以質性研究探討台灣推動復能服務之困境與因應策略－從服務提供者觀點分析

A qualitative study on the difficulties and strategies for promoting reablement services in Taiwan from the perspectives of providers

10.6288/TJPH.202108_40(4).110039

蔡宜蓉(Athena Yi-Jung Tsai)；毛慧芬(Hui-Fen Mao)；林佳萱(Chia-Hsuan Lin)；李玉春(Yue-Chune Lee)；張玲慧(Ling-Hui Chang)

復能 ； 長期照護 ； 質性研究 ； 紮根理論 ； 專業人員 ； reablement ； long-term care ； qualitative research ； grounded theory ； professional

台灣公共衛生雜誌

40卷4期（2021 / 08 / 30）

394 - 405

繁體中文

目標：台灣長期照顧十年計畫2.0自2018年，建立長期照顧新模式，推動復能服務，強調功能性訓練，與長照1.0以身體功能改善為目標的居家復健有所差異。本研究探討專業人員於照護模式的改革中，實務遇到的困難與因應策略。方法：採紮根理論，以南部某縣市所舉辦之復能輔導會議及世界咖啡館討論中，針對復能執行現況與經驗之討論紀錄進行質性分析。參與者包含參與討論之復能團隊人員（如：照顧管理專員、個案管理師、職能治療師、物理治療師及護理師等）。結果：共690人參與活動。實務面臨之困難，共歸納出兩個主題：（1）「對復能無共識」：對復能原則的理解有限或誤解，及建立共識的教育訓練不完善；和（2）「無法有效地團隊合作」：參與人員多與溝通管道不足。因應策略主題有（1）「以個案及其目標為中心」，可行辦法包括個別化目標、關係建立、了解潛能；和（2）「建立新的團隊架構與互動機制」：共同訪視、教育訓練與建立新的溝通管道。結論：推動復能時，從價值觀改變、教育宣導，到服務團隊之配套和整合不足，致使照護模式的改革困難。本研究提出可供參考的策略，未來可納入政策制訂者及服務使用端的觀點更深入探討。

Objectives: Compared with Long-term Care 1.0 in Taiwan that emphasizes improving physical function with home-based rehabilitation, Long-term Care 2.0 adopts a home-based Reablement approach that emphasizes functional training. This study explores the practical obstacles when the providers implemented reablement and proposes corresponding strategies. Methods: Grounded Theory was adopted to qualitatively analyze the records of World Café meetings and advisory meetings collected from the Reablement Improvement Project in a southern city. Participants were the members of reablement teams who participated in the meetings (such as care managers, case managers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, and nurses). Results: 690 people participated. The practical difficulties of implementation included: (1) a limited understanding or misinterpretation of reablement and inadequate staff training to form a consensus on what reablement constitutes, and (2) difficulty in building an inter-disciplinary reablement network. The strategies to overcome these obstacles include (1) a client-centered and goal-centered approach, such as rapport building, individual goal-setting, and potential assessment and (2) exploration of a workable teamwork and communication mechanism, such as joint visits, joint staff training, and new communication platforms. Conclusions: Differing care values about aging and family and inadequate instructions and dissemination of the policy information contributed to the difficulties of implementing reablement. We proposed corresponding strategies for future research and policy making. Perspectives from policy makers and service users can be further explored.

1. 吳淑瓊, SC,戴玉慈, YT,莊坤洋, KY(2004)。建構長期照護體系先導計畫─理念與實踐。台灣衛誌，23，249-258。
   連結：
2. Beresford, B,Mayhew, E,Duarte, A(2019).Outcomes of reablement and their measurement: findings from an evaluation of English reablement services.Health Soc Care Community,27,1438-1450.
3. Biondo, PD,King, S,Minhas, B,Fassbender, K,Simon, JE(2019).How to increase public participation in advance care planning: findings from a World Café to elicit community group perspective.BMC Public Health,19,679.
4. Birkeland, A,Tuntland, H,Førland, O,Jakobsen, FF,Langeland, E(2017).Interdisciplinary collaboration in reablement – a qualitative study.J Multidiscip Healthc,10,195-203.
5. Bødker, MN,Langstrup, H,Christensen, U(2019).What constitutes ‘good care’ and ‘good carers’? The normative implications of introducing reablement in Danish home care.Health Soc Care Community,27,e871-e878.
6. Brown, J,Isaacs, D,World Cafe Community(2005).The World Café: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations that Matter.San Francisco, CA:Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
7. Chen, YH,Rodger, S,Polatajko, H(2002).Experiences with the COPM and client-centred practice in adult neurorehabilitation in Taiwan.Occup Ther Int,9,167-184.
8. de Chesnay, M(2014).Nursing Research Using Ethnography: Qualitative Designs and Methods in Nursing.New York, NY:Springer Publishing Company.
9. Denmark Ministry of Health. Healthcare in Denmaerk: an overview. Available at: https://sum.dk/English. Accessed December 10, 2020.
10. Denzin, N(1989).Intepretive Biography.Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE.
11. Denzin, NK,Lincoln, YS(2017).The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
12. Donabedian, A(2005).Evaluating the quality of medical care.Milbank Q,83,691-729.
13. Førland O. Hverdagsrehabilitering sammendrag på engelsk (Everyday rehabilitation summary in English). Available at: https://www.helsebiblioteket.no/omsorgsbiblioteket/hverdagsrehabilitering/sammendrag-pa-engelsk. Accessed August 2, 2021.
14. Hjelle, KM,Skutle, O,Førland, O,Alvsvåg, H(2016).The reablement team’s voice: a qualitative study of how an integrated multidisciplinary team experiences participation in reablement.J Multidiscip Healthc,9,575-585.
15. Kjerstad, E.,Tuntland, HK(2016).Reablement in communitydwelling older adults: a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial.Health Econ Rev,6,15.
16. Laidlaw, K,Wang, D,Coelho, C,Power, M(2010).Attitudes to ageing and expectations for filial piety across Chinese and British cultures: a pilot exploratory evaluation.Aging Ment Health,14,283-292.
17. Lewin, GF,Alfonso, HS,Alan, JJ(2013).Evidence for the long term cost effectiveness of home care reablement programs.Clin Interv Aging,8,1273-1281.
18. MacFarlane, A,Galvin, R,O’Sullivan, M,McInerney, C(2017).Participatory methods for research prioritization in primary care: an analysis of the World Café approach in Ireland and the USA.Fam Pract,34,278-284.
19. McDonnell, J,Laughlin, B(1989).A comparison of backward and concurrent chaining strategies in teaching community skills.Educ Train Ment Retard,24,230-238.
20. Patton, MQ(2003).Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
21. Randström, KB,Wengler, Y,Asplund, K,Svedlund, M(2014).Working with ‘hands-off’support: a qualitative study of multidisciplinary teams’ experiences of home rehabilitation for older people.Int J Older People Nurs,9,25-33.
22. Strauss, A,Corbin, J(1998).Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
23. Tessier, A,Beaulieu, MD,Mcginn, CA,Latulippe, Renée(2016).Effectiveness of reablement: a systematic review.Healthc Policy,11,49-59.
24. The World Café Community Foundation. About. Available at: http://www.theworldcafe.com. Accessed December 23, 2019.
25. Tuntland, H,Aaslund, MK,Espehaug, B,Forland, O,Kjeken, I(2015).Reablement in community-dwelling older adults: a randomised controlled trial.BMC Geriatr,15,145.
26. Tuntland, H,Aaslund, MK,Espehaug, B,Førland, O,Kjeken, I(2015).Reablement in community-dwelling older adults: a randomised controlled trial.BMC Geriatr,15,145.
27. WHO. Ageing: healthy ageing and functional ability. Available at: https://www.who.int/westernpacific/news/q-a-detail/ageing-healthy-ageing-andfunctional-ability. Accessed March 27, 2021.
28. WHO(2015).World Report on Ageing and Health.Geneva:WHO.
29. Winkel, A,Langberg, H,Wæhrens, EE(2015).Reablement in a community setting.Disabil Rehabil,37,1347-1352.
30. 中華民國老人福利推動聯盟：個管人員培訓。http://www.oldpeople.org.tw/ugC_News_Detail.asp?hidNewsID=1849。引用2019/12/27。 Federation for the Welfare of the Eider. Case manager training. Available at: http://www.oldpeople.org.tw/ugC_News_Detail.asp?hidNewsID=1849. Accessed December 27, 2019. [In Chinese]
31. 中華民國家庭照顧者關懷總會：長照四包錢，你家如何聰明用。http://www.familycares.com.tw/intro.php。引用2020/12/23。 Taiwan Association of Family Caregivers. Four packs of money for long-term care: use it smartly for your family. Available at: http://www.familycares.com.tw/intro.php. Accessed December 23, 2020. [In Chinese]
32. 王守玉, SY(2012)。簡介紮根理論研究法。護理雜誌，59，91-95。
33. 陳淑芬, SF,鄧素文, SW(2010)。台灣長期照護服務體系之發展。護理雜誌，57，5-10。
34. 陳凱莉, KL,陳清惠, CH(2014)。台灣老人醫療自主權的省思。護理雜誌，61，26-32。
35. 黃蘭媖, LY,鄭國泰, KT(2006)。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告,台北=Taipei:行政院=Executive Yuan, R.O.C. (Taiwan)。
36. 蔡宜蓉, IJ,陳美香, MH,毛慧芬, HF,張玲慧, LH(2015)。衛生福利部104年度委託案衛生福利部104年度委託案,台北=Taipei:衛生福利部=Ministry of Health and Welfare, R.O.C. (Taiwan)。
37. 衛生福利部：(八)長期照顧十年計畫2.0─長期照顧服務特約服務資源數。https://1966.gov.tw/LTC/cp3948-41555-201.html。引用2021/08/02。 Ministry of Health and Welfare, R.O.C. (Taiwan). (VIII) The Ten-Year Long Term Care Plan 2.0 -- number of special service resources for long-term care services. Available at: https://1966.gov.tw/LTC/cp-3948-41555-201.htm. Accessed August 2, 2021. [In Chinese]
38. 衛生福利部：長照復能指引。https://1966.gov.tw/LTC/cp-4444-47438-201.html。引用2020/01/23。 Ministry of Health and Welfare, R.O.C. (Taiwan). Guidelines for reablement in long-term care. Available at: https://1966.gov.tw/LTC/cp-4444-47438-201.html. Accessed January 23, 2020. [In Chinese]
39. 衛生福利部：長照專業服務手冊。https://www.mohw. gov.tw/dl-49634- 4dcee073-bc31-45e0-88f8-f31876d506b1.html。引用2021/06/24。 Ministry of Health and Welfare, R.O.C. (Taiwan). Professional, long-term care service manuals. Available at: https://www.mohw. gov.tw/dl-49634-4dcee073-bc31-45e0-88f8-f31876d506b1.html. Accessed June 24, 2021. [In Chinese]
40. 衛生福利部：中華民國109年版衛生福利年報。台北：衛生福利部，2020；76。 Ministry of Health and Welfare, R.O.C. (Taiwan). 2020 Taiwan Health and Welfare Report. Taipei: Ministry of Health and Welfare, R.O.C. (Taiwan), 2020; 76.
41. 衛生福利部：我想申請長照。https://1966.gov.tw/LTC/cp-4495-48857-201.html。引用2020/12/23。 Ministry of Health and Welfare, R.O.C. (Taiwan). I want to apply for long-term care！ Available at: https://1966.gov.tw/LTC/cp-4495-48857-201.html. Accessed December 23, 2020. [In Chinese]

1. 曾翊庭,張玲慧,徐樂天(2022)。復能專業服務模式發展：臺灣經驗之省思。長期照護雜誌，25(2)，105-114。
2. 劉立凡,黃亭穎,郭佳吟,張玲慧,林佩欣(2022)。長照2.0核定專業服務與退出居家復能服務使用者特性之探討。台灣公共衛生雜誌，41(2)，170-188。
3. (2024)。推動個別化支持計畫──論住宿式長期照顧機構之跨專業間整合服務。社區發展季刊，185，215-227。