日间服务机构的领导者如何理解服务质量

J. McEwen, C. Bigby, J. Douglas
{"title":"日间服务机构的领导者如何理解服务质量","authors":"J. McEwen, C. Bigby, J. Douglas","doi":"10.1080/23297018.2021.1951619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Organisations for people with intellectual disabilities must comply with regulatory quality standards written by Australian governments. Standards are abstract and predominantly focus on paperwork and processes. In thinking about service quality, organisational leaders must decide where to focus their efforts and whether to look beyond compliance issues. This study aimedto identify how leaders in day-service organisations for people with intellectual disabilities perceived and monitored service quality, and what they thought influenced quality in their services.Using a constructivist grounded theory methodology, semistructured interviews were conducted with eight leaders from three day-service organisations in Victoria, Australia. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed using constant comparison and line-by-line coding. Overall, the leaders had two contrasting approaches to quality in their organisations. Four had a “process compliance” approach and the other four a “service user’s experience of support” approach. These two approaches to service quality mirrored the tensions between the process compliance approach used by Australian governments toregulate the quality of services provided to people with intellectual disabilities, and an approach preferred by researchers, which argues the importance of judging quality through observation of service users’ experience of support. Consideration should be given to merging these approaches and creating indicators that incorporate both observation and process review methods.","PeriodicalId":43838,"journal":{"name":"Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How leaders in day service organisations understand service quality\",\"authors\":\"J. McEwen, C. Bigby, J. Douglas\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23297018.2021.1951619\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Organisations for people with intellectual disabilities must comply with regulatory quality standards written by Australian governments. Standards are abstract and predominantly focus on paperwork and processes. In thinking about service quality, organisational leaders must decide where to focus their efforts and whether to look beyond compliance issues. This study aimedto identify how leaders in day-service organisations for people with intellectual disabilities perceived and monitored service quality, and what they thought influenced quality in their services.Using a constructivist grounded theory methodology, semistructured interviews were conducted with eight leaders from three day-service organisations in Victoria, Australia. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed using constant comparison and line-by-line coding. Overall, the leaders had two contrasting approaches to quality in their organisations. Four had a “process compliance” approach and the other four a “service user’s experience of support” approach. These two approaches to service quality mirrored the tensions between the process compliance approach used by Australian governments toregulate the quality of services provided to people with intellectual disabilities, and an approach preferred by researchers, which argues the importance of judging quality through observation of service users’ experience of support. Consideration should be given to merging these approaches and creating indicators that incorporate both observation and process review methods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43838,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23297018.2021.1951619\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23297018.2021.1951619","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为智障人士服务的组织必须遵守澳大利亚政府制定的监管质量标准。标准是抽象的,主要关注于文书工作和流程。在考虑服务质量时,组织领导者必须决定他们的工作重点在哪里,以及是否关注合规性以外的问题。本研究旨在确定智障人士日间服务机构的领导者如何感知和监控服务质量,以及他们认为影响服务质量的因素。采用建构主义扎根理论方法,对澳大利亚维多利亚州三家日间服务机构的八位领导人进行了半结构化访谈。访谈记录,转录,并通过不断比较和逐行编码进行主题分析。总的来说,领导者在他们的组织中有两种截然不同的质量方法。其中四个采用“流程遵从性”方法,另外四个采用“服务用户的支持体验”方法。这两种服务质量方法反映了澳大利亚政府用于规范向智障人士提供的服务质量的过程遵从方法与研究人员首选的方法之间的紧张关系,该方法认为通过观察服务用户的支持体验来判断质量的重要性。应考虑合并这些方法,并制定包括观察和过程审查方法的指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
How leaders in day service organisations understand service quality
Organisations for people with intellectual disabilities must comply with regulatory quality standards written by Australian governments. Standards are abstract and predominantly focus on paperwork and processes. In thinking about service quality, organisational leaders must decide where to focus their efforts and whether to look beyond compliance issues. This study aimedto identify how leaders in day-service organisations for people with intellectual disabilities perceived and monitored service quality, and what they thought influenced quality in their services.Using a constructivist grounded theory methodology, semistructured interviews were conducted with eight leaders from three day-service organisations in Victoria, Australia. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed using constant comparison and line-by-line coding. Overall, the leaders had two contrasting approaches to quality in their organisations. Four had a “process compliance” approach and the other four a “service user’s experience of support” approach. These two approaches to service quality mirrored the tensions between the process compliance approach used by Australian governments toregulate the quality of services provided to people with intellectual disabilities, and an approach preferred by researchers, which argues the importance of judging quality through observation of service users’ experience of support. Consideration should be given to merging these approaches and creating indicators that incorporate both observation and process review methods.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
21.40%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Reflecting on change and continuity for people with intellectual disabilities: epilogue for Kew Cottages Attitudes towards people with intellectual disabilities. Commentary on “Stereotypes of people with intellectual disabilities held by university education students” (Beunza-Garcia et al., 2023) Commentary on “Failed ambitions: Kew Cottages and changing ideas of intellectual disabilities” (Monk et al., 2023) Review of “Every Moment has Potential – Skills for Active Support”, online training modules designed for disability support workers Can we reduce restrictive practices and maintain safety? Commentary on “Australian work health and safety enforcement regarding service provision to people with disabilities: lessons for service providers” (Hough, Bigby, & Marsh, 2023)
×
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