Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T21:05:47.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Architectural space as a moulding factor of care practices and resident privacy in assisted living

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2011

CATHARINA NORD
CATHARINA NORD*
Affiliation:
National Institute for the Study of Ageing and Later Life (NISAL), Linköping University, Sweden.
*
Address for correspondence: Catharina Nord, Linköping University, ISV NISAL 601 74 Norrköping, Sweden. E-mail: catno@isv.liu.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents an analysis of privacy, care practices and architectural space in assisted living in Sweden. The presented research is a qualitative case study. Observations and personal interviews with staff as well as residents were the major data collection methods. The analysis revealed the evasiveness of a private–public dichotomy; that is, how privacy appears in public spaces and how private spaces became public under certain conditions. During the course of a day, the residents' privacy was qualified and structured by caring activities that took place in various spaces and that associated with variable distance or closeness to the staff. The study shows that individualised care practices improved privacy for the resident, and that although architectural features constrained the staff, they used a number of spatial strategies to promote the residents' privacy, for instance, in the dining room at meal times or when residents were subject to intimate care in their private rooms. Access and control are dimensions of privacy that are relevant to assisted living. The residents had more control of access to their private rooms than control of their personal space in public areas. Individualised care strengthened the residents' agency. Staff supported the residents to lead a private life in the assisted-living facility.

Keywords

architectureassisted livingprivacycare
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , August 2011 , pp. 934 - 952
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersson, J. 2005. Rum för Äldre [Spaces for Older People]. School of Architecture and Built Environment, Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan [Royal Institute of Technology], Stockholm.Google Scholar
Bland, R. 1999. Independence, privacy and risk: two contrasting approaches to residential care for older people. Ageing & Society, 19, 5, 539–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brawley, E. C. 2006. Design Innovations for Aging and Alzheimer's: Creating Caring Environments. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Burgess, R. G. 1982. Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual. Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Cutchin, M. P. 2004. A Deweyan case for the study of uncertainty in health geography. Health and Place, 10, 3, 203–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahle, R. 2005. Dirty work in a Norwegian health context (the case of Norway). In Dahl, H. M. and Eriksen, T. R. (eds), Dilemmas of Care in the Nordic Welfare State: Continuity and Change. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK, 80–97.Google Scholar
Dovey, K. 2008. Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. Second edition, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Gal, S. 2002. A semiotics of the public/private distinction. Differences, 15, 1, 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gubrium, J. F. 1997. Living and Dying and Murray Manor. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.Google Scholar
Higgins, J. 1989. Homes and institutions. In Allan, G. and Crow, G. (eds), Home and Family. Creating the Domestic Sphere. Palgrave, Basingstoke, UK.Google Scholar
Inness, J. C. 1992. Privacy, Intimacy and Isolation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
James, N. 1992. Care=organization + physical labor + emotional labor. Sociology of Health and Illness, 14, 4, 488–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvale, S. 1996. Inter Views. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
Mason, J. 1989. Reconstructing the public and the private: the home and marriage in later life. In Allan, G. and Crow, G. (eds), Home and Family: Creating the Domestic Sphere. Palgrave, Basingstoke, UK, 102–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McColgan, G. 2005. A place to sit: resistance strategies used to create privacy and home by people with dementia. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34, 4, 410–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Health and Social Affairs 2001. Social Services Act 2001. Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Stockholm.Google Scholar
National Board of Housing, Building and Planning 2008. Building Regulations. Statute Book 2008: 6, BBR 15, National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, Karlskrona, Sweden.Google Scholar
Nord, C. 2007. Spaces of Hope: Architectural Space for HIV Services in Uganda. School of Architecture and Built Environment, Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan [Royal Institute of Technology], Stockholm.Google Scholar
Nord, C. 2011. Individual care and personal space in assisted living in Sweden. Health and Place, 17, 1. In press. Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.02.008Google ScholarPubMed
Park, N. S., Zimmerman, S., Sloane, P. D., Gruber-Baldini, A. L. and Eckert, J. K. 2006. An empirical typology of residential care/assisted living based on a four-state study. The Gerontologist, 46, 2, 238–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patton, M. Q. 1987. How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Sage, Newbury Park, California.Google Scholar
Paulsson, J. 2002. Det Nya Äldreboendet [The New Old People's Homes]. Svensk Byggtjänst, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Regnier, V. 2002. Design for Assisted Living: Guidelines for Housing the Physically and Mentally Frail. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Rössler, B. 2004. Privacies: an overview. In Rössler, B. (ed.), Privacies: Philosophical Evaluations. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1–18.Google Scholar
Shepley, M. M. 2005. The application of Leon Pastalan's theories on environments for seniors to research on facilities for children. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 19, 2, 119–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. M. 2004. Personal privacy: cultural concerns. In Smelser, N. J. and Baltes, P. B. (eds), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Volume 11, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 250–4.Google Scholar
Solove, D. J. 2002. Conceptualising privacy. California Law Review, 90, 4, 1088–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, R. 1969. Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Swedish Government 2008. Bo Bra Hela Livet [Live Well Throughout Your Life]. Official Report 2008: 113, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Stake, R. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
Torrington, J. 1996. Care Homes for Older People: A Briefing and Design Guide. Spon, London.Google Scholar
Twigg, J. 2000. Bathing: The Body and Community Care. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Twigg, J. 2006. The Body in Health and Social Care. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westlund, P. 2008. Om orsaker och motiv för att flytta till särskilt boende [Reasons for moving to assisted living]. In Swedish Government 2008, Bo Bra Hela Livet [Live Well Throughout Your Life]. Del B: Bilagor [Part B: Annexes], Official Report 2008: 113, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Stockholm, 69–112.Google Scholar
Willcocks, D., Peace, S. and Kellaher, L. 1987. Private Lives in Public Places. Tavistock, London.Google Scholar
Yin, R. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Newbury Park, California.Google Scholar
Young, I. M. 2004. A room of one's own: old age, extended care and privacy. In Rössler, B. (ed.), Privacies: Philosophical Evaluations. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 168–86.Google Scholar