How New Governance Shapes Changes in the Long-Term Care Sector in Ontario, Canada 1
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACTThis paper turns to insights of New Governance in order to explain how law was used to promote innovations in health care governance in Canadian province of Ontario between 2004 and 2012. New Governance refers to a family of approaches that are more flexible and less prescriptive. My research includes review of government documents, legislation and other sources in order to identify changes to regulation and governance. I also draw upon interviews with seven organizations in sector, which were conducted as part of a larger project to help contextualize and explain changes in law. I argue that, while formal legal and regulatory apparatus continue to be used to regulate provision of care and treatment, New Governance approaches represent additional processes and procedures to problem-solve challenges in sector. Law is being used to formalize or strengthen these processes and procedures in order to allow long-term care home residents, families, friends, and workers to participate in problem-solving. This increasing emphasis on processes can be understood as an attempt to broaden scope of possible solutions and changes that could be implemented in sector. For future research, I suggest that more attention be paid to interrogating relationships that enable New Governance techniques.Keywords: governance, regulation, experimentalism, long-term care, disability, innovation.IntroductionIn Canada, and around world, public sector managers and their political masters continue to respond to challenges in their respective health care systems. According to Institute of Public Administration of Canada, factors such as an aging population, increasing prevalence of chronic conditions, implementation of new technologies, and introduction of new and costly pharmaceuticals contribute to rising health care costs of provincial and territorial governments (Institute of Public Administration of Canada, 2013: 3). Most frequently, public discourse around health care is related to level and quality of services, and funding for such services. Colleen Flood explains crisis talk in an Ontario context:In end, recurrent political debates are reduced to issues of money, and problems of system are blamed on lack of it. We believe, however, that Ontario crisis in health care, along with similarly situated health care schemes, has more to do with an absence of effective governance (Flood, 2004: 170).One could ask how literature on governance responds to current and future challenges in health care system. By governance, I mean the changing boundaries between public, private and voluntary sectors, and changing role of state (Rhodes, 2012: 33). This paper turns to insights of New Governance in order to explain how law was used to promote innovations in health care governance in Canadian province of Ontario between 2004 and 2012. New Governance consists of a range of processes and practices that are less rigid and less prescriptive: increased participation of non-state actors; public/private collaboration; diversity and competition within market; decentralization; integration of policy domains; noncoerciveness (soft law); adaptability and constant learning; and coordination (Lobel, 2004a and 2012; de Burca and Scott, 2006). There is a shared concern within literature about how New Governance transforms way law is created and administered (Trubek, 2006: 246). For some scholars and policy makers, New Governance is positioned as an ambitious framework for addressing public policy problems, such as occupational safety, discrimination law in workplace, financial regulation, and health care (Lobel, 2004a and 2012; Sturm, 2006a; NeJaime, 2009; Blum, 2007).This paper examines how recent changes to governance of long-term care (LTC) home sector in Ontario-especially participatory processes and procedures enshrined in law- can help meet some of pressing challenges in sector. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».