dc.contributor.author | Haydt, Susan | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-10-01T12:48:30Z | |
dc.date.available | 2014-10-01T12:48:30Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2014-10-01 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10222/54545 | |
dc.description.abstract | Arguably, no reform in health care in the past decade has generated as much attention,
idealism, and optimism as the movement toward interdisciplinary teams. Since the early
2000s, the Canadian federal government has made access to interdisciplinary primary
care teams a policy priority. Ontario has been one of Canada’s most active provinces in
promoting teams in primary care, investing approximately $938 million since 2004 into
three models of interdisciplinary primary care team: Family Health Teams, Community
Health Centres, and Nurse Practitioner-led Clinics. Analysing a variety of documents
(n=383) and key informant interviews (n=15), and drawing on techniques and
assumptions of situational analysis, I critically examine the development of these three
models of interdisciplinary primary care teams in Ontario since 2004. Specifically, I
focus on how teams are talked about and acted on by the provincial government and
opposition parties, and the leadership organizations of four health professions: family
medicine, nurse practitioners, dietetics, and chiropractic. While all the groups in this
study talk about teams in the usual idealized terms as beneficial and necessary, they also
talk about teams in ways that attempt to advance their particular interests. In government,
teams are used to promote political agendas and lay claim to political legacies. Family
medicine uses a variety of discursive strategies about teams in an attempt to maintain
autonomy and a dominant position vis-à-vis other professions. The nurse practitioner and
dietetic professions use discursive strategies about teams to justify attempts to expand
their respective scopes of practice. Chiropractic talks about teams in ways that reinforce
and expand its longstanding project to legitimize the profession. Further, my analysis
reveals that while the three models are accepted equally among the nurse practitioner,
dietetic, and chiropractic professions, both the provincial government and family
medicine favor the largely physician-led Family Health Team model more than the other
models, with possible implications for the future of teams in Ontario and other provinces. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.subject | interdisciplinary teams | en_US |
dc.subject | Ontario | en_US |
dc.subject | discourse analysis | en_US |
dc.subject | situational analysis | en_US |
dc.subject | sociology of professions | en_US |
dc.title | Go Teams! A Situational Analysis of Interdisciplinary Primary Care Teams in Ontario | en_US |
dc.date.defence | 2014-09-05 | |
dc.contributor.department | Department of Sociology & Social Anthropology | en_US |
dc.contributor.degree | Doctor of Philosophy | en_US |
dc.contributor.external-examiner | Ivy Lynn Bourgeault | en_US |
dc.contributor.graduate-coordinator | Elizabeth Fitting | en_US |
dc.contributor.thesis-reader | Richard Apostle | en_US |
dc.contributor.thesis-reader | Brenda Beagan | en_US |
dc.contributor.thesis-supervisor | Emma Whelan | en_US |
dc.contributor.ethics-approval | Received | en_US |
dc.contributor.copyright-release | Not Applicable | en_US |