Le financement des soins infirmiers à domicile en Belgique - KCE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

100 Financing of Home Nursing KCE reports 122 METHODS Selection of stakeholders The selection of stakeholders was performed by the research team. The selection of the stakeholders seemed rather straightforward as we are operating in a stable context: issues are clearly defined and circumscribed, most of the relevant stakeholders are visible 84 . Three groups of key stakeholders were selected: a first group is involved in the policy negotiations and implementation of financing home nursing (different governmental instances, NIHDI, federal and community adminstrations, sickness funds, ...). Furthermore, two separate groups of stakeholders were identified that deliver nursing care at home: a group of representatives from self-employed nurses and a group of representatives from employee nursing organisations The sickness funds were also considered to be the representatives of the patients (Table 1). The selection process of the stakeholders was performed in two discussion rounds by the research team. For the selection we had to deal with practical constraints too: the discussion groups needed to be relatively small and for pragmatic reasons we organised only two discussion rounds (see infra). Table 1 : Invited and participating stakeholders Type of stakeholder Number invited Number responded Organisations for self-employed nurses 5 3 Home nursing organisations Sickness funds Authorities NIHDI Medical houses Trade unions Integrated services for home care Organisations were contacted by e-mail by the KCE secretariat. Follow-up was done by the research team. All invited organisations received an e-mail defining the objectives of the study and the objectives of the dialogue, an invitation to participate in the stakeholder meeting and a short description (in the two languages) about themes that would be discussed. Twenty-five stakeholders participated in the stakeholder meetings (see infra): eleven representatives from employee nurses, nine representatives from self-employed nurses, two representatives from authorities, three from sickness funds. Ten representatives were French native speakers, fifteen were Dutch native speakers. Globally, 14 persons participated on both stakeholder sessions while 11 persons participated in only 1 session. PROCEDURE OF THE STAKEHOLDERS DIALOGUE As an input to the stakeholder dialogue, the research team developed propositions. During two consensus meetings with KCE researchers involved in the project and the external research team, short statements/propositions were formulated using insights from the literature review (Table 2). These propositions were conceived as triggers for initiating the discussion on financing matters in home nursing. 7 5 4 1 1 1 3 5 3 1 1 0 0 3
KCE Report 122 Financing of Home Nursing 101 Table 2 : Proposition used in the stakeholders dialogue Proposition 1: The changing role of home nursing in health care requires that financing mechanisms should change. Proposition 2: The principles for financing home nursing in Belgium must change FUNDAMENTALLY. Proposition 3: Financing sufficiently takes into account new nursing activities. Proposition 4: Financing is sufficiently adapted to allow for differentiation of tasks and functions between different types of nurses (care assistants and qualified nurses). Proposition 5: The current nomenclature list of nursing interventions is incomplete and insufficiently adapted to the current nursing reality in home care. Proposition 6: Tariffs for home nursing interventions should be based on real costs of suppliers of home nursing care. Proposition 7: We need other instruments for care dependency to create opportunities for an appropriate financing system for home nursing. Proposition 8: Costs and efforts for registration of care dependency are too high for an adaptation of the financing system. For each proposition the participants received a form with the proposition and some clarification. Each proposition and clarification was read aloud by the moderator, with a short additional explanation. Then the participants were asked to score the proposition on a five point scale (do completely agree, do agree, no opinion, do not agree, do completely not agree). Participants were invited to write down key arguments why they agreed or did not agree with the proposition. After this part the moderator invited them (one by one) to orally explain their opinion about the proposition. Other participants were invited to discuss these opinions. As soon as the round table was finished and everyone had the chance to develop his/her arguments the moderator moved to the next proposition. The dialogue took about 1 to 1.5 hours per proposition. The group consultation process was organised in two sessions (May 20 and June 16, 2009). In the first session, propositions 1 to 4 were discussed. In the second session, propositions 5 to 8. Each session was split into two groups (morning and afternoon group) of 7 to 11 people. Both sessions took 2.5 to 3 hours of discussion. The reason for splitting the groups was threefold. Firstly, the groups were too large to facilitate the group discussions (more than 20 people). Secondly, we wanted to deal with practical agenda issues. Some participants were only able to attend the morning session, others only the afternoon session. Thirdly, for methodological reasons we tried to control for potential “group thinking” effects within groups. We were interested to see if two independent groups would come to similar opinions and arguments about the same propositions. Based on their availability participants were allocated to one of the sessions. We tried to balance the sessions according to stakeholder characteristics and aimed at language mix as much as possible. Each group was composed heterogeneously, which means that different stakeholders were represented in each group (self-employed and employee nurses, health authorities and sickness funds; French/Dutch). During the sessions, all participants spoke their own language (Dutch or French) without simultaneous translation. If necessary for one of the participants, the moderator repeated and summarized stakeholders’ statements in the other language. Three researchers (MP, CD, LP) participated in all sessions as observers. They took notes of the discussions. All sessions were audio-taped; this audiotape was used as a backup-tool. Participants were asked to first state their name before they started speaking, which allowed to identify all statements on tape afterwards.
Page 1 and 2:
Le financement des soins infirmiers
Page 3 and 4:
Le financement des soins infirmiers
Page 5 and 6:
KCE Reports 122B Financement des so
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13:
Page 16 and 17:
2 Financing of Home Nursing KCE rep
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
10 Financing of Home Nursing KCE re
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65: 50 Financing of Home Nursing KCE re
Page 116 and 117: 102 Financing of Home Nursing KCE r
Page 137 and 138: This page is left intentionally bla
Page 139 and 140: KCE reports 1. Efficacité et renta
Page 141 and 142: 73. Financement du programme de soi
show all

Le financement des soins infirmiers à domicile en Belgique - KCE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?