This article analyses the use of a locally developed assessment tool designed to generate aggregated data to evaluate the work of a psychiatric and addiction clinic. The use of tools, methods and interventions in the Swedish social services is usually based on recommendations in national guidelines established by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW). Thus, a locally produced and systematically used assessment tool provides an interesting deviant case for discussing knowledge production and use from the perspective of evidence‐based practice. The assessment tool was characterised by the specific psychiatric and addiction clinic context, where local needs and prerequisites were prioritised over the recommendations found in NBHW guidelines. The empirics comprise interviews with 12 professionals who used the tool, where experience of using the tool was analysed using a thematic analysis. The findings can be summarised in three main conclusions. First, tinkering of tools and methods is not necessarily associated with limited practice applicability or relevance. Second, professionals are more likely to appreciate a tool if that tool is designed with a treatment and conversation rationality in mind. Third, rather than perceived as more valid than other types of knowledge, NBHW‐recommended tools are associated with a certain shape or style – but a shape or style that is permeated by legitimacy.

中文翻译：

---

实践创新：对瑞典精神病和成瘾诊所使用的本地开发的评估工具的异常案例分析

本文分析了当地开发的评估工具的使用情况，该工具旨在生成汇总数据来评估精神病学和成瘾诊所的工作。瑞典社会服务中工具、方法和干预措施的使用通常基于国家卫生和福利委员会 (NBHW) 制定的国家指南中的建议。因此，本地生产并系统使用的评估工具为从循证实践的角度讨论知识生产和使用提供了一个有趣的异常案例。该评估工具的特点是特定的精神病学和成瘾诊所背景，其中当地需求和先决条件优先于 NBHW 指南中的建议。这些经验包括对 12 位使用该工具的专业人士的采访，其中使用该工具的经验通过主题分析进行了分析。研究结果可概括为三个主要结论。首先，工具和方法的修补并不一定与有限的实践适用性或相关性相关。其次，如果该工具的设计考虑到了处理和对话的合理性，那么专业人士更有可能欣赏该工具。第三，NBHW 推荐的工具并没有被认为比其他类型的知识更有效，而是与某种形式或风格相关联，但这种形式或风格充满了合法性。