Abstract
Short introduction/background summary: Citizens’ complex needs are characterized by support questions in several domains of daily life, such as societal participation, psychosocial health, giving meaning to life and physical condition. These life domains are interrelated. Connecting person centred care consists of several interacting components addressing the needs in the different domains. This multiple component approach is in contrast to the current services from single organizations which are mainly focussed on providing single component care. Dynamic networks including both formal and multiple informal caregivers seem to be more appropriate to provide for person centred care.
Who is it for? Care providers, informal carers, managers, administrators, supervisors and financers.
Who we involved and engaged with? In over fifty research projects in practice involving healthcare and social care organisations and citizens in neighbourhoods in The Netherlands, we work on answering questions for creating, organising, financing and delivering personalised care to citizens in dynamic networks including both formal and multiple informal caregivers.
What did we do? With the efforts of master students in our practice projects we actively involve patients, communities and formal caregivers, managers, administrators, supervisors and financers.
- At the micro-level, with all stakeholders we co-created and collaborated with clients, informal carers and various professionals in dynamic networking.
- At the meso-level, with all stakeholders we organized and managed dynamic networks.
- At the macro-level, we still search how accountability and financing of dynamic network care can be structured.
The results we got:
- At the micro-level, we found that especially informal care givers can be motivated to cooperate when they are challenged about their talents.
- At meso-level, we found that participants often take generic roles in the dynamic networks, such as the ‘organizer’, the ‘direct supporter’ and the ‘indirect supporter’.
- At the macro-level we found that the network is held responsible as a whole by accountability bodies (government, insurers, etc.) for accountability for the care provided. However, the individual members (certainly the informal care providers) cannot be held responsible for the whole. Existing approaches of accountability appear to be unsustainable and should be shift to a more societal approach.
The learning for the international audience: First insights for setting up dynamic and fluid organizational forms for providing person centred care on micro-level, meso-level and macro-level.
What are the next steps? We will work on:
- identifying more requirements for organising dynamic care networks;
- identifying accountability features for dynamic network care;
- on gaining insight in how policy can be made at local, regional, national and European level for facilitating dynamic micro network care.