Responsibility and Well-Being: Resource Integration Under Responsibilization in Expert Services

Responsibilization, or the shift of functions and risks from providers and producers to consumers, has become an increasingly common policy in service systems and marketplaces (e.g., financial, health, governmental). As responsibilization is often considered synonymous with consumer agency and well-being, the authors take a transformative service research perspective and draw on resource integration literature to investigate whether responsibilization is truly associated with well-being. The authors focus on expert services, for which responsibilization concerns are particularly salient, and question whether this expanding policy is in the public interest. In the process, they develop a conceptualization of resource integration under responsibilization that includes three levels of actors (consumer, provider, and service system), the identification of structural tensions to resource integration, and three categories of resource integration practices (access, appropriation, and management) necessary to negotiate responsibilization. The findings have important implications for health care providers, public and institutional policy makers, and other service systems, all of which must pay more active attention to the challenges consumers face in negotiating responsibilization and the resulting well-being outcomes.

Responsibility and Well-being: Resource Integration under Responsibilization in Expert Services

Responsibilization, or the shift in functions and risks from providers and producers to the consumer, has become an increasingly common policy in service systems and marketplaces (e.g., financial, health, governmental). Responsibilization is often presented as synonymous with consumer agency and well-being. We take a transformative service research perspective and utilize the resource integration framework to investigate whether responsibilization is truly associated with well-being. We focus on expert services, where responsibilization concerns are particularly salient, and question whether this expanding policy is in the public interest. In the process, we develop a conceptualization of resource integration under responsibilization that includes three levels of actors (consumer, provider and service system), the identification of structural tensions to resource integration and three categories of resource integration practices (access, appropriation and management) necessary to negotiate responsibilization. Our findings have important implications for health care providers, public policy makers, and other service systems, all of which must pay more active attention to the challenges consumers face in negotiating responsibilization and the resulting well-being outcomes.

Palliative Medicine:Scoping the level and extent of service provision to people with intellectual disability at end of life Poster Presentation

Background: Concerns exist about the end of life care
that people with intellectual disabilities receive. This population
are seldom referred to palliative care services and
inadequate data sets exist about their place of death.
Aim: To scope the extent of service provision to people
with intellectual disabilities at the end of life by specialist
palliative care and intellectual disability services in one
region of the United Kingdom.
Methods: As part of a larger doctoral study a regional survey
took place of a total sample (n=66) of specialist palliative
care and intellectual disability services using a postal
questionnaire containing forty items. The questionnaire
was informed by the literature and consultation with an
expert reference group. Data were analysed using SPSS to
obtain descriptive statistics.
Results: A total response rate from services of 71.2%
(n=47) was generated. Findings showed a range of experience
among services in providing end of life care to people
with intellectual disabilities in the previous five years, but
general hospitals were reported the most common place of
death. A lack of accessible information on end of life care
for people with learning disabilities was apparent. A few
services (n=14) had a policy to support this population to
make decisions about their care or had used adapted Breaking
Bad News guidelines (n=5) to meet their additional
needs. Both services recognised the value of partnership
working in assessing and meeting the holistic needs of
people with intellectual disabilities at end of life.
Conclusions: A range of experience in caring for people
with intellectual disabilities was present across services,
but more emphasis is required on adapting communication
for this population to facilitate them to participate in their
care. These findings could have international significance
given that studies in other countries have highlighted a
need to widen access to palliative care for this group of
people.