Publicatie
Recipients of home care and the role of informal care in Europe.
Genet, N., Naiditch, M. Recipients of home care and the role of informal care in Europe. Journal of Clinical Nursing: 2010, 19(suppl. 1), p. 100. Abstract. 4th European Nursing Congress 'Older Persons. The Future of Care', 4-5 oktober 2010, Rotterdam.
Introduction: As resources and criteria of eligibility are very different across countries, clients differ in their dependency, frailty and availability of informal care. In some countries recipients of home care more behave like critical consumers knowing their rights than those in other countries. Enceforth, systems may differ in the way clients are informed, can choose and, if necessary, can submit complaints. Another difference concerns the acknowledgement and role of informal carers, which is reflected, for instance, in the possibility for informal carers to be supported (e.g. with respite care). Very little comparative information is available at this point. Methods and Materials: The EC-financed EURHOMAP project has developed an extensive set of indicators to map home care systems, including the position and situation of clients and informal carers. Data were collected in 2009 and early 2010 in 31 European countries. Additional information came from the answers of a panel of key informants to questions related to four ‘vignettes’ (hypothetical case descriptions of home living people in need of care). Results: In most countries the largest share among recipients of home care consists of people above the age of 65 years. The number of recipients of home care varied enormously. In some countries home care is almost limited to the elderly, while in other countries a wider range of services is provided to a wider variety of client and patient groups, including those in need of palliative (end-of-life) care and those in need of post-hospital care. Great differences were found in empowering recipients of home care (such as: offering choice of provider, type of provider; personal budget as an option; and availability of benchmark information to enable recipients to compare providers). Conclusion: Countries strongly differ in the number of home care recipients, their position in the system and the role of informal carers in the allocation and provision of formal care. (aut. ref.)
Introduction: As resources and criteria of eligibility are very different across countries, clients differ in their dependency, frailty and availability of informal care. In some countries recipients of home care more behave like critical consumers knowing their rights than those in other countries. Enceforth, systems may differ in the way clients are informed, can choose and, if necessary, can submit complaints. Another difference concerns the acknowledgement and role of informal carers, which is reflected, for instance, in the possibility for informal carers to be supported (e.g. with respite care). Very little comparative information is available at this point. Methods and Materials: The EC-financed EURHOMAP project has developed an extensive set of indicators to map home care systems, including the position and situation of clients and informal carers. Data were collected in 2009 and early 2010 in 31 European countries. Additional information came from the answers of a panel of key informants to questions related to four ‘vignettes’ (hypothetical case descriptions of home living people in need of care). Results: In most countries the largest share among recipients of home care consists of people above the age of 65 years. The number of recipients of home care varied enormously. In some countries home care is almost limited to the elderly, while in other countries a wider range of services is provided to a wider variety of client and patient groups, including those in need of palliative (end-of-life) care and those in need of post-hospital care. Great differences were found in empowering recipients of home care (such as: offering choice of provider, type of provider; personal budget as an option; and availability of benchmark information to enable recipients to compare providers). Conclusion: Countries strongly differ in the number of home care recipients, their position in the system and the role of informal carers in the allocation and provision of formal care. (aut. ref.)