No summary available
This scoping review focuses on the views of informal caregivers regarding the division of care responsibilities between citizens, governments and professionals and the question of to what extent professionals take these views into account during collaboration with them. In Europe, the normative discourse on informal care has changed. Retreating governments and decreasing residential care increase the need to enhance the collaborationbetween informal caregivers and professionals. Professionals are assumedto adequately address the needs and wishes of informal caregivers, but little is known about informal caregivers’ views on the division of care responsibilities. We performed a scoping review and searched for relevant studies published between 2000 and September 1, 2016 in seven databases. Thirteen papers were included, all published in Western countries. Most included papers described research with a qualitative research design. Based on the opinion of informal caregivers, we conclude that professionals do not seem to explicitly take into account the views of informal caregivers about the division of responsibilities during their collaboration with them. Roles of the informal caregivers and professionals are not always discussed and the division of responsibilities sometimes seems unclear. Acknowledging the role and expertise of informalcaregivers seems to facilitate good collaboration, as well as attitudes such as professionals being open and honest, proactive and compassionate. Inflexible structures and services hinder good collaboration. Asking informal caregivers what their opinion is about the division of responsibilities could improve clarity about the care that is given by both informal caregivers and professionals and could improve their collaboration. Educational programs in social work, health and allied health professions should put more emphasis on this specific characteristic of collaboration.
This speech discusses how the professorship intends to support practitioners in the nursing domain and contribute to shaping nursing leadership and each person's professional individuality. The title of the speech, “Notes on Nursing 2.0,” is particularly intended to emphasize the need for these changes in the nursing domain. Not by assuming that nothing has changed in care and nursing since Nightingale's time. There has. Being educated in the professional domain is not only a given but a requirement. The knowledge domain of care and nursing has developed far and wide in nursing diagnostics and standards. Nursing science research, which Nightingale once started as the first female statistician in the British Kingdom, has firmly established itself in education and practice. Wanting to be of significance to others out of compassion is still the professional motivation, but there is no longer a subservient servitude (Cingel van der, 2012). At the same time, wholehearted leadership is not yet taken for granted in daily practice and optimal professional practice falters due to an equality principle of differently educated caregivers and nurses that has been held for too long. That is the need for change to which this 2.0 version “Notes on Nursing” and the lectorate want to contribute in the coming years. Chapter 1, through the metaphors in the story “The Cat Who Looked at the King,” describes the vision of emancipatory action research and the change principles that the lectorate will deploy. Chapter 2 contains the reason, mission and lines of research that are interrelated within the lectorate. Chapters 3 and 4 address the themes of identity and leadership, discussing their interrelationship with professional practice and developing a research culture. In addition, specific aspects that influence practice and work culture today are addressed, and how the lectorate contributes specifically to the development of nursing leadership and the formation of professional identity in the relevant domain is described. Chapter 5 contains a summary of the principles on which the research program is based, as well as information on current and future projects. Chapter 6 provides background information on the lector and the members of the knowledge circle.
