Brukarrevision

The Gothenburg model

Henrik Ehrlington, Christina Norman, Anna Strand

WHY DID WE DO A USER FOCUSED EVALUATION IN GOTHENBURG?

•To find out methods

•To find out new ways of quality assessment

•To empower the users

•To get an inside picture of the organisations

SPECIFIC AIM OF THE “GOTHENBURG MODEL”

•To find a model that reaches opinions of users

•To find a time limited model for evaluations

•To find a method for people who cannot read or write

•To evaluate organisations, not persons

•Compare different service centres

•Start interaction and dialogue

IN WHAT WAY DID IT START?

These organisations jointly sought funding from the Gothenburg municipal executive committee:

• HSO • FUB • GDF • SRF • DHR

THE PROJECT DECIDED:

• To review six community run units which address people with learning difficulties and mental ill health

• To find out the perceptions of the users• That the users in the team should make the

interviews• The evaluation to be done by a team• To try out “The Aquarium model”

THE GOTHENBURG MODEL

Teams are formed

Education

Interviews about influence,

participation and

relationships

Team reports to

staff, directors and users

?

THE PROCESS OF THE TEAMS

Report

“The Aquarium

model”

1/2 day1/2 day3 1/2 days 1 day 1/2 day

Disc-ussion

and dialoguein the team

Inter-views of users and staff

Plann-ing

phase

Edu- cational

part

REPORT GIVEN – THE AQUARIUM MODEL

In the outer ring sits staff, directors and users.

THE REPORT IS GIVEN AS COLOURS

THE USER LEAD EVALUATION TEAM MADE A DIFFERENCE FOR

• The users in the team• The users in the organisation • The staff in the organisation• The organisation itself?• The social work in general in

Gothenburg municipality?

CONCLUSIONS OF THE EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT – facilitating factors

• Right type of resources (education, pedagogically skilled group leader, salaries)

• Supportive organisational culture • Good information strategy • Autonomous user groups • Engaged staff and project members present• Training of users • Payment to and/ or employment of users • Discussing and recognizing power differences

QUESTIONS TO BE SOLVED

• Should the teams be mixed or not?

• Can the statements in the reports be compared over time?

• Can organisations be compared to each other?

• Should the written report be made public or not?

• How can the model function side by side with other quality

assessment methods?

• Who is the “owner” of the results?

• Who is interested in the results and why?

• A strategy to handle different interest groups

• WHAT DOES INFLUENCE MEAN… influence

over what?

• WHAT DOES PARTICIPATION MEAN…to

participate in what way?

• HOW DO WE INFLUENCE EACH OTHER?

• HOW CAN WE INITIATE CHANGE?

• CAN WE LISTEN TO THE SILENCE THAT IS IN

BETWEEN THE TALKING?

• WHAT IS A DIALOGUE? WHAT DOES IT MEAN

TO THINK TOGETHER?