Search

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to focus on the denial of social support to homeless persons and related societal effects of new local governance arrangements. Design/methodology/approach: Analysis of new data and secondary evaluative and comparative data on the policies, administrative structures and management styles of Copenhagen, Glasgow and Amsterdam have brought better understanding of the elements of local governance arrangements that influence the number of homeless persons who are denied access to services and the number of persons sleeping rough who are not eligible for social support. Theoretical explanations for the impact of governance arrangements on these processes and societal effects are considered. Findings: It appears that while the body of research, reports and policy documents on non-eligibility for homelessness services is growing, legal responses at best remain vague, and policies are still in the process of being developed. Modest progress on policy goals, and even more so on policy instruments, leading to less detrimental outcomes, can be explained by centralising and decentralising trends and the relationships between state and society. The latter may also be indicative of how the increased focus on the legal problems of some EU migrants can be explained. Research limitations/implications: The two points in time documented for the case studies are relevant in understanding processes underlying the current circumstances of homeless persons and homeless migrants and offer an interdisciplinary insight into governance and politics, law, and public and health service perspectives. Social implications: Good policy practice, as this paper shows, can lead to a difference in individual lives. Originality/value: Much is unknown about considerations inside government. This paper contributes by combining theoretical and insider perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – In an urban environment in The Netherlands, a municipality, a health insurance company and nine health care organisations try to integrate health care services and social services by means of a global, population-based budget for three areas with above the average costs. Against a background of changing circumstances and bureaucratic impediments, they try to reach an agreement on the contractual provisions before starting cooperation in everyday practice. The purpose of this paper is to describe and evaluate the cooperative process. Design/methodology/approach – The paper reflects the authors’ personal experiences and interpretation of the cooperative process. Findings – The participants experience was that the ideals they had started with faded when financial and juridical procedures dominated the discussions. In contrast with that, focusing on the population involved created positive energy and motivation. Practical implications – Uncertainties are part of social innovation and therefore, formal contracts will be incomplete. Trust building techniques and creating common values and culture are necessary ingredients for developing confidence that the cooperating parties will be able to cope with unforeseen developments or outcomes. Originality/value – The paper may contribute to the successful development of innovative agreements between purchasers and providers of health care and social care in order to achieve better integrated services without rising costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose In The Netherlands, curative mental health care and supportive care for people with an intellectual disability (ID) are organised in separate domains. Prevalence of mental health problems is known to be high among people with borderline intellectual functioning (BIF) or mild intellectual disabilities (MID). By contrast, according to recent findings, prevalence of BIF and MID is high among patients in mental health care (17.5–58 per cent). In The Netherlands, a new quality standard of care (QSOC) on mental health care for people with BIF or MID is developed. It is designed to supplement existing guidelines on mental health care so that they can be used appropriately in people with BIF or MID and meant for use in both mental health care organisations (MHCO) as in organisations for ID care. To a large extent, the QSOC should describe the existing practice. This paper aims to discuss these issues.Design/methodology/approach To assess the existing practice in current mental health care for people with BIF or MID in The Netherlands, the authors examined the views and accessibility of MHCO on the mental health care for patients with and IQ<85. In addition, the authors reviewed published criteria for in- and exclusion of all 39 top clinical mental health care departments for criteria on BIF or (mild) ID.Findings The authors found there is a clear awareness of the high prevalence of BIF and MID among large Dutch MHCO. Dutch MHCO estimate the prevalence of BIF and MID among their patients to be around 30 per cent. Nonetheless, most MCHO surveyed (76 per cent) indicated they do not routinely estimate or measure IQ among their patients and 53 per cent of MHCO indicated not having knowledge and expertise on the dual diagnoses of mental health problems and BIF or MID. Fitting in with the new QSOC most of the MHCO (59 per cent) agreed on the statement in the survey that professionals should be able to treat patients with BIF or ID and all but one of the MHCO stated to have some form of collaboration with an institute for ID care.Originality/value The authors concluded there is a clear awareness of the high prevalence of BIF and MID among large Dutch MHCO. The new QSOC on mental health care for people with BIF or MID can help improve accessibility and quality of mental health care for these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Investing in prevention could be of great benefit to public health. Especially for people with health risks, such as overweight, depressive symptoms, low social-economic status or people who experience loneliness or a sedentary lifestyle. In the Netherlands, different parties are responsible for financing and organising selective and indicated preventive interventions: the government, municipalities and health insurance companies. The aim of this study was two-fold: First, to describe the transition towards a sustainable prevention infrastructure. And second, to gain insight into barriers and facilitators associated with intersectoral collaboration regarding organising prevention for high-risk groups. Design/methodology/approach: A longitudinal qualitative study was conducted among collaborative networks working together to build a prevention infrastructure. During a five-year study period, 86 semi-structured interviews were held. The COM-B model was used for data analysis. Findings: Barriers to intersectoral collaboration are: unknown (cost-)effectiveness, limited incentives to invest in collaboration, lack of clarity about responsibilities, differences in priorities and organisational culture between municipalities and health insurers. Facilitators are commitment, trust, sharing knowledge between parties, meeting regularly within the network and acknowledgement of mutual responsibilities. Also, national policy interventions targeted at the development of regional prevention infrastructures facilitated collaboration. Originality/value: This study shows that collaboration regarding prevention is becoming increasingly common. It can be concluded that the transition towards a sustainable prevention infrastructure has started. The relationship between key stakeholders, like municipalities and health insurers, is generally stronger than it was five years ago. They have a better understanding of each other's interests and expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – Despite the current focus on demand-based care, little is known about what clients consider important when they have a request for formal long-term care services. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach – Questions about the access process to care services were added to the “Senior Barometer”, a Dutch web-based questionnaire that assesses the opinion of older people about different aspects in life. The questionnaire surveyed both people who already requested care services (“users”), and people that did not (“future clients”). Findings – The results show a significant difference in what people expect to be the first step from what users actually did, when requesting formal care services. In addition, there was a significant difference on how “users” and “future clients” rated several access service aspects. Research limitations/implications – The results give valuable information on how both “users” and “future clients” value the access process. The findings also provide valuable input for organizations providing long-term care for older clients about the important issues that have to be considered when organizing the access process. Originality/value – This study shows what older people in the Netherlands find important during the access process to care and this has not been explored before. The difference between what “users” and “future clients” find of importance in the care access process suggests that it is difficult for people to foresee what will be important once the need for care arrives, or where they will turn to with a request for care services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]