• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.67 no.3
• /
• pp.203-225
• /
• 2015

Social care service has grown much with the introduction of Long-Term Care Insurance, but it remains difficult to answer in the affirmative to the question: are we providing sufficiently good care? This study has its purpose in figuring out what conditions are necessary to realize good care in our society. The study has used focus group interview (FGI) as a way to acquire realistic knowledge on the conditions that create good care and its deterring factors. The focus group interview, which targeted long-term care workers and facility heads, was conducted three times from January through March 2014, with each session taking about 3 hours. The analysis showed that the components of good care were mutual understanding and recognition through active interaction, making a good relationship based on mutual trust and respect, professionalism of care worker with flexible judgment that provides customized services, professionalism of center manager with appropriate intermediation, and the tripartite partnership among family, elderly, and care worker. Meanwhile, the deterring factors of good care were identified as devaluation of care labor, ambiguous job description and abuse, unprofessionalism of care worker and manager, inappropriate interference and indifference of family, and the structural constraints on long-term care environment.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.22 no.10
• /
• pp.330-348
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study is to derive useful theoretical and practical implications for the prevention and overcoming of burnout of visiting caregivers by conducting a qualitative case study researb on the burnout experience of visiting caregivers. To this end, we analyzed the context in which visiting caregivers experienced relationships with the elderly 65 years of age or older and their family carers for long-term care benefit service, and the dispatched home elderly welfare center. As a result, a total of 12 high-level categories were derived, Which were 'I fell into a suspicious person', 'Fallen self-esteem', 'Visiting caregiver activity I don't want to do anymore', 'Oppressed being', 'In a violent situation Exposure', 'Devaluated care worker', 'Work that is difficult to be recognized as a professional occupation', 'Labor where the boundaries of work are not clear', 'Disappointment with family guardians', 'Social awareness and effort that is not easy to improve', 'Poor treatment of dispatching agencies' and 'Distrust of dispatching agencies'.

• 한국노년학
• /
• v.38 no.4
• /
• pp.1057-1081
• /
• 2018

This study analyzed the case of elderly care cluster in Gwangjin-gu to explore the possibilities of social economy as a provider of community-based social services. Community-based means the approach by which community organizations build a voluntary and collaborative network to enhance collective problem-solving abilities. Therefore, it is very likely that the social economy that emphasizes people, labor, community, and democratic principles can contribute to community-based social services. This study analyzed social economic network by using four characteristics of social economy suggested by OECD community economy and employment program as an analysis framework. The results of this study are as follows: First, it is found that social economy would hardly supply community-based social services through network cooperation because of a large variation in community identity, investment to new product, and labor protection. Second, community users are not the consumers of the social economy and the products of the social economy stay in market products only for the organizations in social economy. In order to create good services that meet the needs of residents, community development approaches are required at the same time. The importance of community space where local residents and social economy meet is derived. Third, public support such as purchasing support has weakened the ecosystem of social economy by making the distinction between public economy and social economy more obscure. On the other hand, public investment in community infrastructure is an indirect aid to social economy to communicate with residents and to promote good supply and consumption. In the end, community-based social services need a platform where the social economy and the people meet. This type of public investment can create the ecosystem of the social economy.