Open and opaque? The performativity of open priorities in a Norwegian hospital

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Social Science & Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117383
{"title":"Open and opaque? The performativity of open priorities in a Norwegian hospital","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Being open about priority-setting decisions is a central element of frameworks enhancing procedural fairness. While challenges in implementing priority-setting frameworks in general have been reported, few studies have empirically examined how the concept of openness is understood and enacted in the day-to-day functioning of hospitals. This paper explores the operationalisation of the policy of “open priorities”, based on long-term ethnographic fieldwork in a Norwegian hospital in 2022. Drawing on the concept of performativity, the study portrays how the ideal of open priorities translates into everyday practices related to why, for whom and which priorities are to be open. The paper shows how openness was portrayed as a central hospital policy, but was also seen as a source of conflicts, hindering effective governance and reducing public trust. Hence, hospital leaders transformed and diluted the ideal of openness into priority-setting decisions with multiple shields of opaqueness. Through omissions and rewritings of the notion of openness, health leaders enacted performativity. The paper adds to the growing body of knowledge of the multifaceted ways policy ideals are transformed by government institutions in the process of implementation and calls for further exploration of efforts to improve everyday and routinised procedural fairness.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624008372","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Being open about priority-setting decisions is a central element of frameworks enhancing procedural fairness. While challenges in implementing priority-setting frameworks in general have been reported, few studies have empirically examined how the concept of openness is understood and enacted in the day-to-day functioning of hospitals. This paper explores the operationalisation of the policy of “open priorities”, based on long-term ethnographic fieldwork in a Norwegian hospital in 2022. Drawing on the concept of performativity, the study portrays how the ideal of open priorities translates into everyday practices related to why, for whom and which priorities are to be open. The paper shows how openness was portrayed as a central hospital policy, but was also seen as a source of conflicts, hindering effective governance and reducing public trust. Hence, hospital leaders transformed and diluted the ideal of openness into priority-setting decisions with multiple shields of opaqueness. Through omissions and rewritings of the notion of openness, health leaders enacted performativity. The paper adds to the growing body of knowledge of the multifaceted ways policy ideals are transformed by government institutions in the process of implementation and calls for further exploration of efforts to improve everyday and routinised procedural fairness.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开放与不透明?挪威一家医院公开优先事项的执行力。
公开确定优先权的决定是提高程序公平性框架的核心要素。虽然有报道称在实施优先级设定框架时普遍面临挑战,但很少有研究以实证的方式探讨医院在日常运作中如何理解和实施公开性的概念。本文基于2022年在一家挪威医院进行的长期人种学实地调查,探讨了 "开放式优先权 "政策的可操作性。研究借鉴了表演性的概念,描绘了开放优先事项的理想如何转化为与为什么、对谁和哪些优先事项开放相关的日常实践。论文展示了开放如何被描绘成医院的核心政策,但同时也被视为冲突的根源,阻碍了有效治理并降低了公众信任度。因此,医院领导者将开放的理想转变并淡化为具有多重不透明保护的优先事项决策。通过遗漏和改写公开性的概念,医疗机构的领导者们实施了表演性。本文丰富了人们对政府机构在执行过程中转变政策理想的多方面方式的认识,并呼吁人们进一步探索改善日常和常规程序公平性的努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Repairing with a warm heart: How medical practitioners cultivate affective relationships with clients Later-life social network profiles of male war survivors in Vietnam: Implications for health behaviors Context dependent preferences in prestige bias learning about vaccination in rural Namibian pastoralists Hierarchy, class, race and PPE in an American hospital in the early days of COVID-19: What the pandemic stress test can teach us about building equitable health systems
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1