Demand Driven Care plays a key role in the modernization of the Dutch health care system. This modernization is needed because a) clients needs for care increases quantitatively as well as in diversity, b) the financial means for collective services are inadequate, c) the accessibility of health care will depend on clients own responsibility, and d) shortage of professional care givers is foreseen. In the Netherlands, the need for professional care givers increases with an average of 2% every year. Demand Driven Care is an instrument for liberalization of public activities. The Faculty Chair Demand Driven Care focuses on those activities that will contribute to sufficient care supply. Within the program of the chair, activities are executed under the theme of Integrated Care, Substitution, Patient Centred Care, and Home Care Technology with an emphasis on gerontechnology. The Faculty Chair wants to contribute to a better integration and coherence in care. So that clients live and function independently as long as possible and are able to enhance their self management. In addition, health care professionals should be aware of demand driven processes and should have a demand driven attitude towards clients.
BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in empowering older adults to age in place by deploying various types of technology (ie, eHealth, ambient assisted living technology, smart home technology, and gerontechnology). However, initiatives aimed at implementing these technologies are complicated by the fact that multiple stakeholder groups are involved. Goals and motives of stakeholders may not always be transparent or aligned, yet research on convergent and divergent positions of stakeholders is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into the positions of stakeholder groups involved in the implementation of technology for aging in place by answering the following questions: What kind of technology do stakeholders see as relevant? What do stakeholders aim to achieve by implementing technology? What is needed to achieve successful implementations? METHODS: Mono-disciplinary focus groups were conducted with participants (n=29) representing five groups of stakeholders: older adults (6/29, 21%), care professionals (7/29, 24%), managers within home care or social work organizations (5/29, 17%), technology designers and suppliers (6/29, 21%), and policy makers (5/29, 17%). Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Stakeholders considered 26 different types of technologies to be relevant for enabling independent living. Only 6 out of 26 (23%) types of technology were mentioned by all stakeholder groups. Care professionals mentioned fewer different types of technology than other groups. All stakeholder groups felt that the implementation of technology for aging in place can be considered a success when (1) older adults' needs and wishes are prioritized during development and deployment of the technology, (2) the technology is accepted by older adults, (3) the technology provides benefits to older adults, and (4) favorable prerequisites for the use of technology by older adults exist. While stakeholders seemed to have identical aims, several underlying differences emerged, for example, with regard to who should pay for the technology. Additionally, each stakeholder group mentioned specific steps that need to be taken to achieve successful implementation. Collectively, stakeholders felt that they need to take the leap (ie, change attitudes, change policies, and collaborate with other organizations); bridge the gap (ie, match technology with individuals and stimulate interdisciplinary education); facilitate technology for the masses (ie, work on products and research that support large-scale rollouts and train target groups on how to use technology); and take time to reflect (ie, evaluate use and outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders largely agree on the direction in which they should be heading; however, they have different perspectives with regard to the technologies that can be employed and the work that is needed to implement them. Central to these issues seems to be the tailoring of technology or technologies to the specific needs of each community-dwelling older adult and the work that is needed by stakeholders to support this type of service delivery on a large scale. KEYWORDS: aged; eHealth; focus groups; health services for the elderly; implementation management; independent living; project and people management; qualitative research; technology
LINK
The use of the Zora robot was monitored and evaluated in 14 nursing care organizations (15 locations). The Zora robot, a Não robot with software, is designed as a social robot and used for pleasure and entertainment or to stimulate the physical activities of clients in residential care. In the first year, the aim was to monitor and evaluate how the care robot is used in daily practice. In the second year, the focus was on evaluating whether the use of Zora by care professionals can be extended to more groups and other type of clients. Interviews, questionnaires and observations were used as instruments to reveal the progress in the use of the robot and to reveal the facilitators and barriers. Care professionals experienced several barriers in the use of the robot (e.g., start-up time and software failures). The opportunity they had to discuss their experience during project team meetings was seen as a facilitator in the project. Furthermore, they mentioned that the Zora robot had a positive influence on clients as it created added value for the care professionals in having fun at work.
![Creating age-friendly communities: Housing and technology [book]](https://publinova-harvester-content-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails/files/previews/pdf/20240419013542156479.b97102b7-5bdc-4b75-a293-4281df36ef73-thumbnail-400x300.png)