quantifications of RC provides an example of the ambition of standards and standardizations, commonly associated with evidence-based practice (Björk 2017;Timmermans and Epstein 2010). Viewing RC as constructed with the ambition to illuminate the variation in different individuals' recovery processes, a natural reaction would likely be to increase the amount of resources used to evaluate each client's recovery progress individually.…”

“…In Sweden, NBHW states in its guidelines that assessment tools are necessary to address the client's treatment needs and analyse the outcomes of a specific treatment, as well as strengthening the relationship with the client and, by mapping out the progress, motivating the client to change (The National Board of Health and Welfare 2019). An increased demand for documentation in social work agencies has been noted (Björk 2017), and the NBHW has encouraged the social work agencies, and mainly AOD treatment agencies, to implement assessment tools (The National Board of Health and Welfare 2019, 23).…”

“…The demand for documentation and standardization has increased simultaneously, and evidence-based practice has been referred to as a standardization project (Björk 2017), in which the development of assessment tools and standardized outcome measures are considered a crucial part (Björk 2013;Timmermans and Epstein 2010). The seemingly colliding interests of experts and social work practitioners 1 are an aspect that is likely to affect the applicability and usefulness of an assessment tool or other types of regulations.…”

“…Previous research has highlighted the importance of examining other aspects than psychometric properties and validity when developing new interventions or tools in the area of social work (Björk 2017;Guberman et al 2007; Skillmark and Denvall 2018; Spies, Delport, and le Roux 2015). On the subject of employing feasibility studies, Bowen et al (2009) has outlined the core areas that ought to be addressed.…”

“…The STS field promotes an ethno-methodological perspective, where research is conducted in close association with the area it addresses, further emphasizing that every practice or organization is unique (Fernler 2012). Situated standardization emphasizes the importance of examining the feasibility of the tool or method in a practical environment as a crucial part in determining its applicability (Björk 2017). One addition provided by the term situated standardization is 'invisible aspects', which acknowledges the less pronounced aspects, namely the aspects addressing the tool in everyday work (Björk 2017).…”