Risk Reduction Technologies in General Practice and Social Work

Devin Rexvid,Lars Evertsson,Björn Blom,Annika Forssén

doi:10.7577/pp.331

Abstract

General practitioners (GPs) and social workers (SWs) are professions whose professional autonomy and discretion have changed in the so-called risk and audit society. The aim of this article is to compare GPs’ and SWs’ responses to Evidence-Based and Organizational Risk Reduction Technologies (ERRT and ORRT). It is based on a content analysis of 54 peer-reviewed empirical articles. The results show that both professions held ambivalent positions towards ERRT. The response towards ORRT differed in that GPs were sceptical whilst SWs took a more pragmatic view. Furthermore the results suggest that SWs might experience professional benefits by adopting an adherent approach to the increased dissemination of risk reduction technologies (RRT). GPs, however, did not seem to experience such benefits. Keywords: Profession, risk, social worker, general practitioner, risk reduction technologies, evidence-based practice/medicine  

Highlights

General practitioners (GPs) and social workers (SWs) are professions whose professional autonomy and discretion have changed in the so-called risk and audit society
General practitioners (GPs) and social workers (SWs) are two professions encountering an increasing pressure to work according to standardized manuals, procedures, guidelines and evidence-based practices in the rise of the «risk and audit» society (Beck, 2007, 2010; Møldrup & Morgall, 2001; Power, 2010; Webb; 2006)
This section begins with a presentation of the GPs’ response to risk reduction technologies (RRT), followed by a presentation of the SWs’ response

Summary

Introduction

General practitioners (GPs) and social workers (SWs) are professions whose professional autonomy and discretion have changed in the so-called risk and audit society. General practitioners (GPs) and social workers (SWs) are two professions encountering an increasing pressure to work according to standardized manuals, procedures, guidelines and evidence-based practices in the rise of the «risk and audit» society (Beck, 2007, 2010; Møldrup & Morgall, 2001; Power, 2010; Webb; 2006). The introduction of risk reduction technologies have been an influential strategy used to handle reduced trust in professions’ expertise (Giddens, 1994) Professions, such as SWs and GPs, are expected to adopt different forms of risk reduction technologies (RRT), such as evidence-based practice, in order to reduce uncertainty, complexity and standardize the outcome of professional practice (Evetts, 2010; Svensson, 2011b). The introduction of RRT has affected the boundaries of professional jurisdiction (Abbott, 1988) and imposed limitations on professional discretion (Bellamy et al, 2006; Berger, 2010; Fook & Gardner, 2007; Hasselbladh et al, 2008; Howitt & Armstrong, 1999; Lewis & Tully, 2009; Manuel, Mullen, Fang, Bellamy & Bledsoe, 2009; Molander, 2011; Morago, 2010; Pope, Rollins, Chaumba & Risler, 2011; Power; 2010; Sekimoto et al, 2006; Veldhuis, Wigersma & Okkes, 1998; Webb, 2006)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion