Abstract
This chapter examines how Danish and Norwegian authorities have designed political technologies of guidelines and guides for rehabilitating brain injury survivors. Contemporary reforms to health services, including the Danish Structural Reform and Norwegian Coordination Reform, provide the national structures for framing rehabilitation services as composite practices. Engaging critical discourse analysis, we address these changes by adopting the twin perspectives of intertextuality and interdiscursivity. First, this study outlines how documents such as clinical guidelines and service guides are in dialogue with each other and with other political, legal, and professional texts. Second, focusing on the language of coordination on transferring brain-injured patients between hospitals and municipalities, we identify interdiscursivity between three broad areas of procedures and devices in both countries: inter-institutional agreements, interprofessional communication, and individual rehabilitation plans. The main recommendations in the guidelines and service guides regarding these three areas are characterized by a mixture of languages, combining scientific evidence, legal obligations, citizens’ rights, and patients’ wishes.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The DMP is not included in the part on interdiscursivity, in order to simplify the presentation and clarify the argumentation.
- 2.
The NCG applies both the terms ‘rehabilitation plan’ and ‘individual care plan’ (Directorate of Health 2017c, p. 165).
- 3.
References
Bonfils, I. S. (2003). Historiske spor og nutidige udfordringer i handicappolitikken [Historical paths and contemporary challenges in disability policy]. In S. Bengtsson, I. S. Bonfils, & L. Olsen (Eds.), Handicap, kvalitetsudvikling og brugerinddragelse [Disability, quality development and user involvement] (pp. 13–36). København: Anvendt KommunalForskning.
Bonfils, I. S., & Berger, N. P. (2010). Specialiserede tilbud til borgere med handicap—efter reformen [Specialized services for people with disabilities—After the reform]. København: AKF Forlag.
Bowen, A., James, M., & Young, G. (Eds.). (2016). National clinical guideline for stroke. Prepared by the Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. London: Royal College of Physicians.
Byrkjeflot, H. (2011). Healthcare states and medical professions: The challenges from NPM. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to new public management. Farnham: Taylor and Francis.
Directorate of Health. (2017a). Veileder for utvikling av kunnskapsbaserte retningslinjer [Guide to the development of knowledge-based guidelines] (IS-1870). Oslo: The Directorate of Health.
Directorate of Health. (2017b). Veileder om rehabilitering, habilitering, individuell plan og koordinator [Guide to rehabilitation, habilitation, individual care plan and coordinator]. Oslo: The Directorate of Health.
Directorate of Health. (2017c). Nasjonal faglig retningslinje for behandling og rehabilitering ved hjerneslag [National clinical guideline for treatment and rehabilitation after stroke]. Oslo: The Directorate of Health.
Fairclough, N. (2000). Discourse, social theory, and social research: The discourse of welfare reform. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 4(2), 163–195.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
Feiring, M. (2012). Rehabilitation—Between management and knowledge practices: An historical overview of Norwegian welfare reforms. Policy and Society, 31, 119–129.
Feiring, M. (2016). Rehabiliteringsfeltet i Danmark—En begrebshistorie [The field of rehabilitation in Denmark—A history of concept]. Tidsskrift for professionsstudier [Journal for Professional Studies], 24(1), 86–97.
Greenhalgh, T., & Russell, J. (2009). Evidence-based policymaking: A critique. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 52(2), 304–318.
Greenhalgh, T., Snow, R., Ryan, S., Rees, S., & Salisbury, H. (2015). Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 200.
Hammell, K. W. (2006). Perspectives on disability & rehabilitation: Contesting assumptions; challenging practice. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier.
Hammersley, M. (2001, September 13–15). Some questions about evidence-based practice in education. The annual conference of the British Educational Research Association: Evidence-based practice in education. Paper presented at the symposium on University of Leeds.
Ministry of Health and Care Services. (2009). Report no. 47 (2008–2009) to the Storting: The coordination reform—Proper treatment—At the right place and right time. Oslo: The Ministry.
Ministry of Health and Care Services. (2011). ACT 24/06/2011 no. 30: ACT relating to municipal health and care services etc. Health and Care Services Act. Oslo: The Ministry.
Ministry of Internal and Health Affairs. (2008). Sundhedsloven [The health act]. Copenhagen: The Ministry.
Ministry of Internal and Health Affairs, Ministry of Social Affairs, Ministry of Work, & Ministry of Education. (2011). Vejledning om kommunal rehabilitering [Guidance on municipal rehabilitation]. Copenhagen: The Ministries.
National Board of Health. (2011a). Hjerneskaderehabilitering—en medicinsk teknologivurdering [Brain injury rehabilitation—A health technology assessment: Summary]. Copenhagen: The National Board.
National Board of Health. (2011b). Forløbsprogram for rehabilitering af voksne med erhvervet hjerneskade [Disease management programme for rehabilitation in adult acquired brain injury]. Copenhagen: The National Board.
Olsen, L. (2008). Ny kommunal struktur og opgavefordeling—en vej til lige muligheder? [New municipal structure and division of tasks—A path to equal opportunities?]. In S. Bengtsson, I. S. Bonfils, & L. Olsen (Eds.), Handicap og ligebehandling i praksis [Disability and equal opportunities in practice] (pp. 63–83). København: Socialforskningsinstituttet.
Røberg, A.-S., Feiring, M., & Romsland, G. (2016). Norwegian rehabilitation policies and the coordination Reform’s effect: A critical discourse analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 19(1), 56–68.
Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, N. (2006). Governing “advanced” liberal democracies. In A. Sharma & A. Gupta (Eds.), The anthropology of the state: A reader (pp. 144–162). Malden: Blackwell.
Rose, N., & Miller, P. (2010). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 61(S1), 271–303.
WHO. (2017). Rehabilitation in health systems. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Feiring, M., Bonfils, I.S. (2019). The Redesigning of Neurorehabilitation in Denmark and Norway. In: Harsløf, I., Poulsen, I., Larsen, K. (eds) New Dynamics of Disability and Rehabilitation. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7346-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7346-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-7345-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-7346-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)