This article uses a material semiotic perspective to study a highly influential model of healthcare policy and practice today: person-centred care. While person-centred care is often regarded as implying a turn away from technology and standardization towards more humanistic values in care, this article shows that mundane standardization technologies, such as an assessment protocol, are integral components of person-centred care. Building on interviews and observational studies at a Swedish hospital introducing person-centred care, the article analyses the person-centred protocol in situ. The article teases out three core concerns inscribed in the protocol: a concern for the patient experience and perspective, a valuing of evidence-based knowledge and a managerial imperative. The article illustrates how these contrasting values were rendered compatible through the continuous tinkering of healthcare professionals. Finally, it shows how users modified the script of the protocol under analysis and how relations between the three core concerns were adjusted in the process. The article concludes that tinkering and user–technology relations are of significance for the fate of person-centred care at large.
AkrichM (1992) The de-scription of technical objects. In: BijkerWELawJ (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 205–224.
2.
BensingJ (2000) Bridging the gap: The separate worlds of evidence-based medicine and patient-centered medicine. Patient Education and Counseling39(1): 17–25.
3.
BergM (1996) Practices of reading and writing: The constitutive role of the patient record in medical work. Sociology of Health & Illness18(4): 499–524.
4.
BergM (1997) Rationalizing Medical Work: Decision-Support Techniques and Medical Practices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
BergMTimmermansS. (2000) Orders and their others: On the constitution of universalities in medical work. Configurations8(1): 31–61.
6.
BerwickDM (2009) What ‘patient-centered’ should mean: Confessions of an extremist. Health Affairs28(4): 555–565.
7.
CahillMR (2003) The expert. BMJ327(7423): 1089.
8.
CzarniawskaB (2007) Shadowing and Other Techniques for Doing Fieldwork in Modern Societies. Malmö: Liber.
9.
EkmanISwedbergKTaftC, et al. (2011) Person-centered care – Ready for prime time. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing10(4): 248–251.
10.
EppTD (2003) Person-centred dementia care: A vision to be refined. The Canadian Alzheimer Disease Review5(3): 14–19.
11.
GardnerJ (2017) Patient-centred medicine and the broad clinical gaze: Measuring outcomes in paediatric deep brain stimulation. Biosocieties12(2): 239–256.
12.
GardnerJCribbA (2016) The dispositions of things: The non-human dimension of power and ethics in patient-centred medicine. Sociology of Health & Illness38(7): 1043–1057.
13.
HardingEWaitSScruttonJ (2015) The State of Play in Person-centred Care: A Pragmatic Review of How Person-Centred Care is Defined, Applied and Measured. London: Health Foundation.
14.
HyysaloSJensenTEOudshoornN (2016) The New Production of Users: Changing Innovation Collectives and Involvement Strategies. New York: Routledge.
15.
International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations (2007) What is Patient-centered Healthcare? A Review of Definitions and Principles. London: International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations.
16.
LamplandMStarSL (2009) Standards and Their Stories: How Quantifying, Classifying, and Formalizing Practices Shape Everyday Life. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
17.
LangstrupHIversenLBVindS, et al. (2013) The virtual clinical encounter: Emplacing patient 2.0 in emerging care infrastructures. Science & Technology Studies26(2): 44–60.
18.
LapumJFredericksSBeanlandsH, et al. (2012) A cyborg ontology in health care: Traversing into the liminal space between technology and person-centred practice. Nursing Philosophy13(4): 276–288.
19.
LatourBJohnsonJ (1988) Mixing humans with non-humans? Sociology of a few mundane artefacts. Social Problems35(3): 298–310.
20.
LawJ (1999) After ANT: complexity, naming and topology. In: LawJHassardJ (eds) Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1–15.
21.
LawJ (2010) Care and killing: Tensions in veterinary practice. In: MolAMoserIPolsJ (eds) Care in Practice: On Tinkering in Clinics, Homes and Farms. Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 57–69.
22.
LeplegeAGzilFCammelliM, et al. (2007) Person-centredness: Conceptual and historical perspectives. Disability & Rehabilitation29(20–21): 1555–1565.
LiberatiEGGorliMMojaL, et al. (2015) Exploring the practice of patient centered care: The role of ethnography and reflexivity. Social Science & Medicine133: 45–52.
25.
MayCRapleyTMoreiraT, et al. (2006) Technogovernance: Evidence, subjectivity, and the clinical encounter in primary care medicine. Social Science & Medicine62(4): 1022–1030.
26.
MeadNBowerP (2000) Patient-centredness: A conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Social Science & Medicine51(7): 1087–1110.
27.
MortMFinchTMayC (2009) Making and unmaking telepatients identity and governance in new health technologies. Science, Technology & Human Values34(1): 9–33.
OudshoornNPinchT (2003) How Users Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
OudshoornNPinchT (2008) User-technology relationships: Some recent developments. In: HackettEJ (ed.) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 541–567.
31.
OudshoornNSomersA (2006) Constructing the digital patient: Patient organizations and the development of health websites. Information, Community & Society9(5): 657–675.
32.
PfeifferE (1975) A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society23(10): 433–441.
33.
PolsJ (2010) The heart of the matter. About good nursing and telecare. Health Care Analysis18(4): 374–388.
34.
PolsJMoserI (2009) Cold technologies versus warm care? On affective and social relations with and through care technologies. Alter-European Journal of Disability Research/Revue Européenne de Recherche sur le Handicap3(2): 159–178.
35.
PolsJWillemsD (2011) Innovation and evaluation: Taming and unleashing telecare technology. Sociology of Health & Illness33(3): 484–498.
36.
StewartM (2001) Towards a global definition of patient centred care. BMJ322(7284): 444–445.
37.
TaylorK (2009) Paternalism, participation and partnership – The evolution of patient centeredness in the consultation. Patient Education and Counseling74(2): 150–155.
38.
TimmermansSAlmelingR (2009) Objectification, standardization, and commodification in health care: A conceptual readjustment. Social Science & Medicine69(1): 21–27.
39.
TimmermansSBergM (1997) Standardization in action: Achieving local universality through medical protocols. Social Studies of Science27(2): 273–305.
40.
TimmermansSBergM (2003) The Gold Standard: The Challenge of Evidence-Based Medicine and Standardization in Health Care. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
41.
TimmermansSEpsteinS (2010) A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization*. Annual Review of Sociology36: 69–89.
42.
TimmermansSTavoryI (2012) Theory construction in qualitative research from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory30(3): 167–186.
43.
Van LoonE (2015) Reflexive standardization and standardized reflexivity. PhD Thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam.
44.
Zuiderent-JerakT (2015) Situated Intervention: Sociological Experiments in Healthcare. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
