Upload
nicholas-jonas-oconnor
View
225
Download
8
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Multiplier project
1999-2001COMMUNITY CARE EDUCATION IN
EUROPE - TOWARD SHARED UNDERSTANDING
PartnersFINLAND
• Oulu Polytechnic, School of Health and Social Care
• Mikkeli Polytechnic, School of Social Welfare and Health Care
• Satakunta Polytechnic, School of Social and Health Care in Harjavalta
• University of Oulu, Department of Nursing and Health Administration
• Finnish Federation for Nurses
Partners
HUNGARY
• Hungarian Nursing Association
THE NETHERLANDS
• Haagland College
POLAND
• Polish Nursing Association
• Medyczne Studium Zawodowe Nr 12
Project group members:
• Salla Seppänen, Mikkeli Polytechnic
• Aini Ojala, Oulu Polytechnic
• Hanna Hyttinen & Kari A. Sirkka, Satakunta Polytechnic
• Merja Nikkonen, University of Oulu
• Katalin Mucha & Zoltan Balogh, Hungarian Nursing Association
• Halina Ciéslak & Zofia Sienkiewicz, Warsaw Medical Academy, Medyczne Studium Zawodowe nr 1
• Elzbieta Chróscicka & Krystyna Szpak-Lipinska, Polish Nursing Association
• Andre Wénd & Bert Gotink, Mondriaan OnderwijsGroep
Aims of the project
• Disseminate the results of the Leonardo da Vinci pilot project
COMMUNITY CARE - Developing an International Degree Programme for Nurse Education
• Test and develop further philosophy, key skills and content of community care in nursing defined through earlier pilot project
The multiplier project aims in European level (FIN, H,NL,P)
• to specify the competence of nurse working in community care
• to specify the role, tasks and working discipline of a nurse in community care
National seminars were hold to promote discussion of community care in nursing
• Poland 8.- 9.5.2000, Busko
• Finland 26.-27.4.2001, Helsinki
• Hungary, 14.5. 2001, Budapest
COMMUNITY CARE IN NURSING
- HOW DO THE NURSES IN FINLAND, HUNGARY, POLAND AND THE
NETHERLANDS DEFINE COMMUNITY CARE ?
QUESTIONNAIRECommunity Care
- Toward shared understanding
The nurses´ perception of community care
in Finland, The Netherlands, Hungary and Poland
Nationally implemented questionnaire for nurses and public health/ district
nurses • In Finland, Helsinki• In the Netherlands, the Haag• In Hungary, Budapest• In Poland, Warsaw• Aimed for 250 questionnaires / country• In primary and specialised care
STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRES
MULTIPLE CHOICES
• BACKGROUND QUESTIONS 1-7
LIKERT SCALE 1-5
• WORK QUESTIONS 8- 15
• PERCEPTIONS OF
COMMUNITY CARE QUESTIONS 16-22
RESULTS
• FINLAND (N= 224)
• THE NETHERLANDS (N=91)
• HUNGARY (N=249)
• POLAND (N=198)
• TOTAL (N=747)
• 89,6 %
• 36,4%
• 99,5%
• 79,2%
• 74,7%
AGE OF NURSES/COUNTRY (N= 747)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
FINLAND THE NETHERLANDS HUNGARY POLAND
29
30-49
50
SEX (%)/ COUNTRY
0
50
100
150
WOMAN
MAN
WOMAN 91,5 80,2 94 96,9
MAN 8,5 19,8 6 3,1
FINLANDTHE
NETHERLHUNGAR
YPOLAND
SECTOR OF HEALTH CARE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
FINLAND THENETHERLANDS
HUNGARY POLAND
PRIMARY
SPECIALISED
WORKPLACE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
FINLAND THE NETHERLANDS HUNGARY POLAND
OUTPATIENTCLINIC
WARD
HOMECARE
FIRST AID
FACILITIES/PREREQUISITIES OF WORK
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
4,00
4,50
5,00
FINLAND THENETHERLANDS
HUNGARY POLAND MAIN
MEET CLIENT'S NEEDS TIMETOOLS/SPACES MULTI-PROBLEMATIC CLIENTCOOPERATION KNOWLEDGECONTROL OF WORK
CONTENT OF WORK
0,000,501,001,502,002,503,003,504,004,505,00
FINLAND
THE NETHERLANDS
HUNGARY
POLAND
MEAN
CO-OPERATION WITH
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
4,00
4,50
FINLAND THENETHERLANDS
HUNGARY POLAND MEAN
MEDICAL DOCTOR NURSE SOCIAL WORKER DIETICIAN
PHYSIOTHERAPIST VOLUNTEERS CLIENTS RELATIVES OF PATIENT
NURSE STUDENTS NURSE TEACHERS PARISH WORKERS
SECTORS/PARTNERS OF COMMUNITY CARE
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
4,00
4,50
FINLAND THENETHERLANDS
HUNGARY POLAND MEAN
HEALTH CARE
SOCIAL WORK
CLIENT'S SOCIALNETWORK
VOLUNTARYWORK
PATIENTORGANISATIONS
CO-ORDINATOR OF CARE
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
NURSE/DISTRICTNURSE
SOCIAL WORKER MEDICAL DOCTOR
FINLAND
THE NETHERLANDS
HUNGARY
POLAND
MEAN
DEFINITION OF CLIENT
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
PERSON FAMILY GROUP COMMUNITY
FINLAND
THENETHERLANDS
HUNGARY
POLAND
MEAN
SECTORS OF NURSING
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
PREVENTIVE PALLIATIVE REHABILITATIVE ACUTE
FINLAND
THE NETHERLANDS
HUNGARY
POLAND
MEAN
SECTORS OF NURSING
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
HOME CARE LONG-STAYCARE
INSTITUTIONALCARE
INTENSIVECARE
FINLAND
THENETHERLANDS
HUNGARY
POLAND
MEAN
THE NURSE SHOULD ASSESS
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
FINLAND
THENETHERLANDS
HUNGARY
POLAND
MEAN
MEET THE NEEDS OF
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
4
4,55
POPULATION FAMILY INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY
FINLAND
THENETHERLANDS
HUNGARY
POLAND
MEAN
OBJECTIVE OF COMMUNITY CARE
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
DEVELOPPROFESSON
SUPPORTINDEPENDENCE
COORDINATECARE
PROVIDEHIGHQUALITY
CARE
INPACT INCOMMUNITY
FINLAND
THENETHERLANDS
HUNGARY
POLAND
MEAN
VALUES AND PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY CARE
EQUALITY BETWEEN CLIENT AND PROFESSIONAL
4,19 4,18
3,96
3,51 3,62
3
3,2
3,4
3,6
3,8
4
4,2
4,4FINLAND
THENETHERLANDS
HUNGARY
POLAND
MEAN
EQUALITY BETWEEN CLIENTS
3,913,74
4,63
3,664,05
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5 FINLAND
THENETHERLANDS
HUNGARY
POLAND
MEAN
HOLISTIC CARE
3,48
3,914,13
3,14
3,61
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5FINLAND
THENETHERLANDS
HUNGARY
POLAND
MEAN
RIGHTS OF CLIENT
4,09
4,56
4,30
4,40
4,45
3,80
3,90
4,00
4,10
4,20
4,30
4,40
4,50
4,60 FINLAND
THENETHERLANDS
HUNGARY
POLAND
MEAN
ECONOMY
3,48
3,914,13
3,14
3,61
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
FINLAND
THE NETHERLANDS
HUNGARY
POLAND
MEAN
TECHNOLOGY
3,85
3,03
4,233,91 3,89
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5 FINLAND
THENETHERLANDS
HUNGARY
POLAND
MEAN
PATIENT’S CULTURAL BACKGROUND
4,083,71 3,71
3,28
3,71
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
FINLAND THE NETHERLANDS HUNGARY POLAND MEAN
RESPONSIBLE OF DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY CARE
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
5
FINLAND
THE NETHERLANDS
HUNGARY
POLAND
MEAN
THEROY BASE FOR COMMUNITY CARE
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
FINLAND THE NETHERLANDS HUNGARY POLAND
ETHICS PHILOSOPHY SOCIOLOGY
PEDAGOGY NURSING SCIENCE BIOLOGY
MEDICINE MICROBIOLOGY PSYCHOLOGY
KNOWLEDGE IN COMMUNITY CARE
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
FINLAND THE NETHERLANDS HUNGARY POLAND
INTERACTION AND COMMUNICATION EPIDEMIOLOGYTHEORIES OF NURSING FAMILY DYNAMICENVIROMENTAL KNOWLEDGE MULTI-CULTURAL CAREINGINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY THEORIES OF SOCIAL WORKRECORDING AND COMPILE STATISTICS EVALUATION OF HEALTHTEACHING AND LEARNING THEORIES TEAM WORK THEORY
CONCLUSIONS• NURSES´ PERCEPTION OF COMMUNITY CARE IS MUCH
SAME IN THESE FOUR PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES• GROUP OF PEOPLE AND COMMUNITY AS A CLIENT
NEED TO BE DISCUSSED MORE• THE ROLE OF VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS AND
VOLUNTEERS IN HEALTH CARE AND NURSING NEED TO BE CLARIFIED
• HOLISM IS SEEN AS AN IMPORTANT VALUE -HOW IT IS IMPLEMENTED IN PRACTICE?
• MULTISICENTIFIC THEORY BASE FOR COMMUNITY CARE NEED TO BE DEVELOPED
• NURSES´ POSSIBILITIES AND SKILLS TO IMPACT OF THE CARE PROVIDING IN LOCAL LEVEL NEED TO BE INCREASED