Care Living Labs Flanders
A content analysis of the platforms and projects at the start of the program
Kennisplatform Innovatie Ouderenzorg (KIO)*
januari 2015
* KIO is an interuniversity consortium studying innovations in elderly care in Flanders. The consortium consists of Mark Leys & Lien Pots (OPIH-VUB), Ellen Gorus & Charlotte Brys (GERO-VUB), Ezra Dessers, Geert Van HootegemHakim Benichou (CESO-KU LEUVEN), Marc Jegers (iCher), Patricia De Vriendt & JuulLemey (Arteveldehogeschool), Bart Jansen (ETRO-VUB), Bart Mistiaen & Bart Grimonprez (HOWEST). The consortium is financed by the Flemish agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT).
Executive summary
Introduction
In 2012 the Flemish government launched a call for care livings labs with a focus on innovation in care for older adults. The government agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT) funded this project. A ‘living lab’ is a structured testing environment where organizations can test their innovative technologies, products, services and concepts together with a representative group of individuals, who will test the innovation. Six Care living labs, also called platforms, (CLL) were selected. Together they run 23 projects.
Method
This report provides a comparison of the different platforms and projects through a plan evaluation. First a description and characterization of a CLL, which was described by the Flemish Government, is given. In the second part the platform and project proposals together with the semi-structured interviews with platform en project coordinators are discussed. A critical appraisal of their innovation goals, targeted population (older adults and informal caregivers), partnerships, vision on labour organization and scope has been performed.
Results
The government program is in line withthe policy objectives of ‘socialization of care'. A few guidelines are given in the program. The main goal of a living lab is to adjust or accelerate the innovation or to capture future needs which can emerge innovation. Products and services are tested in a real environment. The program is relatively open which allows the platforms an projects to make an own interpretation of the program goals. The program describes a clear difference between a platform and a project. However, few information is given on how the relationship between both has to be given shape. A few guiding principles are described about the ideal infrastructure of a platform. Nevertheless, a broad interpretation is possible.
All CLL used the three main goals of the program about older adults in their proposal: enabling them to live independently at home as long as possible, improving their home environment and to increase active participation in order to decrease social isolation. More differences in accentuation can be seen on project level. Projects with a social focus which enroll on neighborhood and district level also strive explicitly for the three main goals. Seven projects focus on every program goal. Surprisingly, two projects have not adopted any of the program goals about older adults. Eighteen projects explicitly mentioned the goal‘living longer and independently at home’. Three projects stated that goal implicitly. Nineteen projects mentioned the main goal to improve the home situation explicitly, one project implicitly. Six projects explicitly stated a plan to encourage social participation in order to decrease loneliness, two projects implicitly.
All CLL described the importance of informal care. Four CLL are developing innovations which support informal caregivers directly by increasing their caring capability and decreasing their burden. Not all platforms and projects are going to include informal caregivers in their testing panel. Every project could have an indirect effect on informal caregivers. However, only few mentioned this explicitly. The planned innovations could have an effect on biopyschosocial and financial burden, on the caring time, social support and cooperation with professional caregivers. Innovations which can decrease social burden or increase physical and mental caring capability is lacking.
None of the platforms discussed labour organization in their plans. This is rather strange because the organization of work in a home situation can have implications on the way caregivers cooperate. Innovation can also play a role in the matter of integral and integrated care. On project level some aspects about work are explicitly mentioned in three projects.
All platforms explicitly planned to use information and communication technology for the exchange of data between several actors and/or to offer services towards older adults. Five platforms will use a complete commercial ICT platform (three of them are going to use Cubigo), one platform will use a partly public and partly private platform. Four projects planned to use innovative technology in private homes of older adults in order to increase their independency.
A clear difference can be seen in the composition of the platforms (network of partners) and in the way they manage their partnerships. All platforms have partners within several sectors. This with the open innovation idea, which was described in the program call, kept in mind. However, some projects do not have an open multisectoral cooperation. Few attention was paid to the sustainability of the platforms.
In the government program is described that every platform has to be regionally or locally anchored. In five Flemish provinces a platform was established. One of the platforms is located in Brussels Capital Region. Two platforms focus on neighborhoods or districts. These platforms work more with neighborhood-based or local organizations. The other ones aim to reach a broader region and refer less to ‘local’ partners.