project progress report

Transcription

PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT
Grant Agreement number: 250449
Project acronym: HOME SWEET HOME
Project title: Health monitoring and sOcial integration environMEnt for Supporting WidE
ExTension of independent life at HOME
Project type:
□ Pilot A
 Pilot B
Periodic report:
intermediate
□
Period covered:
from 1/3/2013 to 28/2/2014
1st
□
□ TN □ BPN
2nd
□3 □4
rd
Project coordinator name, title and organisation:
Dimitri De Rooze
HOME SWEET HOME Co-ordinator
Phone: +32 3 338 27 83
Mobile: +32 472 32 26 81
Email: [email protected]
Project website address: http://www.homesweethome-project.eu/

th
HSH Project Progress Report 4
Table of contents
SECTION 0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
SECTION 1
PUBLISHABLE SUMMARY
4
SECTION 2
PROJECT OBJECTIVES FOR THE PERIOD
6
SECTION 3
WORK PROGRESS AND ACHIEVEMENTS DURING THE PERIOD
7
SECTION 4
DELIVERABLES AND MILESTONES TABLES, KPI TABLE
30
SECTION 5
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
35
SECTION 6
EXPLANATION OF THE USE OF THE RESOURCES
61
SECTION 7
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUMMARY FINANCIAL REPORT
62
SECTION 8
[ONLY FOR ACTUAL COST REIMBURSEMENT] CERTIFICATES
63
ANNEX I
STATUS OF THE ACTIONS FROM THE THIRD PROJECT REVIEW
HELD ON 25TH APRIL, 2014
64
ANNEX II DISSEMINATION REPORT
Grant Agreement nr. 250449
76
2
Section 0 Executive Summary
The goal of this deliverable D1.16 is to provide an in depth view of the work done by the HOME
SWEET HOME project consortium during the fourth and last reporting period namely from
1/3/2013 to 28/2/2014.
In section 1 a publishable summary of the project is provided for communication purposes.
Section 2 summarises the objectives of the work for this reporting period, basically the real
finalisation of the pilot activities with the actual data collection and monitoring of the older persons’
status, and the final analysis of the outcomes, facilitated by the action of the HOME SWEET
HOME Management team.
Section 3 provides a detailed report of the progress made Workpackage by Workpackage. The most
notable items here are a detailed list of dissemination initiatives carried out (WP2), the activities of
the Advisory Group (WP4) in charge for a high level monitoring of the project with an external,
independent view where an additional, unforeseen task (the Qualitative Study) was designed and
successfully carried out, whereas WP6 and 7 account for the real service operation of the pilot sites.
This is obviously the most critical area of the project as throughout the project’ lifetime the most
relevant deviations from plans were to be found here.
For this reason this is the area where the Management Team and the Steering Committee have put
the most significant efforts and thanks to these the objectives of the project have been reasonably
achieved with the exception on the Italian pilot site.
Section 4 provides the status of the deliverables, Milestones and KPI tables, whereas Section 5
focusses on the Project Management side, with an updated GANTT chart and detailed tables with
the person month tables per partner and per activity.
The main observation is that taking into account the 12 months extension which has been approved
by the European Commission, and due to a certain level of underspending experienced in the
previous reporting period, it has been possible to redistribute the person months allocation over a
longer period.
The remaining sections account for the use of resources on a partner-by-partner basis and for other
administrative details. Finally Appendix I reports on the Status of the actions from the last Project
Review of 25th April 2013.
The overall picture of the project which stems out from this report is that the project has reached its
natural end with a satisfactory level of achievement of the foreseen results, although this level of
achievement is uneven across the four pilot sites and it has not always been possible to fully
implement all the envisaged solutions: but the conclusion that some of these solutions are not viable
is one of the important lessons we have learned from the project.
3
Section 1 Publishable summary
HOME SWEET HOME started on 1st March 2010 and trials a new, economically sustainable home
assistance service which extends older persons independent living and finished on the 28th February
2014 with the total duration extended from the initially foreseen three years to a full four years
lifetime.
The trials were held in four European countries (Belgium, Ireland, Italy and Spain) according to the
randomised controlled trial (RCT) methodology. The objectives of the project were to measure
organisational, economic and clinical effects and to compare the results between a study group and a
control group. Older persons in the control group received normal care such as it was already
provided by local health and social services, whereas people in the study group received additional
ICT-based services.
These additional services supported older persons in their daily activities and allowed caregivers to
remotely assess their ability to stay independent. While systems of this kind inevitably represent an
intrusion in the older persons’ private life, in the case of HOME SWEET HOME particular care has
been put to limit to a bare minimum the need for other people to interfere with the older person’s
private life unless a clear need is detected by the system.
The project comprised the following services:
Monitoring and Alarm Handling,
eInclusion,
Domotics,
Daily Scheduler,
Navigation
and Mental Faculty Maintaining.
The Monitoring and Alarm Handling is based on a Decision Support System which analyses in
real time data collected from medical and environmental sensors, fall detectors and geopositioning
systems. Standard behavioural patterns are established for individuals; sudden, major changes trigger
alarms.
eInclusion is achieved through intuitive videoconferencing based on the familiar TV paradigm and
adapted for use by people unfamiliar with IT technology.
Domotics and Daily Scheduler help older persons to organise their daily activities and to manage
the house in spite of growing physical and mental impairments.
The navigation system takes people who got lost to the closest safe place.
Cognitive training is implemented through interactive games based on cognitive adaptive
technology. Complexity of exercises is adjusted to the performance and current mental level of the
user.
HOME SWEET HOME has measured the differences between control group and study group on:
evolution in the quality of life (assessed by the SF36 questionnaire at the beginning, midterm
and end of the trial period);
duration of independent life;
amount of situation of risk;
4
changes in the feeling of isolation;
amount of transfers to older persons homes;
cost of social care;
cost of health care.
The project was implemented by a Consortium of 17 partners, both private and public, with a very
strong presence of health and social authorities with budgetary responsibilities for health and older
persons’ care, together with social service providers, healthcare providers, contact centres, healthcare
insurers, an older persons’ people representative association, technology providers and business
consultants.
The project finished on 28th February 2014 and the final outcomes and findings will be pcompiled
and published soon.
Project logo:
Contact person:
Dimitri De Rooze
HOME SWEET HOME Co-ordinator
Phone: +32 3 338 27 83
Mobile: +32 472 32 26 81
E-mail: [email protected]
Project website: http://www.homesweethome-project.eu/
5
Section 2
Project objectives for the period
The objectives of the fourth reporting period were the following:
To proceed with the data collection and monitoring of older persons’ data in the pilots;
To implement the Retention Strategy (for which a specific document was prepared and
circulated among all partners) in order to minimise the level of dropouts;
To collect T24 data;
To perform the final statistical analysis on the collected information and data so as to
elaborate the final outcomes;
To properly complete the project activities and bring the support to the older persons in both
the control and intervention groups to an end, managing the relationship with them;
To implement strict monitoring methods and supporting tools by the Management Team in
order to successfully bring the project to its natural end within the contractual timescale;
To disseminate project information to interested parties;
To successfully carry out 2 PSC Meetings, a number of regional workshops, two Project
Reviews (the third and the fourth one) and one Final Conference;
As requested, a summary of the recommendations from the previous reviews including a description
on how the Management Team have taken them into account, can be found in Appendix I.
6
Section 3
Work progress and achievements during the period
Work Package 1: Project Co-ordination, Management and Quality Assurance
The main objectives of this package are the following:
- effective management of the project in all its aspects;
- ensuring that project goals are achieved within the financial and human resources allocated to
the project;
- co-ordination of the Consortium activities;
- management of the contractual issues and of the relationship with the European Commission;
- reporting to the Commission;
- Quality Assurance.
During the fourth reporting period, the Management Team has carried out the usual management and
co-ordination activities plus “ad hoc” activities which were judged necessary to steer the Project in
the right direction. These activities include:
Management of the contractual issues and of the relationship with the European Commission.
Daily co-ordination of the Consortium activities;
Monitoring of and support for the partners in the execution of their tasks;
Liaison with the User Advisory Group, with the Clinical Group and the Technical Contact
persons;
Management of the action list;
Management of the issue- and risk register;
Preparation and organisation of:
o The third Project Review held in Brussels on the 25th of April, 2013;
o The 8th Project Steering Committee (PSC) meeting held in Treviso on 1st and 2nd
October, 2013;
The 9th Project Steering Committee (PSC) meeting held in Badalona on the15th of January,
2014
A number of recommendations and of requests for resubmission of deliverables were issued
by the Review Panel after the Third review. All the recommendations have been implemented
and the deliverables resubmitted. A table summarizing the implementation of the
recommendations is provided as Annex I to this report.
Carrying out and chasing internal reporting + monitoring;
Contractual reporting to the Commission;
Collecting status reports from our partners twice a month;
Quality check of all deliverables before they were submitted;
7
Work Package 2: Dissemination
This WP intends to give high visibility to the activities carried out in the Project. Target audiences
for this dissemination effort are the public and private purchasers and providers of health and social
care to older persons people, social and health insurers, social and health care professionals and
general public.
The dissemination effort will be organised along three communication lines:
- The HOME SWEET HOME website, which will be a living window of the project and will
be constantly updated with the latest results achieved throughout the entire lifecycle of the
Project.
- The HOME SWEET HOME leaflet which will be produced in two versions to support the
presentation of the Project in relevant conferences and fairs. This represents the “classical”
but still widespread marketing tool of any project.
- The HOME SWEET HOME Workshops and Conferences:
o The HOME SWEET HOME Regional Conferences will bring together in each of the
participating Regions 20-30 potential early adopters from neighbouring regions and
countries;
o Midterm Workshop and the Final Conference where 50-60 and 80-100 sector players
respectively will be invited for a face-to-face presentation of the project results to
promote its adoption by public and private social and health care providers.
The full dissemination report for this reporting period is provided as Annex II to this document.
Here we present a summary of the said report.
Based upon our stakeholder analysis we agreed that the 4th period in the Project still needed to focus
on our participants and their relatives in order to keep them motivated for the closing period. Since
this is the 3th year where our participants are using the HOME SWEET HOME services we still need
to focus on avoiding dropouts in both the control and the study group.
8
Besides our focus on our participants and their relatives we used the fourth period also to inform the
other stakeholders (see arrows) about the results, lessons learned and other important information
about Home Sweet Home. Moreless since we will close down the project a lot of other dissemination
opportunities will occur, now that we can release the gathered information about 4 years of Home
Sweet Home.
As some of our dissemination actions are not specifically for one target group we summarised our
dissemination actions here :
1.
Personalised communication :
As mentioned in the former Reviews our focus remained also in this period to keep our
participants and their relatives motivated by stimulating them and informing them about the project.
Besides the physical visits we also spent a lot of effort in making newsletters to keep them informed
but also to make them realise how important they are irrespective of the fact that they are in the study
or in the control group.
o
Some examples of the newsletters we made in Belgium and Ireland during the final period
are provided in Annex II.
9
Besides the use of a regular newsletter we sent out a letter (see Annex II) to all our users at the end
of the project in order to thank them.
2. Website
As agreed at the former Review we had changed our ‘CMS’ system from Smartsite to Drupal.
In the final period we have made some small changes and upgrades to the website.
Our objectives for the new website where the following and we think that all of them where
obtained.
o
o
o
o
o
o
Easier to use and maintain technology
Cost efficient (Drupal is an open source technology)
More modern and fresh look and a more dynamic website
More friendly in use so that other participants can add information on it by themselves
Integration with new dissemination tools such as twitter, movies, …
More living website
10
Due to the fact that at this stage of the project we have gathered a lot of information that can
be disseminated, we have decided to maintain de website until at least the end of 2015. At the end of
2015 we will evaluate the use of the website and the necessity to have it running longer.
11
3.
Brochures & leaflets
A leaflet has been produced in order to inform about the entire Project. Partners can use this
leaflet as a basis for their own translated version, which can include specific information related to
their target audience. The leaflet has also been announced on LinkedIn, Facebook and our website
and spread through the different events we participated in.
Qualitative analysis
One of the remarks following one of our project reviews consisted in
gathering qualitative information about the HSH users and their
feeling about the project. Therefore a qualitative analysis was set up
and together with the support of the Advisory Board and Age we
have produced a publication on the outcome of a small qualitative
study that took place within the Home Sweet Home user group. The
study aimed at shedding the light to barriers and enablers for the
acceptance of new technologies that where introduced to help older
persons live autonomously and manage better their health. It is
written from the perspective of older persons who use technologies in
their everyday living and it is addressed to all the stakeholders who
are involved in the development and deployment of such solutions :
researchers, service providers, industry and SME’s, public
authorities, health and social care professionals, informal caregivers,
insurers and mutualities and older persons themselves. Instead of
discussing elements specific only to the project, the publication is
drafted in a way that can be useful to various similar settings and sets
of services.
First some information about Home Sweet Home and the study is provided. Then the results of the
study are summarized as answers to the questions : who are older persons and what matters to them ?
In the end, recommendations for future research and practice are given, before presenting the case
studies, which were analysed in order to reach conclusions and lessons learned.
Our qualitative analysis is being disseminated via the website, website of partners (Age, ZB, …),
Twitter, Linked-in, …
4.
Video on HSH
In May 2012 we made some videos in order to inform our stakeholders about HSH:
o
A day in the life of some of our participants (we followed some of our participants during a
day in order to show the public about HSH, how it is being used, what it means, …);
o
A video about the project with short interviews with team members and users;
o
A short video per item in order to present the means and use;
o
A short video about the installation
12
In June 2013 an additional video was made by the Spanish delegation for dissemination use.
http://youtu.be/NFquHKt9_-A
13
These videos where displayed and published on:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
HSH Website;
YouTube;
Websites of the HSH partners;
Facebook pages;
Linked-in pages;
Shown in several occasions as, e.g. at the final Workshop, …
…
5.
Conferences and workshops
Only the titles of the conferences are provided here. Full information can be found in Annex II.
19/05/2013 – delegation from Liège, Waterloo, Charleroi and Luxembourg visited the Antwerp
HSH project – Antwerp – Belgium
Eneo is an organisation from Wallonie (www.eneo.be) enabling the rights of the older and has
40.000 senior members. A delegation from different parts of the south of Belgium came over to have
a look at the Home Sweet Home project and followed a workshop on our project.
14
19/11/2013 – Regional Conference in Italy – Rome by Darco Servizi.
The occasion of the conference was the first showing on cinema of a reportage about migrants
working in Rome as long term carer for older people or people with disabilities, called “BADAMI”.
The Italian word “bàdami” means “take care of me” and it recalls both the word “badante” which is
an informal way of referring to “long term carers” and the need to better take care of long term carers
and the families of older people and people with disabilities.
26/02/2014 – Final conference : ICT and E-Skills for social Care – Brussels - Belgium
AGE was invited to give a presentation for the final conference of the project Carenet, which worked
on the improvement of ICT skills in the long-term care sector. Bearing in mind the legal and ethical
framework in which social care is provided in Europe and drawing from the experience of AGE
Platform Europe, Nena Georgantzi, Legal Officer, presented older persons’ views on ICT for care
and independent living. In addition, she exposed lessons learned from the Home Sweet Home, which
finalised a qualitative study on ICT acceptance from the perspective of older users.
Final Conference – Barcelona, January 16th, 2014
Conference Title: ENABLERS FOR SUCCESS - E4S CONFERENCE
ICT support to Active and Healthy Aging: Paving the way from pilot to the Market
A dynamic one-day conference and exhibition
Mobile World Centre – Barcelona
Thursday, 16 January 2014
14/05/2014 – 5th interactive Congres Facility Management in Care – Antwerp - belgium
On Wednesday 14 May – Zorgbedrijf Antwerp participate in a Care Congres about Facility
Management by organising some workshops about Home Sweet Home – the lessons learned and
trends for the future.
6.
Future dissemination on Home Sweet Home
As the project is coming to an end we are at a point that we have a lot of information that can be
spread to the different stakeholders and can be beneficiary to other EU projects in this field of work.
Home Sweet Home is just one piece of the puzzle to build and extend the evidence base on the
impact if eHealth, eInclusion and Ambient Assisted Living on elderly care and on the independence
of older people. Therefore we will carry on sharing the lessons learnt through the successes and
failures in deploying ICT-based care services.
15
As you see in the figure below, Home Sweet Home is just one piece of the puzzle and can add
interesting information in order to support independence.
The Home Sweet Home results are being set out in a number of deliverables that will be put public
and will be available on the Home Sweet Home Website, like :
D3.8 Clinical and Quality of life impact assessment.
D3.10 Social Impact assessment.
D3.11 Economic Impact assessment.
D3.12 User Satisfaction assessment.
D3.13 Barriers to deployment.
D4.7 Implementation Guidelines.
D7.5 Trial Evaluation Report.
User stories about Home Sweet Home – qualitative analysis
16
…
Besides the dissemination via the website we still have a lot of partners that will keep spreading the
results from Home Sweet Home to other potential partners, projects, … like AGE, HIM, …
The full list of events held during the final period where HSH has been disseminated is
provided in annex II.
17
Work Package 3: Evaluation, Business Modelling and Development Planning
This WP has the following main objectives:
- assessing, independently from the project team, the impact of the HOME SWEET HOME
services on:
o the social and health condition of older persons people;
o the quality of life of the older persons people receiving the service;
o the economics of older persons care delivery.
- surveying the satisfaction of the different categories of users with the service;
- evaluating the potential market for the HOME SWEET HOME services in the EU taking into
considerations the differences between one country and another;
- preparing a Deployment Plan for the subsequent deployment of the service. This will include
a detailed cost/benefit analysis, a billing strategy, and a series of recommendations for setting
up and customising the service.
During the reporting period, all the foreseen deliverables, namely the three
D3.8 Clinical and QoL Impact assessment (incorporating D3.9)
D3.10 Social Impact assessment
D3.11 Economic Impact assessment
D3.12 User Satisfaction assessment
D3.13 HOME SWEET HOME Barriers to deployment
were produced and submitted.
Also, D3.14, Final Deployment Plan was completed with contributions from the various partners.
Unfortunately the contribution for Italy was limited to that from Darco because ASL di Latina never
replied to requests to provide information about their deployment plans in spite of escalating the
issue to the Top Management of the Local Health Authority”.
Also the other foreseen deliverables, namely
18
Work Package 4: Functional specifications refinement and guidelines elaboration
This WP aims to refine the functional specifications of the HOME SWEET HOME Platform. The
starting point for this iterative refinement process is the specifications of the platform, which is
currently available.
The specifications will be progressively refined during the lifecycle of the Pilots making use of the
wisdom of the User Advisory Group, and of the feedback from the pilots that will be collected and
elaborated.
Elaborating guidelines for the successful implementation of HOME SWEET HOME-like services.
This iterative process and the close interaction between technical partners and Advisory Groups
ensures that by the end of the phase the specifications of the Platform are perfectly in line with
market demand
During the fourth reporting period, the following activities were carried out:
The D4.6 Advisory Group (AG) Final Feedback was drafted to reflect the concluding
activities of the AG, in particular the visit to the pilot site of Louth, the outcomes of the
qualitative study and the final recommendations arising from the AG activities throughout the
project. Moreover, the AG comments fed into the final version of D7.4 and the project final
report, as they included long-term considerations and suggestions for future research and
deployment.
Concretely, during this period considerable efforts were made to complete the qualitative
study, which was not initially foreseen as a project deliverable. Following the suggestion of
the AG, several preparatory meetings as presented in D.4.4 (Advisory Group Intermediate
Feedback) and the agreement reached during the 2013 review, AGE coordinated the work
which led to a separate deliverable (D4.8) and a shorter printed and online version to be used
for dissemination purposes.
After consulting all Advisory Group members to gather some initial questions, Heidrun
Mollenkopf and Marja Pijl, from the HSH Advisory Group worked on a voluntary basis on a
first draft of the questionnaire for the qualitative interviews. Then a small working group was
established comprised by the two Advisory Group members and Nena Georgantzi and
Ophélie Durand from AGE Platform Europe, in order to guide the study and deliver the
expected results. Wouter Keisjer and Raniero Chelli from the HSH management team were in
charge of the communications with the pilot sites.
A fist exchange of views on the evolution of the interviews took place during the PSC
meeting in Treviso on October 1st 2013, where all pilots reported that they had selected users
for the interviews: Latina, Louth and Antwerp were planning to involve 5 participants,
whereas Badalona planned to interview all 9 participants of the study group. The Belgian,
Irish and Spanish pilot sites delivered the results by the set deadline (15th November 2013).
After several reminders to the Italian pilot site on the 12th December 2013, the management
team decided that it is no longer possible to wait for the Italian interviews and therefore the
working group proceeded with the analysis of the received questionnaires from the 3 pilot
sites.
During the Advisory Group meeting in Dundalk on the 18th November 2013 the AG experts,
decided to prepare a document presenting in a synthetised manner the answers from the 3
pilot sites which participated in the study alongside the previously agreed smaller number of
case studies.
19
On the occasion of the PSC meeting in Badalona and the HSH Final Conference on the 17 th
January in Barcelona, the working group met to draft conclusions based on the qualitative
study, harmonise the presentation of the case studies and present some lessons learned and
recommendations to project partners as well as the participants of the Final Conference. At
that time, it was also decided that the outcomes of the qualitative analysis would be presented
in a separate deliverable and only a summary would be included in the Final Feedback of the
Advisory Group. Moreover, AGE was asked to explore the possibility of a separate
publication.
After confirming the availability of the budget, AGE received offers for the design and
publication of the brochure on the outcomes of the qualitative study and coordinated this
work, which led to the publication of the paper entitled ‘ICT for Ageing Well – Listen to what
older
persons
think!’,
which
is
available
here:
http://ageplatform.eu/images/stories/Publications/HSH_publication_webversion.pdf
Moreover in November 2013, AGE organised a group visit of the AG to Louth where
experts talked with the Irish partners and visited two of the users of the HSH technology. The
outcomes of this visit are depicted in D4.6
Additionally, AGE has disseminated the project and the results of the qualitative study on a
number of occasions and built synergies with the European Innovation Partnership on Active
and Healthy Ageing.
20
Work Package 5: Enhancement of the HOME SWEET HOME Platform
This work package aims to enhance the HOME SWEET HOME platform thanks to feedback from
the pilots. The platforms will be adapted on the basis of the functional specifications refined through
the interaction between the technical partners and the Advisory Group (see WP4 description) and
will make use of the existing HOME SWEET HOME Platform and other ready-made components
and sub-systems.
Original development will be limited to bridging software to integrate additional components and
sub-systems and to minor adaptations of the platform to align it with user requirements. New
versions of the platform will be fully tested before they are released for the subsequent set-up of the
validation sites.
Two versions of the Platform are foreseen during the lifecycle of the Pilots in addition to the original
platform at the start of the Project to incorporate in the environment the suggestions derived from the
initial part of the trials.
The second version of the Platform should achieve a completeness and comprehensiveness to support
the further deployment of the HOME SWEET HOME services outside the original pilots.
There are no changes to report concerning the evolution of the HSH platform.
21
Work Package 6: HOME SWEET HOME service set-up and technical support
The HOME SWEET HOME platforms will be installed in the pilot sites. This implies the
procurement of the monitoring, domotic, mental faculty training and eInclusion platforms, their
installation onsite and the testing of the systems installed in the older persons’ homes. In parallel the
central modules of the HOME SWEET HOME environment will be installed in the Contact Centres
and integrated with the existing IT infrastructure of such centres.
A two-tier helpdesk will be set-up. User will receive first level support from the Contact Centre
operators who, in turn, will have access to a second level helpdesk for problems that go beyond the
competence of such operators.
The Help desk and contact centre in each site continued to operate normally until the end of the
contractual period, after which they were discontinued after having informed the participants in the
trials
22
Work Package 7: Real-life trials
They are aimed at:
- testing the HOME SWEET HOME environment with a real-life user sample and evaluating
their level of acceptance and satisfaction with the concept and with the specific
implementation of the services represented by the platform (usability, user-friendliness,
relevance, etc.);
- collecting quantitative data towards assessing the impact of the service on the economics of
delivering social and health care and on the clinical conditions of the Study Group.
A close co-ordination and a frequent exchange of view will be maintained among the users and the
HOME SWEET HOME partners involved in the for real-life trials which are carried out in parallel.
Monthly meetings among the various teams will be held through videoconferencing and
teleconferencing to exchange experiences, ideas and suggestions.
During the fourth reporting period, the following activities were carried out. They are described from
the partners’ perspective.
Belgian Pilot, update for the fourth reporting period.
1. Current situation:
Recruitment:
o Randomized: 62
o Study: 16
 15 dropouts
o Control: 25
 2 dropouts (to nursing home, not interested anymore), 4 passed away
Installation
o In Touch: 16
o Ello!: 16
o Environment sensors: 16
 Movement, smoke, temp, water
o Medical sensors: 16
 Scale, blood pressure
o Mambo: 16
 2 keyfobs for every Mambo: one to wear and one waterproof for the bathroom
To install
o Keymatic: 15 delivered
investigation of possibilities: ongoing - few left, no possibilities to install so far : after investigation
at our own doors we have reached the following conclusions:
installation is not possible on all types of doors.
is this system reliable since it operates on batteries? The lock and the
remote control both operate on batteries. If the battery is low it is
possible that the door won’t open anymore with the remote control
when the batteries of the keymatic are flat, the lock can be opened by
turning a wheel on the keymatic, but this repetitive movement can
strain the wrist of the user.
23
The radio frequency could be a security issue.
a door system using a badge is far more easy to use for elderly people
(this was shown in other projects)? Doors can be opened just by
putting the badge next to the badge reader, even when the badge stays
inside the wallet or handbag. A badge is easily to replace or reprogram
in case of lost or changes in habitants.
o Winmatic: cannot be placed (please see D6.2 for more details)
o Climatic: cannot be placed (please see D6.2 for more details)
Data collection T24
o Final CRF: all done
o Diaries: monthly: all done
Call Centre/ Helpdesk Activity
o Updating protocols: OK
o Alarm set up: OK
o Mambo alarms: OK
2. The project team @work
Meetings with the project team +- every 3 weeks at Digipolis
o ZNA: medical issues;
o Mutas: alarm topics;
o Zorgbedrijf: technical support, coordination, occupational therapist;
o Digipolis: technical support, coordination;
o Voorzorg: occupational therapist;
o CM: physiotherapist;
o Zwijsen: technical installations.
Spreading the candidates per therapist
o Zorgbedrijf: 9 study, 12 control group;
o Voorzorg: 5 study, 7 control group;
o CM: 10 study, 9 control group.
Follow up in Google docs
o All the members of the project team document each contact they have with their
seniors: technical visits, monthly diary, social visits, etc.
o At every project meeting all the candidates are followed up: are there technical issues?
Is an extra visit needed? Are the values of the sensors coming through? Is the Mambo
online, etc…?
Job for the project team ongoing and to be continued
o Configuration of the alarms on the Portal:
 medical alarms to be handled by sending a weekly overview to the medical
coordinator: ok, done
 environment alarms to be set up: ok, done
o Ello! training (and motivating candidates); upgrade to new version busy – no new
candidates found
o Investigation of possibilities to install HomeMatic (keymatic): the possibility of
adding domotic remote controls has a great impact because it facilitates independent
living, as it allows to remotely control the house (by relatives or call centre) in case of
difficulties for the elderly person;
o Test:
Technical part :
24


o
The pending call was correctly shown on the navigation webpage.
The position was correct within a range of a few meters and the position
updated.
Usability :
 The frequency of the position update should be more frequent.
The operator wasn’t always informed in time when the “older person” took a
wrong turn.
 The proposed route wasn’t always the ideal route for a person on foot to the
safe point.
o
o EPIDATA workshop: input CRF’s and monthly diaries in database; T24 realised
o Newsletter to end the project and to check which devices the people want to keep.
Only off line devices are free to use after the project : smoke detector, scale, blood
pressure meter
o Battery replacement plan: stopped in January while the project ends
o New games have been installed and used by the seniors : OK
3. Problems dealt with
Technical problems
o No new technical problems
Dropouts
o Last drop outs : going to nursing homes or passed away
Spanish Pilot, update for the fourth reporting period.
1. Current Situation
Recruitment:
o Randomized: 30
o Study: 9
o Control: 11
o Dropouts: 10
 4 (passed away)
 3 (admitted to nursing home)
 2 (declined participation)
 1 (moved to relative’s home)
o Extra participants needed: 0
Installations:
o In Touch: 9
o Ello!: 8
 Movement, smoke, temp, water
 Scale, blood pressure
o Mambo: 9
 1 keyfobs for every Mambo
o Homematic devices: 0
 No Homematic devices can be installed at participants’ houses at the Badalona
Pilot Site. For more info please see explanation and pictures in D 6.2.
25
o Uninstall platforms at the end of the project: Realized by the teamwork.
Data collection
o CRF: done
o Diaries: monthly: done
o All data collected and sent them to the project coordinator.
o Protocol implemented by Call CentreAsmedit and ongoing.
o Registration of data / activity: Asmedit has created an excel database with the
participants’ contact and monitoring their actions.
2. The project teamwork
BSA Pilot Site Team: clinical staff + technical staff
o Teamwork for installation phase, and monitoring and resolution problems (In Touch
and environmental devices).
o Daily contact in El Carme centre: most suitable person to solve problems following
protocols.
o The nursing staff conducted evaluations and testing protocol and the coordinator
update the data in internal EPIDATA.
Asmedit Call Centre
o First action after an alarm or call. Monitoring since 24/7 and ongoing.
o Weekly contact with BSA pilot team;
o Free access to call centre activity and register for real-time information.
Contacts and monthly monitoring
o Clinical members of BSA pilot team note down contacts, visits and alarms triggered
by the platform in shared files in the internal server of BSA. Although Asmedit is
responsible for responding to and managing calls and alarms, the BSA pilot team is
responsible for collecting and registering;
o Extra visits needed from both clinical or technical staff are performed within 24 and
48 hours after the problem is detected. Telephone contacts are done regularly to
improve adherence to the project and collect monthly information.
o The teamwork visited all participants in the collection of devices and uninstall
platforms.
o Some letters of thanks were sent to the participants (control and case group) to thank
for their help and cooperation.
Implemented actions
o Set up an observation group: We install a multiple platform in our centre to observe
its functionality in hospitalised patients. Its implementation did not provide medical
support for team given that it were supplementing some of the advantages of the
device by the medical protocol itself.
o Implemented and checked another device (related with the integration of technology
in smartphones Mambo)
3. Problems to deal with
Technical problems
o Ello!: Finally, the problems with the videoconference didn’t solve, and participants
had problems to use it easily.
26
Italian Pilot, update for the fourth reporting period.
1. Current situation:
Recruitment
o Randomized: 65
o Study: 30
 dropouts: 6 dropped out (1deceased; 1 because the relative disagreed, 4
because disappointed by technical problems);
o Control: 35
Installation
o In Touch: 30
 After replacement of 4 units, again 3 still have problems.
o Ello!: 30
 Distributed. Start of usage from mid April 2013. Still connection problems
make difficult the start of regular service. Patients don’t have interest in this
feature.
 Movement, Smoke, Temperature, Water
o Medical sensors:
 All 30 participants have received weight scales and blood pressure monitors.
 10 Pulse/Oximeters were given to patients on the basis of specific pathology;
 19 Glucometers were given to patients on the basis of specific pathology;
 15 ECGs were given to patients on the basis of specific pathology;
o Mambo: 30
 Distributed but not used by patients because they refure to use a second GSM.
To install
o Winmatic: cannot be placed (please see D6.2 for more details)
o Climatic: cannot be placed (please see D6.2 for more details)
Data collection
o CRF: all done at T0 and T12 and T24
o Diaries: not collected
o Regular service started operational 24/7 since the 1st of September 2012..
Replacement of the internet connection from UMTS to 4G for the all the 30 participants.
Configuration of alarms on the Portal done.
Definition of the protocol with the call centre done.
2. Project team work
Follow up of patients pushing for equipment regular usage.
27
Push on patients for teleconferencing usage
Push on patient for Mambo usage
Collection of data for Qualitative Analysis
Collection of data for T24 measurements
3. Outstanding Problems
The reluctance we experienced in the previous period in using the system by the patients has
continued also for technical problems that affected the InTouch and their fragility to power
blackouts.
Moreover it is confirmed that probably the great inexperience in using technology in general and
the low level of digital culture is a barrier to the diffusion of this kind of system in a countryside
population with low level of education. More attention to training of patients and of their
relatives should be given when trying to deploy the system in such a social environment.
A tighter support to elderly patients would be needed in order to avoid disaffection to the
system.
Irish Pilot, update for the fourth reporting period.
1. Current Situation
Recruitment:
o Randomized: 60
o Study: recruited 30; Dropped out: 4
 2 Deceased
 1 declined participation
 1 grew anxious with volume of calls from the Call Centre
o Control: recruited 30; Dropped out: 11
 4 moved to nursing home
 2 passed away
 5 declined participation
Installations:
o In Touch: 30
o Environment sensors:
 Movement 60
 Smoke 30
 Temperature 30
 Water 30
 Weight Scale: 30
 blood pressure: 30
28
 Glucometer: 6
 Asthma monitor: 2
o Mambo: 30
 1 keyfob for every Mambo
o Homematic devices: 0
 No Homematic devices can be installed at participants’ houses at the Louth
Pilot Site. For more info please see explanation and pictures in D 6.2.
Data collection
o CRF: T0 complete, T12 complete & T24 complete
o Diaries: monthly: complete
o Protocol and escalation paths implemented by Call Centre Rigney Dolphin Group
completed.
2. The project team work
Pilot Site Team:
o Installations completed
o De-installations and equipment moves to be determined by HSE project partner
o Participants were congratulated for their contribution to the project
3. Outstanding issues
Participants:
o Participants to be notified of possible continued service options
o Final local dissemination event to be agreed
29
Section 4
Deliverables and milestones tables, KPI table
Del.
No.
Deliverable Title
D2.1
HOME SWEET HOME
website – Preliminary version
Project/Quality Plan
D1.1
D2.3
Estimated
personmonths
2.00
Nature
Diss.
level
Due Date
Actual /
(Forecast)
Date
See D2.3
R
PU
31Mar10
6.00
R
CO
30Apr10
9.00
O
PU
31May10
31Aug10
v1.0; Reissued
v1.1 5Jan11
20Sep10 v1.0
15.00
3.00
R
R
PU
PU
31May10
31May10
27Sep10 v1.2
15Oct10 v1.0
7.50
R
PU
30Jun10
27Sep10 v1.0
7.00
R
PU
31Jul10
20Sep10 v1.0
7.75
3.00
R
R
PU
CO
31Aug10
31Aug10
30Sep10 v1.0
30Sep10
2.00
R
PU
31Aug10
20Sep10 v1.0;
reissued 25
Feb v1.1
27Sep10 v1.0
27Sep10 v1.1;
Reissued v1.2
4 Apr 11
29 Dec 10
27Sep10 v1.0
D3.1
HOME SWEET HOME
website
User requirements
Advisory Group Initial
Feedback
HOME SWEET HOME
Dissemination Plan
Platform Functional
Specifications - version 1
Trial Protocol
Intermediate Progress Report Period 1
Clinical Impact indicator list
D3.2
D3.3
QoL Questionnaire
Social Impact indicator list
1.00
2.00
R
R
CO
CO
31Aug10
31Aug10
D3.4
D3.5
Economic Impact indicator list
User Satisfaction
Questionnaires
Informed Consent Forms
CRT Registration
2.00
2.00
R
R
CO
CO
31Aug10
31Aug10
8.00
0.25
O
O
PU
PU
31Aug10
30Sep10
Enhanced HOME SWEET
HOME Platform v1
Sensor fitted homes
Contact Centre environment
Helpdesks
Indicator measurements at
Validation start
HOME SWEET HOME
Leaflet – Version 1
Financial Statement - Period 1
Progress Report - Period 1
10.00
D
PU
30Nov10
20Sep10 v1.1
16 Oct 10
v0.2
25Apr11
15.00
10.00
12.00
4.00
O
O
O
R
CO
CO
CO
CO
30Nov10
30Nov10
30Nov10
30Nov10
25Apr12
14Apr11
14Apr11
25Apr12
3.45
O
PU
31Dec10
17Dec10
3.00
3.00
R
R
CO
CO
28Feb11
28Feb11
3June11
Version 0.7
3June11
V0.8 3June11
D4.1
D4.2
D2.2
D4.3
D1.2
D1.4
D6.1
D1.3
D5.1
D6.2
D6.3
D6.4
D7.1
D2.4
D1.5
D1.6
30
Del.
No.
Deliverable Title
D3.6
HOME SWEET HOME
Market evaluation
HOME SWEET HOME Draft
Business Plan
Advisory Group Intermediate
Feedback
Enhanced HOME SWEET
HOME Platform v2
HOME SWEET HOME
Midterm Workshop
Platform Functional
Specifications - version 2
D3.7
D4.4
D1.7
D1.8
D1.9
D5.2
D2.5
D4.5
D1.10
D7.2
D7.3
D1.11
D1.12
D2.6
D2.7
D3.8
D3.9
D3.10
D3.11
D3.12
D3.13
D4.6
D6.5
D7.4
D2.8
D3.14
Estimated
personmonths
8.00
Nature
Diss.
level
Due Date
R
PU
2Apr12
Actual /
(Forecast)
Date
12Apr13
4.50
R
PU
30Apr12
12Apr13
2.75
R
PU
12Apr13
3.00
R
CO
31Jul11
30Apr12
31Aug11
3.00
3.00
15.50
R
R
D
CO
CO
PU
29Feb12
29Feb12
30May12
5.00
O
PU
29Jun12
6.00
R
PU
31Aug12
6Feb13
2May12
No change
from D5.1
Held 17Jan13
Doc 10Apr13
Jan13
3.00
R
CO
midterm
Intermediate Trial Evaluation
Report
4.00
R
CO
4.00
R
PU
31Jan13
12Apr13
HOME SWEET HOME
Leaflet – Version 2
HOME SWEET HOME
Regional Conferences
Clinical Impact assessment
QoL Impact assessment
3.00
3.00
2.00
R
R
O
CO
CO
PU
28Feb13
28Feb13
31Jan14
17Apr13
13 April 2013
06May14
17.50
O
PU
29Nov13
25Apr14
6.00
10.00
R
R
PU
PU
28Feb14
28Feb14
8.00
11.50
11.50
1.00
R
R
R
R
PU
PU
PU
PU
28Feb14
28Feb14
28Feb14
2Dec13
4May14
n/a, combined
with D3.8
4May14
4May14
4May14
25Apr14
3.00
R
PU
30Sep13
05May14
14.00
R
PU
31Dec13
4May14
4.00
R
CO
31Jan14
4May14
6.50
O
PU
31Jan14
2Apr14
4.00
R
CO
28Feb14
4May14
Social Impact assessment
Economic Impact assessment
User Satisfaction assessment
HOME SWEET HOME
Barriers to deployment
Advisory Group Final
Feedback
Installation and operating cost
summary
Validation end
HOME SWEET HOME Final
Conference
HOME SWEET HOME Final
Business Plan
31
Nov11
This deliverable was dropped
in agreement with the Project
Officer
30Nov12
9Apr13
Del.
No.
Deliverable Title
D4.7
D7.5
D1.13
D1.14
D2.9
D7.6
Implementation Guidelines
Final Trial Evaluation Report
Final Report
Public Final Report
Final plan for the
dissemination and use of
HOME SWEET HOME results
Real-life Trials
D4.8
HSH Qualitative study Report
D1.15
D1.16
Estimated
personmonths
13.50
4.00
3.25
1.00
3.00
Nature
Diss.
level
Due Date
R
R
R
R
R
PU
PU
CO
PU
PU
29Nov13
28Feb14
28Feb14
28Feb14
28Feb14
O
CO
28Feb14
N.A. (this
deliverable
was not
foreseen in
the
original
DOW
3.00
R
PU
N.A.
R
CO
28Feb14
3.00
R
CO
28Feb14
183.00
Actual /
(Forecast)
Date
25Apr14
4May14
4May14
4May14
4May14
Covered by
D7.5
05May14
Submitted via
NEF
4May14
Milestones
Milestone
number
MS1
MS2
MS3
MS4
MS5
MS6
MS7
MS8
MS9
MS10
Milestone name
WP
Definition of the detailed list of indicators and
questionnaires
Approval by the Ethics Boards
Completion of the RCT registration
Completion of the equipment procurement
Completion of the trial set-up
Completion of the elderly people recruitment
Completion of the intermediate trial evaluation
Release of the Final Business Plan
Satisfactory completion of the trials
Satisfactory closure of the Project
32
WP3
Delivery
date
31Aug10
Actual
Date
31Oct10
WP1
WP1
WP6
WP6
WP3
31Sep10
30Oct10
30Sept2011
30Sep2011
30Apr2012
WP7
31Jan2013
WP3
28Feb2014
WP7
WP7
28Feb2014
28Feb2014
30Sep10
30June11
18 May 12
15 June 12
30 April
2012
13 April
2013
06 may
2014
28Feb2014
28Feb
2014
Key Performance Indicators
The Complete KPI table is as follows.
Project
Objective
Impact
Indicator
1, 3, 4,
1.1, 1.2,
1.3, 3.1,
4.1
5
5.2
KPI
nr.
Expected Progress
Actual
Objective/expected result
Indicator name
1
Number of elderly people in the
Study Group actively using the
service solution
ELDER NUMBER
0
105
100
95
2
Reduction in number and duration
of episodes hospitalisation
HOSPITALISATION
0%
0%
n.a.
10%
Year 1
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
1.3
1
5
1-7
N/A
5.3
1.1, 1.2,
1.3, 2.1,
3.1, 4.1,
5.1, 5.2,
5.3, 6.1,
7.1
N/A
3
Number of undetected falls
4
Reduction in number of accesses to
Emergency Rooms
5
Marketability of the solution
6
Audience reached through
dissemination events
7
Global savings released
89
Louth: CG 21, IG 27
Automatic fall detection does not work
as planned; we have calls to contact
centre as a result of falls v. falls
reported in monthly diaries, but this is
a different metric. About 30% of falls
are reported to Contact Centres
FALLS
100%
20%
10%
5%
EMERGENCY
0%
0%
5%
10%
MARKETABILITY
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 (+2 initiated in 2014)
AUDIENCE
0
0
100
200
800+
5.1, 5.2,
5.3, 6.1
5, 6, 7
Year 3
SAVINGS
33
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Louth: CG 13, IG 6
No savings have been identified from
the trials conducted:
•Possibly because of the inclusion
criteria (frail older people), no
reductions in clinical events for the
Progress Report 3
Project
Objective
Impact
Indicator
KPI
nr.
Expected Progress
Objective/expected result
Indicator name
34
Year 1
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Actual
Year 3
intervention group were detected
•Because of the small number of
participants (relative to the total
population of older people being cared
for), it was not possible to implement
any revised workflow processes which
may have resulted in savings.
Progress Report 3
Section 5
Project management
Fourth reporting period
The project management activities carried out during the fourth reporting period have been described in
the subsection related to WP1 above. Below the challenges and achievements of this reporting period
can be found:
One important activity which has been carried out in spring 2013 has been to prepare the third
Annual Review which was held in Brussels on the 25ht of april, 2013: the outcome of this
meeting was that the Commission found the HOME SWEET HOME Consortium not fully
performing its contractual obligation and gave them the deadline of the 30th of June to reissue
a number of deliverables and documents in order to bring them to a satisfactory level of
quality. This was done although some iterations were needed until at the beginning of
December the final version of the review report was issued by the review panel giving the
project the green light to continue.
The most critical situation was the one of the Italian pilot, due to a number of factors which
have been mentioned several times. Although most of the technical problems were sorted out,
the critical situation continued due to the difficulties encountered by ASL Latina to allocate
the proper staff to the project, which resulted in a low level of uptime of the devices at the
patients’ homes, and this situation has continued until the end of the project.
As regards the other three sites (namely Belgium, Spain and Ireland) the situation was better
and most of the project’s activities were carried out as foreseen.
The situation in Latina, due to the problems reported above, never reached a level comparable to the
other pilot sites and some of the data collection activities such as the completion of the Participant
diaries have not been carried out regularly or not at all. This raises issues about the comparability of
data between Latina and the other pilot sites.
On the other hand Latina is providing invaluable lessons about the implication of deploying AAL
platforms and services in a rural and mountainous area where nothing is easy and where the cultural
background is very different of that found in most urban areas. And this even without considering
that the trial in Latina has coincided with the worst financial and political crises that Italy and Lazio
have gone through since the end of the Second World War.
Although Latina has not provided scientifically valid evidence, it has provided us with a lot of
understanding of the problems that we can expect to come across when we will try to roll out AAL
services throughput the European Union.
The recommendation of the Management Team has been to keep Latina until the end of the Project
and to do the very best to squeeze out of this experience as much information as possible e.g. by
interviewing people there rather than asking them to provide written contributions what has turned
out to be very difficult for them to do, which was done on the occasion of the qualitative study.
35
Progress Report 3
GANTT chart1
1
In updating the Gantt we have realised that there is an inconsistency between the Gantt and the deliverable list in the DoW. However none of them represent the reality of the
deliverables because the report requested by the Project Officer for the Follow-up meeting in June 2012 was erroneously numbered D1.7 while it should not have been given
any number. We apologise for the confusion that this might have created
36
Progress Report 3
37
Progress Report 3
38
Progress Report 3
39
Progress Report 3
40
Progress Report 3
Person-Month Status Table - Actual vs. planned for the entire Project
WP1
Nr
1
Consortium
short name
ZORGANTWERP
WP2
WP3
WP4
WP5
WP6
WP7
TOTAL
Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual
Planned
3.46
7.00
2.42
12.25
0.29
5.00
0.06
2.25
-
-
4.46
1.00
16.60
26.00
27.29
53.50
2
DIGIPOLIS
3.09
3.50
4.10
3.75
0.57
5.00
1.07
2.75
-
-
1.97
5.00
8.02
15.00
18.82
35.00
3
MUTAS
1.61
1.00
0.31
2.25
0.77
6.00
0.13
1.75
-
-
26.12
6.00
34.24
12.68
63.19
29.68
4
ZNA
-
1.50
-
2.25
3.18
6.00
-
2.25
-
-
0.45
2.00
-
7.00
3.63
21.00
5
KPSF
5.07
1.00
1.14
2.25
1.57
1.00
-
2.25
1.23
6.00
-
3.00
-
-
9.01
15.50
6
AGE
1.68
1.00
4.41
2.25
2.39
7.42
4.64
13.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
13.12
23.67
7
HIM
36.71
30.45
0.52
4.77
1.52
8.75
0.28
5.00
2.04
6.10
1.64
8.00
0.10
-
42.81
63.07
8
BSA
1.94
0.50
1.65
2.00
2.58
7.50
1.71
2.25
-
-
4.66
3.50
19.67
25.00
32.21
40.75
9
TICSALUT
2.36
1.00
4.90
7.25
0.38
2.00
1.30
1.75
-
-
1.30
1.50
4.91
9.00
15.15
22.50
10
CMA
1.99
-
2.64
-
1.77
3.00
0.58
-
0.01
-
1.28
-
4.37
8.25
12.65
11.25
11
DEVOORZORG
1.86
-
0.42
-
0.30
-
0.53
-
0.03
-
2.78
-
1.32
9.00
7.23
9.00
12
LCC
1.78
0.50
0.04
1.35
-
2.50
-
1.50
-
-
0.25
1.50
0.79
17.00
2.86
24.35
13
TMR
0.80
0.80
0.23
0.23
-
-
-
-
2.06
3.06
-
-
-
-
3.09
4.09
14
DARCO
1.54
1.00
1.09
3.75
0.31
5.00
0.29
2.75
-
-
2.28
6.00
53.82
17.00
59.33
35.50
15
LATINA
8.92
0.50
-
1.50
1.23
5.00
-
3.00
-
-
3.00
2.00
7.34
22.48
20.49
34.48
16
CATTID
2.92
1.00
2.46
3.75
2.14
1.50
9.42
3.50
4.86
4.00
3.50
6.00
-
-
25.31
19.75
17
DKIT
3.20
0.50
3.23
3.75
3.01
4.00
1.74
5.25
-
-
9.26
5.50
19.67
4.00
40.10
23.00
18
HSENE
TOTAL
1.24
0.50
0.23
1.35
0.44
3.50
0.41
2.00
-
-
0.19
2.00
24.33
24.00
80.18
51.75
29.80
54.70
22.45
73.17
22.15
51.25
10.23
19.16
63.14
26.84
196.41 423.13
33.35
499.44
41
53.00 195.18
Progress Report 3
Person-Month Status Table - Actual vs. planned for the period
Consortium
Nr
short name
WP1
WP2
WP3
WP4
WP5
WP6
WP7
TOTAL
Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned
Actual
Planned
1
DIGIPOLIS
0.77
1.75
1.70
3.06
0.16
0.75
-
0.90
-
-
1.20
-
6.69
9.10
10.51
15.56
2
ZORGANTWERP
0.40
0.88
1.43
0.94
0.06
0.75
0.17
1.10
-
-
0.46
-
2.14
5.25
4.66
8.91
3
MUTAS
-
0.25
-
0.56
-
0.90
-
0.70
-
-
14.16
0.90
22.43
4.44
36.59
7.75
4
ZNA
-
0.38
-
0.56
1.26
0.90
-
0.90
-
-
-
-
-
2.45
1.26
5.19
5
KPSF
-
0.25
1.14
0.56
1.57
0.15
-
0.90
1.23
1.12
-
-
-
-
3.94
2.98
6
AGE
0.38
0.25
1.88
0.56
1.54
2.60
2.70
5.20
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.50
8.61
7
HIM
9.29
7.61
0.33
2.39
0.24
1.75
0.05
2.00
0.01
-
0.03
-
0.02
-
9.97
13.75
8
BSA
0.33
0.13
0.69
0.50
-
1.13
0.31
0.90
-
-
-
-
14.39
8.75
15.72
11.40
9
TICSALUT
0.67
0.25
1.62
1.81
-
0.30
0.24
0.70
-
-
-
-
4.30
3.15
6.83
6.21
10
CMA
0.72
-
0.76
-
0.45
0.45
0.40
-
-
-
0.24
-
2.25
2.89
4.82
3.34
11
DE VOORZORG
0.46
-
0.39
-
0.16
-
0.51
-
0.03
-
0.67
-
0.94
3.15
3.15
3.15
12
LCC
0.63
0.13
-
0.34
-
0.38
-
0.60
-
-
-
-
0.66
5.95
1.29
7.39
13
TMR
-
0.20
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.20
14
DARCO
0.16
0.25
-
0.94
-
0.75
-
1.10
-
-
-
-
42.34
5.95
42.50
8.99
15
LATINA
2.52
0.13
-
0.15
-
0.75
-
1.20
-
-
-
-
5.51
7.87
8.03
10.09
16
CATTID
0.91
0.25
1.14
0.94
0.86
0.60
2.57
1.40
2.14
1.00
1.29
0.90
-
-
8.91
5.09
17
DKIT
HSE NE
1.08
0.13
2.34
0.94
1.40
0.60
0.02
2.10
-
-
4.09
0.83
16.46
1.40
25.38
5.99
0.08
0.13
-
0.34
0.10
0.53
-
0.80
-
-
-
-
23.74
8.40
TOTAL
18.40
12.94
13.42
14.59
7.79
13.27
6.96
20.50
3.41
2.12
22.13
2.63 141.86
68.74
23.91
213.97
10.19
134.79
18
42
Progress Report 3
TICSALUT
CMA
Workpackage 6
BSA
Workpackage 5
HIM
Workpackage 4
AGE
Workpackage 3
KPSF
Workpackage 2
ZNA
Actual(Previous periods)
Actual (this Period)
Actual (Total)
Planned (total)
Actual (Total)
Planned (total)
Actual (Total)
Planned (total)
Actual (Total)
Planned (total)
Actual (Total)
Planned (total)
Actual (Total)
MUTAS
Workpackage 1
DIPOLIS
01/03/10 - 28/02/13
Coordinator
PERIOD:
TOTAL
Person-Months Status Table – Additional table
61.78
18.40
80.18
51.75
10.09
13.42
23.51
54.70
14.65
7.79
22.44
73.17
15.19
6.96
22.15
51.25
6.82
3.41
10.23
19.16
41.02
22.13
63.14
2.69
0.77
3.46
7.00
0.72
1.70
2.42
3.75
0.13
0.16
0.29
5.00
0.06
0.06
2.25
3.26
1.20
4.46
2.69
0.40
3.09
3.50
2.67
1.43
4.10
12.25
0.51
0.06
0.57
5.00
0.90
0.17
1.07
2.75
1.51
0.46
1.97
1.61
1.61
1.00
0.31
0.31
2.25
0.77
0.77
6.00
0.13
0.13
1.75
11.96
14.16
26.12
1.50
2.25
1.92
1.26
3.18
6.00
2.25
0.45
0.45
5.07
5.07
1.00
1.14
1.14
2.25
1.57
1.57
1.00
2.25
1.23
1.23
6.00
-
1.30
0.38
1.68
1.00
2.54
1.88
4.41
2.25
0.85
1.54
2.39
7.42
1.94
2.70
4.64
13.00
-
27.42
9.29
36.71
30.45
0.19
0.33
0.52
4.77
1.28
0.24
1.52
8.75
0.23
0.05
0.28
5.00
2.03
0.01
2.04
6.10
1.61
0.03
1.64
1.61
0.33
1.94
0.50
0.95
0.69
1.65
2.00
2.58
2.58
7.50
1.40
0.31
1.71
2.25
4.66
4.66
1.69
0.67
2.36
1.00
3.28
1.62
4.90
7.25
0.38
0.38
2.00
1.06
0.24
1.30
1.75
1.30
1.30
1.27
0.72
1.99
1.88
0.76
2.64
1.32
0.45
1.77
3.00
0.18
0.40
0.58
0.01
0.01
1.04
0.24
1.28
43
Progress Report 3
ZNA
KPSF
AGE
HIM
BSA
3.50
5.28
14.39
19.67
25.00
16.48
15.72
32.21
40.75
1.40
0.46
1.86
0.03
0.39
0.42
-
1.16
0.63
1.78
0.50
0.04
0.04
1.35
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.23
0.23
0.23
1.38
0.16
1.54
1.00
1.09
1.09
3.75
6.40
2.52
8.92
0.50
1.50
2.01
0.91
2.92
1.00
1.32
1.14
2.46
3.75
2.12
1.08
3.20
0.50
0.89
2.34
3.23
3.75
1.16
0.08
1.24
0.50
0.23
0.23
1.35
44
CMA
MUTAS
8.00
0.08
0.02
0.10
32.84
9.97
42.81
63.07
TICSALUT
DIPOLIS
6.62
6.50
13.12
23.67
HSE NE
Coordinator
3.00
5.07
3.94
9.01
15.50
DKIT
Workpackage 2
2.00
7.00
2.37
1.26
3.63
21.00
CATTID
Actual (Total)
Planned (total)
Actual (Total)
Planned (total)
6.00
11.81
22.43
34.24
12.68
26.60
36.59
63.19
29.68
LATINA
Workpackage 1
5.00
5.87
2.14
8.02
15.00
14.16
4.66
18.82
43.50
DARCO
01/03/10 - 28/02/12
1.00
9.91
6.69
16.60
26.00
16.77
10.51
27.29
45.00
TMR
PERIOD:
53.00
53.32
141.86
195.18
196.41
209.16
213.97
423.13
499.44
LCC
Total project
Planned (total)
Actual (Total)
Planned (total)
Actual (Previous periods)
Actual (Total)
Planned (total)
TOTAL
Workpackage 7
01/03/10 - 28/02/13
DE VOORZORG
PERIOD:
1.50
0.61 2.12
4.30 2.25
4.91 4.37
9.00 8.25
8.33 7.83
6.83 4.82
15.15 12.65
22.50 11.25
Progress Report 3
Total project
2.06
2.06
3.06
3.09
3.09
4.09
HSE NE
Workpackage 7
-
DKIT
Workpackage 6
-
CATTID
Workpackage 5
2.50
1.50
0.25
0.25
1.50
0.13
0.66
0.79
17.00
1.58
1.29
2.86
24.35
LATINA
Workpackage 4
0.14
0.16
0.30
0.02
0.51
0.53
0.03
0.03
2.11
0.67
2.78
0.38
0.94
1.32
9.00
4.08
3.15
7.23
9.00
DARCO
Actual (Total)
Planned (total)
Actual (Total)
Planned (total)
Actual (Total)
Planned (total)
Actual (Total)
Planned (total)
Actual (Total)
Planned (total)
Actual(thisPeriod)
Actual(Total)
Planned (total)
TMR
Workpackage 3
LCC
01/03/10 - 28/02/12
DE VOORZORG
PERIOD:
0.31
0.31
5.00
0.29
0.29
2.75
2.28
2.28
6.00
11.48
42.34
53.82
17.00
16.83
42.50
59.33
35.50
1.23
1.23
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
1.83
5.51
7.34
22.48
12.46
8.03
20.49
34.48
1.29
0.86
2.14
1.50
6.85
2.57
9.42
3.50
2.72
2.14
4.86
4.00
2.21
1.29
3.50
6.00
16.39
8.91
25.31
19.75
1.61
1.40
3.01
4.00
1.72
0.02
1.74
5.25
5.17
4.09
9.26
5.50
3.21
16.46
19.67
4.00
14.72
25.38
40.10
23.00
0.34
0.10
0.44
3.50
0.41
0.41
2.00
0.19
0.19
2.00
0.60
23.74
24.33
24.00
2.93
23.91
26.84
33.35
45
Progress Report 3
Comments on person-months status table
The discrepancy between the planned effort and the actual one is almost exclusively due to the effect of the Contact Centre activities and to the need
to provide a 24/7 coverage as it has been reinstated several times in previous Project Reviews. The impact of such a coverage was underestimated at
the time of preparing the budget. The way the Contact Centres have organised themselves to provide the service varies from one site to another.
This explains the differences in the effort claims between Darco and the other partners providing this kind of service. The issue will be thoroughly
covered during the Annual Review.
46
Progress Report 3
Effort by person for the period
Digipolis
Lutgart Messens
Lieven van Gestel
Jurgen Jalink
Hans Beyers
Kevin De Mulder
Zorgantwerp
Sarah Peeraerts
Dimitri De Rooze
Edwin Houdeveld
Mutas
Tom Lenie
Greet Van Nuffelen
Isabelle Vanrusselt
Martine Moreels
Katrien Vandermeulen
Kim Blogie
Hilde Derauw
Vintsent Bekaert
ZNA
N° Person hours
288.00
216.00
128.00
4.00
16.00
TOTAL
N° Person hours
912.00
416.00
144.00
TOTAL
N° Person hours
75.00
92.00
65.00
1,189.50
364.00
1,222.00
1,339.00
776.00
TOTAL
N° Person hours
N° Person
Months
2.06
1.54
0.91
0.03
0.11
4.66
N° Person
Months
6.51
2.97
1.03
10.51
N° Person
Months
0.54
0.66
0.46
8.50
2.60
8.73
9.56
5.54
36.59
N° Person
Months
47
Progress Report 3
Vandewoude Maurits
KPSF
Astrid Herman
Kristof Reekmans
Jeroen Ruysen
AGE
Gheno Ilenia
Georgantzi Nena
Maude Luherne
Ophélie Durand
HiMSA
M.d'Angelantonio
J.Oates
M.Wuensche
W.Keijser
R.Chelli
HelmutPrior
G.d'Angelantonio
176
TOTAL
N° Person hours
380.00
56.00
116.00
TOTAL
N° Person hours
236.60
447.64
78.79
90.00
TOTAL
N° Person hours
283.50
270.00
146.00
172.00
304.00
39.00
181.00
TOTAL
1.26
1.26
N° Person
Months
2.71
0.40
0.83
3.94
N° Person
Months
1.80
3.41
0.60
0.69
6.50
N° Person Months
2.03
1.93
1.04
1.23
2.17
0.28
1.29
9.97
48
Progress Report 3
BSA
J.R.Llopart
S.Santaeugenia
I.Saez
J.Roque
M.J.Ciudad
JoanCunill
MeritxellOliveras
JordiPiera
TISCALUT
J.Manyach
L.Tarin
C.Ceinos
I.Garcia-Milà
M.deSanpedro
Francesc Moya
CMA
Hugo Goedemé
Anja Van Gremmegen
Wouter Geerts
Maria Beyens
Isabel Klok
Stefanie Steeman
N°Personhours
169.00
137.00
841.00
277.00
298.00
68.00
301.00
110.00
TOTAL
N°Personhours
144.00
177.00
126.50
143.00
365.00
TOTAL
N°Personhours
187.00
14.00
12.00
18.00
236.00
208.00
TOTAL
N°PersonMonths
1.21
0.98
6.01
1.98
2.13
0.49
2.15
0.79
15.72
N°PersonMonths
1.03
1.26
0.90
1.02
2.61
6.83
N°PersonMonths
1.34
0.10
0.09
0.13
1.69
1.49
4.82
49
Progress Report 3
Devoorzorg
Rudy Cornelis
Caroline Van Herck
Linda Huybrechts
LCC
Bernie Woods
Joesph McGuinness
Marie McGorman
Mary Deery
Willie Walsh
Catherine McConville
Justin Sexton
Bridie Hickey
DARCO
Annagrazia Laura
Santo Viapiana
Emiliano Deferrari
Antonella Altobelli
Daniel Petruccioli
Basile Naomi
Bisio Desirèe
Casciotti Fabiana
Ciocchetti Lorenzo
Costantini Alessio
D'Andreis Marco
DeAngelisS tefano
N°Personhours
59.00
264.00
118.00
TOTAL
N°Personhours
2.00
8.50
2.00
12.50
58.00
60.00
30.00
7.00
TOTAL
N°Personhours
112.00
8.00
68.00
26.00
24.00
591.00
558.00
60.00
143.00
81.00
164.00
41.00
N°PersonMonths
0.42
1.89
0.84
3.15
N°PersonMonths
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.09
0.41
0.43
0.21
0.05
1.29
N°PersonMonths
0.70
0.05
0.43
0.16
0.15
3.69
3.49
0.38
0.89
0.51
1.03
0.26
50
Progress Report 3
Doda Alma
Donnarumma Francesco
Durante Matteo
Furia Massimiliano
Galeoni Micaela
Giovannelli Andrea
Malatesta Gianluca
Mandanici Massimo
Olivieri Guido
Passeri Silvia
Rocca Marco
Rossi Sabrina
Salleso SegliesiAlessandro
Valenza Katia
Montecchio Marco
Musicarelli Elisa
Gambini Mario
Nirta Francesco
Liberati David
Panzieri Riccardo
Sincini Melissa
Fatteri Santino
Saglimbene Michele
Lostia Fabrizio
LATINA
Luigi Ardia
Vincenzo Faustinella
Roberta Centra
Giovanni Barbanti
Paolo Squillace
433.00
695.00
304.00
272.00
477.00
71.00
298.00
88.00
81.00
143.00
121.00
66.00
20.00
81.00
252.00
30.00
135.00
176.00
226.00
31.00
7.00
760.00
127.00
30.00
TOTAL
N°Personhours
296.00
442.00
112.00
20.00
206.00
2.71
4.34
1.90
1.70
2.98
0.44
1.86
0.55
0.51
0.89
0.76
0.41
0.13
0.51
1.58
0.19
0.84
1.10
1.41
0.19
0.04
4.75
0.79
0.19
42.50
N°PersonMonths
2.11
3.16
0.80
0.14
1.47
51
Progress Report 3
Emanuela Morsello
CATTID
Ugo Biader
Carlo Maria Medaglia
Andrea Ingrosso
Eliseo Sciarretta
Alessandra Taormina
Erijka Priori
Mastronardi
DKIT
Rodd Bond
Stuart Quinn
Yolanda Connolly
Ann O'Hanlon
Joanne Finnegan
Shauna McGee
Ron Finegan
Karen Doherty
HSENE
Mary McKearney
Public Health Nursing Service
Catherine Smyth
William McAllister
Home Support Service
48.00
TOTAL
N°Personhours
0.34
8.03
N°PersonMonths
64.00
200.00
320.00
320.00
64.00
160.00
120.00
0.46
1.43
2.29
2.29
0.46
1.14
0.86
TOTAL
8.91
N°Personhours
21.00
736.50
107.50
117.00
1,506.00
823.00
137.00
105.00
TOTAL
N°Personhours
11.00
363.00
40.00
14.00
2,920.00
N°PersonMonths
0.15
5.26
0.77
0.84
10.76
5.88
0.98
0.75
25.38
N°PersonMonths
0.08
2.59
0.29
0.10
20.86
52
Progress Report 3
TOTAL
23.91
Cost Budget Follow-up Table
PARTICIPANTS
DIGIPOLIS
Zorgbedrijf Antwerpen
MUTAS
Ziekenhuis Netwerk Antwerpen
TYPE OF
EXPENDITURE
(as defined by
participants)
BUDGET
e
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Requested EC Funding
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
53
ACTUALCOSTS
(EUR)
Previous Current
Periods
Period
Total
a1
b1
e1
Pct. Spent
Total
c1/e
Remaining
Budget
(EUR)
e-e1
239,250
71,775
1,948
39,499
352,472
282,000
56,289
16,887
15,903
89,079
44,540
16,120
4,836
18,203
39,159
19,579
72,409
21,723
34,106
128,238
64,119
30%
30%
0%
86%
36%
23%
166,841
50,052
1,948
5,393
224,234
217,881
236,250
70,875
43,000
209,824
559,949
239,819
87,551
26,265
13,794
38,014
165,624
82,812
50,627
15,188
56,758
122,574
61,287
138,178
41,453
13,794
94,772
288,197
144,099
58%
58%
32%
45%
51%
60%
98,072
29,422
29,206
115,052
271,751
95,720
215,981
64,794
12,511
293,286
146,643
108,978
32,693
2,530
144,201
72,101
100,651
30,195
323
131,170
65,585
209,629
62,889
2,853
275,371
137,685
97%
97%
0%
23%
94%
94%
6,351
1,905
9,658
17,915
8,958
323,400
97,020
-
36,520
10,956
1,300
19,360
5,808
-
55,880
16,764
1,300
17%
17%
0%
267,520
80,256
-1,300
Progress Report 3
PARTICIPANTS
Klinisch Psychologe St.-Franciskusziekenhuis
AGE-European Older People’sP latform
Health Information Management SA
Badalona Serveis Assistencials
ACTUALCOSTS
(EUR)
Pct. Spent
BUDGET
Previous Current
Periods
Period
Total
Total
e
a1
b1
e1
c1/e
12,485
1,196
1,196
10%
432,905
48,776
75,140
17%
26,364
216,453
24,388
13,182
37,570
17%
TYPE OF
EXPENDITURE
(as defined by
participants)
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
54
Remaining
Budget
(EUR)
e-e1
11,289
357,765
178,883
58,577
17,573
69,200
20,235
165,585
82,793
26,991
8,097
69,172
7,914
112,174
56,087
19,200
5,760
1,242
26,202
13,101
46,191
13,857
69,172
9,156
138,376
69,188
79%
79%
100%
45%
84%
84%
12,386
3,716
28
11,079
27,209
13,605
106,515
44,440
150,955
75,478
25,117
1,827
1,135
28,079
14,039
24,686
3,481
28,166
14,083
49,803
1,827
4,616
56,245
28,123
47%
0%
0%
10%
37%
37%
56,712
-1,827
39,824
94,710
47,355
409,955
122,987
36,000
37,413
606,354
303,177
229,444
68,833
5,400
27,781
331,457
165,729
70,991
21,297
21,650
3,145
117,084
58,541.82
300,435
90,130
27,050
30,926
448,541
224,271
73%
73%
75%
83%
74%
74%
109,520
32,856
8,950
6,487
157,813
78,907
244,500
73,350
110,720
33,216
85,914
25,774
196,634
58,990
80%
80%
47,866
14,360
Progress Report 3
PARTICIPANTS
TYPE OF
EXPENDITURE
(as defined by
participants)
BUDGET
e
31,500
108,572
457,922
228,961
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Departament de Salut de la Generalitat de
Catalunya (TICSALUT)
Christelijke Mutualiteit Antwerpen
Thuiszorg Antwerpen VZW
Louth County Council
ACTUALCOSTS
(EUR)
Pct. Spent
Previous Current
Periods
Period
Total
Total
a1
b1
e1
c1/e
3,606
3,000
6,606
21%
50,036
30,340
80,376
74%
197,578
342,607
75%
145,029
98,789
72,514
171,303
75%
Remaining
Budget
(EUR)
e-e1
24,894
28,196
115,315
57,658
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
55
135,000
40,500
17,405
192,905
96,453
51,591
15,477
4,500
71,568
35,784
38,322
11,497
422
575
50,816
25,408
89,913
26,974
422
5,075
122,384
61,192
67%
67%
0%
29%
63%
63%
45,087
13,526
-422
12,330
70,521
35,261
45,000
13,500
12,485
70,985
35,493
26,304
7,891
952
35,147
17,574
16,200
4,860
21,060
10,530
42,504
12,751
952
56,207
28,104
94%
94%
0%
8%
79%
79%
2,496
749
11,533
14,778
7,389
45,000
13,500
12,485
70,985
35,493
21,748
6,524
546
28,818
14,409
16,224
4,867
21,091
10,546
37,972
11,392
546
49,909
24,954
84%
84%
0%
4%
70%
70%
7,028
2,108
11,939
21,076
10,538
121,750
13,187
7,544
20,731
17%
101,019
Progress Report 3
PARTICIPANTS
TeleMedicina Rizzoli S.p.A.
DARCO
AziendaUSLdiLatina
CATTID
TYPE OF
EXPENDITURE
(as defined by
participants)
BUDGET
e
36,525
7,500
165,775
82,888
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Total Person-Month
56
ACTUALCOSTS
(EUR)
Pct. Spent
Previous Current
Periods
Period
Total
Total
a1
b1
e1
c1/e
3,956
2,263
6,219
17%
0%
2,436
872
3,308
44%
19,579
30,258
18%
10,680
9,789
5,340
15,129
18%
Remaining
Budget
(EUR)
e-e1
30,306
4,192
135,517
170,015
32,120
9,636
9,347
51,103
25,551
24,266
7,280
597
32,143
16,072
-
24,266
7,280
597
32,143
16,072
76%
76%
0%
6%
63%
63%
7,853
2,356
8,750
18,959
9,480
177,500
53,250
17,485
248,235
124,118
69,081
20,724
1,200
7,058
98,063
49,032
87,701
26,310
3,039
117,050
58,525
156,782
47,035
1,200
10,097
215,114
107,557
88%
88%
0%
58%
87%
87%
20,718
6,215
-1,200
7,388
33,121
16,561
172,400
51,720
93,000
198,826
515,946
257,973
103,197
30,959
4,349
65,320
203,825
101,912
46,612
13,984
3,814
61,729
126,139
63,069.36
149,809
44,943
8,163
127,049
329,963
164,982
87%
87%
9%
64%
64%
64%
22,591
6,777
84,837
71,777
185,982
92,991
Progress Report 3
PARTICIPANTS
TYPE OF
EXPENDITURE
(as defined by
participants)
BUDGET
e
79,000
23,700
3,072
19,513
125,285
62,643
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Dundalk Institute of Technology (Netwell
Centre)
Health Service Executive – North Eastern Area
Whole Consortium
Remaining
Budget
(EUR)
e-e1
-9,415
-2,824
11,722
-517
-258
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
Total Person-Month
Personnel Costs
Overheads
Subcontracting
Other direct costs
Total Costs
ACTUALCOSTS
(EUR)
Pct. Spent
Previous Current
Periods
Period
Total
Total
a1
b1
e1
c1/e
56,733
31,682
88,415
112%
17,020
9,505
26,524
112%
3,072
3,072
100%
7,104
687
7,791
40%
83,928
125,802
100%
41,874
41,964
20,937
62,901
100%
57
115,000
34,500
44,400
255,812
449,712
224,856
80,254
24,076
2,000
130,179
236,509
118,255
86,910
26,073
10,706
35,408
159,096
79,548
167,164
50,149
12,706
165,587
395,605
197,803
145%
145%
29%
65%
88%
88%
-52,164
-15,649
31,694
90,225
54,107
27,053
166,750
50,025
7,500
224,275
112,138
23,451
7,035
30,486
15,243
71,520
21,456
92,976
46,488
94,971
28,491
123,462
61,731
57%
57%
0%
0%
55%
55%
71,779
21,534
7,500
100,813
50,407
2,923,947
845,230
322,120
1,043,337
5,134,634
2,632,925
1,151,420
337,891
105,720
362,004
1,957,035
978,517
790,264
237,079
39,593
216,998
1,276,528
638,264
1,941,684
574,970
145,312
579,002
3,233,563
1,616,781
66%
68%
45%
55%
63%
61%
982,263
270,260
176,808
464,335
1,901,071
1,016,144
Progress Report 3
Cost generating meetings
WP, Task and title
WP1-D1.9-Progress ReportPeriod 2
Date and Place
10/05/2012
Brussels (Belgium)
WP2–D2.2-HOME
SWEET 16-19/05/2012
HOME Dissemination Plan
Heraklion (Greece)
Participant(s)
Purpose
and
conclusions
Lutgart Messens (DIGIPOLIS), John Oates (HIMSA), Wouter
Keijser (HIMSA), Raniero Chelli (HIMSA), Marco
d´Angelantonio (HIMSA), Tom Lenie (MUTAS), Annie Ceron
(MUTAS), Astrid Herman (SFZ), Jeroe Ruysen (SFZ), Nena
Georgantzi (AGE), Josep Llopart (BSA), Carmen Ceinos
(TICSALUT), Hugo Goedeme (CMA), Linda Huybrechts
(DEVOORZORG), Annagrazia Laura (DARCO), Massimo
Melina (CATTID), Joanne Finnegan (DKIT), Stuart Quinn
(DKIT), Dimitri De Rooze (ZORGANTWERP), Maurits
Vandewoude (ZNA)
Annagrazia Laura (DARCO), Marco d’Angelantonio (HIMSA),
Alice Sinigaglia (AGE)
Dimitri De Rooze (ZORGANTWERP), John Oates (HIMSA),
Helmut Prior (HIMSA), Raniero Chelli (HIMSA), Marco
d´Angelantonio (HIMSA), Paolo Squillace (LATINA).
Main
Annual Project Review
Design4All workshop
24-25/06/2012
Brussels (Belgium)
WP7-D7.6–Real-life trials
01/10/2012 Louth
(Ireland)
Catherine McConville (LCC)
Internal project meeting
04/10/2012
Priverno (Italy)
Paolo Squillace (LATINA), Luigi Ardia (LATINA), Vincenzo
Faustinella (LATINA), Roberta Centra (LATINA), Giovanni
Barbanti(LATINA)
Project Internal meeting - The
situation of the project
activities in Latina was
discussed
18-19/10/2012
Brussels (Belgium)
Raniero Chelli (HIMSA), Marco d’Angelantonio (HIM), John
Oates (HIM), Wouter Keijser (HIM), Dimitri De Rooze
(Zorgbedrijf), Lutgart Messens (Digipolis), Astrid Herman (SFZ),
Maurits Vandewoude (ZNA), Jeroen Ruysen (SFZ), Annagrazia
Laura (DARCO), Emiliano Deferrari (DARCO), Carmen Ceinos
(TiCSalut), Josep Ramon Llopart, Joanne Finnegan (DKIT),
Stuart Quinn (DKIT),William Walsh (LCC), Nena
Georgantzi(AGE), Riccardo Maderna(HIMSA)
PSC6
58
Follow-up Review – Period 2
Progress Report 3
WP, Task and title
Date and Place
Participant(s)
23/11/2012
Priverno (Italy)
Barbanti (LATINA
30/11/2012
Priverno (Italy)
Barbanti (LATINA
WP1-D1.11-Progress Report03/12/2012
Period 3 and WP4-D4.6-Advisory
Antwerp (Belgium)
Group Final Feedback
12-13/12/2012
Priverno (Italy)
28/12/2012
Priverno (Italy)
WP1-D1.11-Progress ReportPeriod3
16-17/01/2013
Barcelona (Spain).
Purpose
and
conclusions
Main
discussed
discussed
Nena Georganzti (AGE), Ophélie Durand (AGE), Angela Cluzel
Site visit to Antwerp by
(AGE), Heidrun Mollenkopf (AGE), Maria Pijl (AGE), Philippe
Management Team and
Swennen (AGE), Barbro Westerholm (AGE), John Oates (HIM),
Advisory Board
Wouter Keijser (HIM)
Annagrazia Laura (DARCO), Paolo Squillace (LATINA), Luigi
Meeting with Coordinator and
Ardia (LATINA), Marco d’Angelantonio (HIMSA) and Raniero
ASL Latina
Chelli (HIMSA)
Barbanti (LATINA)
discussed
Raniero Chelli (HIMSA) ,Marco d’Angelantonio (HIMSA), John
Oates (HIMSA), Graziella d’Angelantonio (HIMSA) Dimitri De
Rooze (Zorgbedrijf), Lutgart Messens (Digipolis), Lieven Van
Gestel (Digipolis), Linda Huybrechts (DeVoorzorg), Astrid
Herman (SFZ), Jeroen Ruysen (SFZ), Annagrazia Laura PSC7 meeting and Advisory
(DARCO), Emiliano Deferrari (DARCO), Carmen Ceinos Board meeting + Workshop
(TiCSalut), Ignasi Garcia Mila (TiCSalut), Ignasi Saez (BSA),
Jordi Roque (BSA), Maria Jose Ciudad (BSA), Joanne Finnegan
(DKIT), Stuart Quinn (DKIT), William Walsh (LCC), Nena
Georgantzi (AGE), Tom Lenie(Mutas)
59
Progress Report 3
WP, Task and title
Date and Place
Participant(s)
18/01/2013
Badalona (Spain)
28-29/01/2013
Dundalk (Ireland)
Marco d’Angelantonio (HIMSA), John Oates (HIMSA), Ignasi
Saez (BSA), Jordi Roque (BSA), Maria Jose Ciudad (BSA),
Marco d’Angelantonio (HIMSA), John Oates (HIMSA), Joanne
Finnegan (DKIT), Stuart Quinn (DKIT)
Annagrazia Laura(DARCO), Emiliano Deferrari (DARCO),
Marco d’Angelantonio (HIMSA) Raniero Chelli(HIMSA), Paolo
Squillace (LATINA), Luigi Ardia (LATINA)
19/02/2013
Priverno (Italy)
Purpose
and
conclusions
60
Main
Site Visit to Badalona
Site Visit to Ireland
Progress Meeting Between
Darco, Latina and HIMSA
Progress Report 3
Section 6
Explanation of the use of the resources
The explanation of the use of the resource tables have been submitted in a separate document.
The explanation of the use of resources has been submitted
through the NEF.
61
Section 7
Financial statements and Summary financial
report
The Financial statement and the summary financial report
have been submitted through the NEF.
62
Section 8
[only
for
Certificates
actual
cost
reimbursement]
List of Certificates due for this period, in accordance with Article II.4.7 of the Grant
Agreement.
Beneficiary
Organisation
Certificate on the
Any useful comment, in
short name
financial statements particular if a certificate is not
provided?
provided
yes / no
1
DIGIPOLIS
no
Expenditure threshold not
reached
2
ZORGANTWERP
no
reached
3
MUTAS
no
reached
4
ZNA
no
reached
5
KPSF
no
reached
6
AGE
no
reached
7
HIM
no
reached
8
BSA
no
reached
9
DSGC
no
reached
10
CMA
no
reached
11
DE VOORZORG
no
reached
12
LCC
no
reached
13
TMR
no
reached
14
DARCO
no
reached
15
LATINA
no
reached
16
CATTID
no
reached
17
DKIT
no
reached
18
HSE NE
no
reached
63
ANNEX I Status of the actions from the third Project
Review held on 25th April, 2014
RE: HOME SWEET HOME – Contract Nr: 250449
Introduction.
This document contains the answers to the recommendations formulated by the Home Sweet
Home reviewers in the Technical Review Report dated 01/10/2013. The response to
recommendation n. 8 was already provided by the first deadline set out in the above
mentioned report.
In the meantime an additional letter was produced and forwarded by the Home Sweet Home
Management team to the Project Officer clarifying the HSH consortium’s position regarding
the Business Plan Deliverable. This letter is attached to the present report together with the
other relevant annexes.
Comment/request
Sec. 1.b Recommendations
1) Produce a table comparing
impact indicators planned in DoW
compared to the actual status where
appropriate
Action to be taken/
Comments
status
Although the KPI table was
already included in D1.12 v10
(c. 29th August) on page 45,
we have extracted the said
table and updated it. The
revised table is attached as
“HSH KPIs ex D1.12 v10”
Done
64
Comment/request
2) For the Louth pilot, a control
check should be completed soon
concerning the response times of
the map display in the navigation
system
Action to be taken/
status
Comments
In August 2013 after validation Done
tests run by CATTID, which
identified the problem in the
configuration of the Mambo, 2
test devices in the Louth lab
were reconfigured and reset.
Another test was carried out on
both devices using the same
conditions as the May test.
Both devices were visible on
the portal map.
All Mambo devices were
subsequently recalled and
reset.
At PSC 8 in Treviso we were
tasked by the Project
Management to carry out a
response test on the portal.
This test was carried out in late
October and early November.
Results showed that the
response upload for change of
position on the portal was
anything from 2 to 3 ½ minutes
depending on cloud cover and
location. This is normal
considering that the Mambo is
configured to send an SMS
with the position every 2
minutes.
65
Comment/request
3) The statistical justification
should be given soon as to why
30% dropouts are acceptable as
opposed to the previously
mentioned 20%, A simple
statement is not sufficient
Action to be taken/
status
Comments
The justification was provided Done
in detail during the Review
Meeting. The same arguments
have been compiled in a short
document which is attached as
“Comment on power
Calculation”. The main point is
that the consortium never said
that 20% was the maximum
acceptable threshold. The
attached document contains the
graph which was shown and
commented during the last
review meeting clearly
demonstrating that even 30%
dropouts would produce a
meaningful result.
66
Comment/request
Action to be taken/
status
Comments
4) Resolve the 5 minute delay in
This is the same problem
Done
locating Mambo users on GPS soon reported under
– modern technology simply
recommendation n.2 but for the
doesn’t suffer these problems
other sites as well. Apparently
it is a problem due to the
Mambo devices which has to
be considered and end-of-life
product. Tests are being run
with a state-of-the-art
smartphone and the first results
are very satisfactory, however
it is clearly note feasible to
change the device three months
before the end of the project, if
nothing else because this
would imply a new round of
training for the elderly persons.
One of the important lessons
we have learned from the pilots
is that the system will only be
accepted by the users if the
functions currently provided by
the Mambo are embedded into
the smartphone that a growing
number of elderly person have
learnt to use. At the same time,
this will also solve the delay
problem experienced with the
Mambo, as the tests have
shown.
67
Comment/request
5) Provide evidence that the risk
and issue registers have been
updated and are now in such a form
as to enable identification of
relevant risks, and manage speedy
resolution of issues where these
risks crystallise
6) Submit the Retention Plan and
show how it has helped to avoid
further dropouts
7) Submit a completed Deliverable
1.12
Action to be taken/
Comments
The project is now
approaching its natural end and
therefore the probability that
new risk situation arise is
becoming lower and lower, this
is the reason why the updated
risk analysis attached is just an
updated version of the previous
one. Two different pieces of
information are provided:
The Risk Management logs,
one for the whole project and
one for each pilot site. This is
the standard risk analysis file.
Only for the Irish Pilot an
update has been provided, as
for the other ones no new risk
factors have been identified.
The Issue register, where the
main issues encountered in the
project’s lifetime are listed and
the remedial actions are
summarised.
A document reflecting the
ways the pilot sites have dealt
with the problem of Dropouts
is attached as “Retention Plan”
The revised, final version is
attached.
status
Done
Done
Done
68
Comment/request
8) Submit a completed Deliverable
3.6 which includes a comparison of
HSH costs with competing services
in each country, demonstrating that
the proposed HSH service is pricecompetitive, or better, with other
similar services This should
include a discussion on the
proposed replacements for the
telehealthcare unit, the Mambo, the
teleconferencing service and, if
judged worth continuing with, the
domotic devices.
See more details in Section 5
following
Action to be taken/
Comments
The market addressed by the
elderly care providers
participating in HOME
SWEET HOME is not a
consumer market, but a captive
one, and it will remain captive
for the foreseeable future. It
does not make sense therefore
to compare the services they
provide with other services
price-wise because they will be
offered for free to individuals
qualifying for these after they
have been assessed. The
purpose of the project is not
comparing one technological
platform with another, but
rather understanding which out
of the wide spectrum of
services provided through the
platform are worthwhile to
provide in the future. At first
glance, the domotic devices are
not easily adaptable to an
existing flat or house, and
therefore in the future they will
only be considered when new
flats will be built, which is
certainly the case in Antwerp.
Whether the domotic devices
eventually installed in the flats
are the HomeMatic ones
foreseen in HOME SWEET
HOME or other ones is totally
irrelevant for the purpose of
the Project, which was never
aimed at evaluating the merits
of a specific platform
compared to another. The
replacement component issue
is now covered in D3.6, but the
other requests are not
appropriate in the framework
of the Project and have been
ignored.
status
Done, D3.6
submitted on 11th
November.
69
Comment/request
Action to be taken/
Comments
The project is requested to respond Although we can understand
to the recommendations 1-7 above
the dissatisfaction of the
by 1 December 2013 and
Reviewers with some aspects
recommendation 8 by 11 November of the Project, we can hardly
2013 If these deadlines are not met, see the rationale of terminating
the reviewers are currently minded the Project less than 3 months
to recommend to the Commission
before its natural end. This will
that it begins the process of ending not allow the Commission to
the project
save any money, and will
hamper the Project to provide
useful input for future project
and into the EIP for Active and
Health Ageing which addresses
exactly the same issues as
HOME SWEET HOME
although at a far higher level.
The project’s biggest problem is
The project does not try to
what to try to commercialise at the commercialise any platform or
end of EC funding:
any product. HOME SWEET
HOME is run by elderly care
providers and is aimed at
evaluating the impact of ICTbased service on a number of
indicators covering the
acceptance, the usability, the
sustainability, etc. of these
services. The platform is just
an enabler for the provision of
services and represents the
technology level at the start of
the Project. There are no
doubts that if the Project
started today, there would be a
different platform because
technology has evolved in the
meantime but the functionality
of it will remain basically the
same. Should the participating
elderly care decide to continue
providing the services, a
replacement of some elements
of the solution would be more
than appropriate and the
conditions for such a
status
70
All
recommendations
have been
addressed.
Answer provided
Comment/request
The original tele-healthcare device
is now so out of date that in its
current form it is unsaleable – as
stated in D3.6, the tablet
replacement should be explored
immediately
Action to be taken/
status
Comments
replacement will have to be
discussed between the
individual providers and the
platform supplier. It is worth
noting in this context that
Appendix III to the DoW
(section APP.III.10) contains
the commitment of the
participating elderly care
providers to continue providing
the services after the end of the
EU funded phase if the Project
demonstrates that the services
“have a positive impact on the
various aspects considered in
the evaluation (health,
wellbeing, user satisfaction,
etc.) and that they are
financially sustainable for all
the elderly persons who qualify
for receiving them because of
their social, physical and
mental conditions”.
Such a change is not foreseen
Answer provided
in the contract between the
platform supplier and the
elderly care providers
SWEET HOME. The upgrade
of the platform, which would
not make sense for the few
months remaining before the
end of the EU-funded phase
especially considering the time
need to retrain the older user to
use a different piece of
technology.
71
Comment/request
Action to be taken/
status
Comments
The Mambo device seems to be
Because project excluded older
quite hopeless with long & critical
people with dementia, it
delays that modern smartphones
effectively excluded the most
simply don’t have: it cannot be
likely persons to benefit from
either cost effective or customer
it. In addition, mobile phones
responsive to continue. Alternatives are now much more pervasive,
such as the older persons’ phone
even among older people.
made by Doro should be urgently
Since there is, as yet, no
investigated
reliable fall detection
algorithm, value of Mambo or
Mambo replacement is
debateable.
The ‘ello videoconferencing seem
Skype is likely replacement –
likewise to be deeply unattractive.
many already have PC/laptop
There is now a range of
with this.
possibilities – if the free Skype is
not acceptable, Vidyo make a better
quality and more secure system that
is easy to use and inexpensive.
The domotic control hardware
Homematic devices require
seems to be so specialised as to
intrusive work on doors,
question its general usability; if the windows etc, and are
decision is made to continue
unacceptable to many users.
offering it as a service, then the
Need is unclear, even if project
project needs to research equipment was unable to check this.
that can actually be used in older
Environmental devices are OK.
persons’ homes
72
Comment/request
All the above urgently need tying
together into a compelling service
offering that compares favourably
in overall price with the principal
competition in each country.
Action to be taken/
Comments
We have to insist on the fact
none of the partners
SWEET HOME is in the
business of providing services
on the free market. All of them
are institutional provider of
elderly care and have a captive
market represented by the
population they are paid for
looking after. Competition
exists of course among the
platform suppliers but this
aspect falls completely outside
the scope of the Project. In the
procurement of platforms for
the continuation of the current
service or the extension of it,
the participating elderly care
providers will put the potential
providers in competition with
one another to get the best
value for money but this,
again, falls completely outside
the scope of the Project.
status
73
Comment/request
In addition, too many difficulties
have appeared in the
implementation, usability, market
expectancies, etc of the system.
Also, preliminary results are not
very encouraging that the use of
such a system would have an
impact on elderly people’s health
status or quality of life.
Regarding the “Impact indicators”
table, in most cases it is said N/A,
so, why are they considered as
indicators? Also, in those indicators
that are explained, the results are
not very good. Specially worrying
is that of falls, that is not working
(explained before)?
Deliverable
n.
1.12
Action to be taken/
status
Comments
It is too early to infer that the
use of such a system would
have an impact on elderly
people’s health status or
quality of life. As in any RCT
results cannot be published
before the end on the Project.
Having said that, no major
changes are expected on the
people’s health status because
a survey of some 135 RCT of
telemonitoring conducted a
couple of years ago by Richard
Wootton, Director of Research
of the Norwegian Centre for
Integrated Care and
Telemedicine, showed that, on
average, telemonitoring has a
neutral effect of health status.
Of the contrary, DREAMING,
a predecessor project to
HOME SWEET HOME
showed a statistically
significant improvement in the
health related quality of life.
There are no reasons why
HOME SWEET HOME should
not get to the same
conclusions.
It was expected at the start of
the project that fall detection
algorithms would improve. In
practice, there appears still to
be no acceptable algorithm /
device that detects falls
reliably.
Approve/reject Status/remarks
Resp
Reject
Attached
In place of 1.10 and 1.11 which are no longer
produced. Section 6 is still missing.
74
Deliverable
n.
2.5
Approve/reject Status/remarks
3.6
Reject
Reject
Resp
Resubmitted on 24th June 2013. Should be
resubmitted with concrete conclusions and
recommendations from workshop as explained
in the last review.
ACTION: Agenda concludes with
“Conclusion and close”, so some response on
conclusions must be provided MdA
Resubmitted on 12th August 2013, Italian data
still missing from section 5.4.
Costs for HSH are very high, and not
compared with other products providing a
similar service.
75
Revised
version has
been
resubmitted
Revised
version has
been
resubmitted
ANNEX II Dissemination report
Based upon our stakeholder analysis we agreed that the 4th period in the Project still needed
to focus on our participants and their relatives in order to keep them motivated for the closing
period. Since this is the 3th year where our participants are using the HOME SWEET HOME
services we still need to focus on avoiding dropouts in both the control and the study group.
Besides our focus on our participants and their relatives we used the fourth period also to
inform the other stakeholders (see arrows) about the results, lessons learned and other
important information about Home Sweet Home. Moreless since we will close down the
project a lot of other dissemination opportunities will occur, now that we can release the
gathered information about 4 years of Home Sweet Home.
76
As some of our dissemination actions are not specifically for one target group we summarised
our dissemination actions here :
2. Personalised communication :
As mentioned in the former Reviews our focus remained also in this period to keep our
participants and their relatives motivated by stimulating them and informing them about the
project. Besides the physical visits we also spent a lot of effort in making newsletters to keep
them informed but also to make them realise how important they are irrespective of the fact
that they are in the study or in the control group.
o Here are some examples from the newsletters we made in Belgium and Ireland at the final
period.
77
78
79
80
Besides the use of a regular newsletter we sent out a letter to all our users at the end of the
project in order to thank them.
81
82
83
2. Website
As agreed at the former Review we had changed our ‘CMS’ system from Smartsite to Drupal.
In the final period we have made some small changes and upgrades to the website.
o
o
o
o
o
o
Our objectives for the new website where the following and we think that all of them where
obtained.
Easier to use and maintain technology
Cost efficient (Drupal is an open source technology)
More modern and fresh look and a more dynamic website
More friendly in use so that other participants can add information on it by themselves
Integration with new dissemination tools such as twitter, movies, …
More living website
84
Due to the fact that at this stage of the project we have gathered a lot of information that can
be disseminated, we have decided to maintain de website until at least the end of 2015. At the
end of 2015 we will evaluate the use of the website and the necessity to have it running
longer.
85
7. Brochures & leaflets
A leaflet has been produced in order to inform about the entire Project. Partners can use this
leaflet as a basis for their own translated version, which can include specific information
related to their target audience. The leaflet has also been announced on LinkedIn, Facebook
and our website and spread through the different events we participated in.
Qualitative analysis
One of the remarks following one of our project reviews consisted in
gathering qualitative information about the HSH users and their
feeling about the project. Therefore a qualitative analysis was set up
and together with the support of the Advisory Board and Age we
have produced a publication on the outcome of a small qualitative
study that took place within the Home Sweet Home user group. The
study aimed at shedding the light to barriers and enablers for the
acceptance of new technologies that where introduced to help older
persons live autonomously and manage better their health. It is
written from the perspective of older persons who use technologies in
their everyday living and it is addressed to all the stakeholders who
are involved in the development and deployment of such solutions :
researchers, service providers, industry and SME’s, public
authorities, health and social care professionals, informal caregivers,
insurers and mutualities and older persons themselves. Instead of
discussing elements specific only to the project, the publication is
drafted in a way that can be useful to various similar settings and sets
of services.
First some information about Home Sweet Home and the study is provided. Then the results
of the study are summarized as answers to the questions : who are older persons and what
matters to them ? In the end, recommendations for future research and practice are given,
before presenting the case studies, which were analysed in order to reach conclusions and
lessons learned.
Our qualitative analysis is being disseminated via the website, website of partners (Age, ZB,
…), Twitter, Linked-in, …
86
87
88
8. Video on HSH
In May 2012 we made some videos in order to inform our stakeholders about HSH:
o A day in the life of some of our participants (we followed some of our participants during a
day in order to show the public about HSH, how it is being used, what it means, …);
o A video about the project with short interviews with team members and users;
o A short video per item in order to present the means and use;
o A short video about the installation
89
In June 2013 an additional video was made by the Spanish delegation for dissemination use.
http://youtu.be/NFquHKt9_-A
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
These videos where displayed and published on:
HSH Website;
YouTube;
Websites of the HSH partners;
Facebook pages;
Linked-in pages;
Shown in several occasions as, e.g. at the final Workshop, …
…
90
9. Conferences and workshops
19/05/2013 – delegation from Liège, Waterloo, Charleroi and Luxembourg visited the
Antwerp HSH project – Antwerp – Belgium
Eneo is an organisation from Wallonie (www.eneo.be) enabling the rights of the older and has
40.000 senior members. A delegation from different parts of the south of Belgium came over
to have a look at the Home Sweet Home project and followed a workshop on our project.
91
19/11/2013 – Regional Conference in Italy – Rome by Darco Servizi.
The occasion of the conference was the first showing on cinema of a reportage about migrants
working in Rome as long term carer for older people or people with disabilities, called
92
“BADAMI”. The Italian word “bàdami” means “take care of me” and it recalls both the word
“badante” which is an informal way of referring to “long term carers” and the need to better
take care of long term carers and the families of older people and people with disabilities.
Agenda
The Italian Regional Conference was held in Rome on the 19th of November 2013 at Cinema
Aquila, via L’Aquila 58.
h. 18.00 Welcoming, open desk
h. 18.30 – 18,40 Greetings and presentation of the documentary (reading by Mariangela
Forcina)
h. 18.40 – 19.00 Showing of the reportage BADAMI
h. 19.00 – 20.00 Speakers (5 to 10 minutes per speaker)
Speaker’s panel:
Larzia Lo Guzzo, Curator of the reportage – moderator
Mariangela Forcina, Director and photographer;
Mimosa Martini, Reporter;
Marco D'Angelantonio, Director General of HiMsa-Bruxelles
Cecile Kyenge, Minister of Integration of Italy;
Rita Visini,Counsellor on Social Policies of Lazio Region;
Erica Battaglia President of the Commission on Social Issues of ROMA CAPITALE;
Mario Monge, President of SOLCO Consortium of social cooperatives;
Maurizio Marotta, President COIN Cooperative Integrate Onlus.
A long list of invitations was made. The parterre of the cinema could count on the presence of
more than a hundred people The conference was addressed primarily to institutions and policy
93
makers, to show the problems of families which are not supported by a strong net of social
and health services, together with the problems of migrant long term carers who have
difficulties in working in new, culturally different environments, with no clear recognition of
their skills and tasks to do within their job, and no support from institutions.
There was also a strong presence of professionals coming from the third sector, which is the
main actor providing private long term care services in Italy, as well as dealing with migrant
workers.
The presence of the delegates of Home Sweet Home had the objective to show how
technology in health care services is crucial to help better off the life of older people and
people with disabilities and to raise the quality of work of long term carers, releasing them
from some responsibilities and giving them easier instruments to care. At the same time the
new technologies of tele-care prove to be less expensive than traditional care, helping public
health care to foresee a more organized and cost effective integrated care to people, especially
in this actual framework of ageing and economical crisis. That is why on the desk in the foyer
of the cinema there was a table with Home Sweet Home leaflets and a monitor showing the
project’s dissemination videos.
The breakdown of attendees is shown below.
Table : Attendees by category
Category
Institutions – National level
2%
Institutions – Regional Level
5%
Institutions – Local level
5%
Third sector – Migrants
32%
Third sector – Disability
25%
Third sector – Social Care
31%
Industry
1%
The full agenda, the press-book and some of the contribution of the speakers can be found in
Italian language in the website of “Presidio Del Lazio” which was the promoter of the event
together with Home Sweet Home.
http://www.presidiolazio.it
All dissemination materials of the event and some of the proceedings (in Italian) can also be
found in the download area of Home Sweet Home project portal.
The dissemination activities carried out for the Italian Regional Conference were focused on
the publication of leaflets, brochures, posters, invitations and the catalogue and DVD
featuring the reportage shown at the event. . These activities are outlined in the following
sections.
94
The catalogue published for the event, containing photographs by Mariangela Forcina about
migrant long term carers and their assisted patients, also features a DVD containing the
reportage BADAMI. All copies have been distributed to the participants.
Photographs taken during the BADAMI event can be found at the Home Sweet Home web
portal, and below:
Figure 1 – Speakers of the Regional Conference. Left to right, Marco D’Angelantonio,
coordinator of project Home sweet Home, Maurizio Marotta, president of Consorzio Sociale
COIN, Cecile Kyenge, Minister of Integration, Mariangela Forcina, director and
photographer, Mario Monge, president of SOLCO, Rita Visini, Counsellor on Social Policies
of Lazio Region.
95
Figure 2 – Moderator Larzia Lo Guzzo with Mariangela Forcina, film director, Mimosa
Martini, journalist and writer.
Figure 3 – Moderator Larzia Loguzzo and Marco D’Angelantonio, coordinator of Home
Sweet Home Project.
96
The Regional conference was covered in health and third sector specialised media. A pressreview of the event can be found in the Home sweet Home web portal.
Posters and leaflet of the Italian Regional Conference can be found both in the web portal
Presidio del Lazio, of the Lazio Region, and in the Home Sweet Home web portal.
http://www.presidiolazio.com
97
Figure 4 – Italian Regional Conference, English invitation
Figure 4 – Italian Regional Conference poster
98
26/02/2014 – Final conference : ICT and E-Skills for social Care – Brussels - Belgium
AGE was invited to give a presentation for the final conference of the project Carenet, which worked on the
improvement of ICT skills in the long-term care sector. Bearing in mind the legal and ethical framework in
which social care is provided in Europe and drawing from the experience of AGE Platform Europe, Nena
Georgantzi, Legal Officer, presented older persons’ views on ICT for care and independent living. In addition,
she exposed lessons learned from the Home Sweet Home, which finalised a qualitative study on ICT acceptance
from the perspective of older users.
The conference was recorded and all presentations are available online here.
14/05/2014 – 5th interactive Congres Facility Management in Care – Antwerp - belgium
On Wednesday 14 May – Zorgbedrijf
Antwerp will participate in a Care
Congres about Facility Management
by organising some workshops about
Home Sweet Home – the lessons
learned and trends for the future.
99
100
101
Final Conference – Barcelona, January 16th, 2014
Addressed to the stakeholders of the Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) market of products and
services for the elder, E4S conference provided a forum for discussion on the different
strategies that can be approached to reach the market in this area, exploring also the ways
forward to respond to the challenge from the technical side. Experts, IT developers, and end
users had the opportunity to share a day with an open exchange of news and views about the
ICT support oriented to the Active and Healthy Ageing.
The conference consisted of a one-day event, divided in two sessions, the morning and the
afternoon, with a lunch break for networking.
By 2025 more than 20% of Europeans will be 65 or over, with a particularly rapid increase in
the number of over 80s. Greater life expectancy is of course a positive result of progress, but
it raises important challenges for the 21st century: how to meet the higher demand for
healthcare? How to adapt health systems to the needs of an ageing population while keeping
them sustainable in societies with smaller workforce? Moreover, the demographic changes are
expected to have substantial consequences on public finances in the EU. On the basis of
current policies, age-related public expenditures (pensions, health-care and long-term care)
are projected to increase by 4.1% to around 29% of GDP between 2010 and 2060.
In the context of an ageing Europe, with some of its member states endangered by the failure
of the welfare state and questioned its capacity to maintain the social model, the opportunity
to invest in innovative services built around new technologies that can provide cost effective
solutions to cope with the shortcuts the Public services are facing is a safe bet for the future.
102
The way the European Union, through the R&D programmes of the EC, has been addressing
the topic is a reflection of the evolution undergone in Europe and the demographic changes
related with life expectancy occurring in the last 15 years. The development of a new market
for the elderly should combine, with the help of the technologies, the empowerment of the
elderly in taking care of their health, with the self-management of their disease and a whole
new set of services that should satisfy the growing needs.
To make technology a key enabler for the success of AAL solutions, the providers have to
assure users a simple and affordable access to new services and apps that support their current
devices and particular user interface needs. The availability of common open platforms based
on a standardized approach using existing components, services, and external systems seems
to be the key to guarantee the feasibility and sustainability of innovative solutions.
In this context, E4S conference provided a forum for understanding and discussing different
strategies in this area, and to explore ways forward for the future to respond to the challenge
from the technical side.
Progress so far (represented by the organizing projects and their strategies to promote
innovation) and the growth of the critical-mass to increase the chances of impact for
individual projects in the real deployment of a market for AAL products and services were the
protagonists.
Do they actually have a market now?. What can we learn from them? From different
perspectives, universAAL as enabler and Home Sweet Home as way to the market, showed
their expectation for the short and long-term markets.
E4S also had the pleasure to host Alexandre Kalache (President, International Longevity
Centre – Brazil) as keynote speaker who offered to the audience a critical overview of a social
issue becoming a market opportunity highlighting government’s point of views from
inclusion to the active and healthy aging and empowerment.
On the other hand Jan Komarek presented the EC view: the current programme Horizon2020,
the future and the main trends as well the expectations of the EC on next projects.
Afterwards three round tables have been arranged involving representatives of Public
Administrations, Users, the Industry, and Insurance companies allowing speakers and
attendees to share opinions and make questions on the following three main topics:
-
-
The barriers between the medical and the social services: integrating care. The view of the
Public Administrations as enablers: billing, reimbursement models, and public procurement.
The IT perspective and the E4S: From open source to interoperability and standards. From
legal issues to regulations. How flexible can we expect the market to be? What kind of
technical/standardisation progress is needed? How to assure the right to privacy and security
in this context?
The boundary between the healthy elderly person and the patient: The client and the user.
Different strategies to address the market? What the users have to say?. Do we listen to them?
Ethical issues.
103
Thanks to the interaction among speakers and participants, the event achieved its main
objective: to promote a debate about ways to make it real.
Additionally, the conference hosted during the whole day a ‘Demo lounge’, where the
projects ‘universAAL', 'Home Sweet Home' and others European projects in the area of AAL
showed demonstrations of their results and features.
Lastly, the conference offered also to the attendees a unique opportunity of networking with
other people operating in ICT and health sectors and explore potential synergies. Moreover,
lessons learnt, strategies for bridging pilots to real market for deployment or increasing the
chances of impact for individual projects in the real deployment of a market for AAL
products and services have been some of the topics at the centre of the conference.
Figure 1. Conference venue, Mobile World Capital, Barcelona.
104
Conference programme
ENABLERS FOR SUCCESS - E4S CONFERENCE
ICT support to Active and Healthy Aging: Paving the way from pilot to the Market
A dynamic one-day conference and exhibition
Mobile World Centre – Barcelona
Thursday, 16 January 2014
08:30 h.
Registration
09:10 h. Introduction to the Conference
Joe Gorman – Dimitri De Rooze
Coordinators, universAAL and Home Sweet Home projects
Welcome address
Cristina Iniesta
Director of Health and Chair of the Barcelona Public Health Agency (ASPB)
Oscar Pallarols
Competence Center Director, Mobile World Capital Barcelona
09:30 h. Presentations of universAAL and Home Sweet Home projects
Casper Marcusen - RSD (universAAL)
Dimitri De Rooze - Zorgbedrijf Antwerpen (Home Sweet Home)
10:15 h.
Alexandre Kalache: "Enabling Active Ageing in an Age-friendly Society"
President, International Longevity Centre - Brazil
Senior Advisor on Global Aging, the New York Academy of Medicine
HelpAge International Global Ambassador on Ageing
11:00 h.
Coffee break and free discussion
11:30 h. Jan Komarek : “The opportunities of H2020”
Project Officer, European Commission, Directorate-General CONNECT, H2 Unit. European
Commission
12:00 h. Round Table 1: The barriers between the medical and the social services
Integrating care. The view of the Public Administrations as enablers: billing, reimbursement
models, public procurement.
Chair: Ad van Berlo – Smart Homes, The Netherlands
Agneta Granström - Norrbotten County Council, Sweden
Claus Duedal Pedersen - Region South Denmark
Antoni Dedeu - Department of Health, Generalitat de Catalunya
13:00 h.
Lunch break and networking
14:15 h. Round Table 2: The IT perspective and the Enablers for success
From open source to interoperability and standards. From legal issues to regulations. How
flexible can we expect the market to be?
Chair: Ramon Palacio- Polytechnic University of Barcelona
Reiner Wichert - Fraunhofer-Allianz AAL, Germany
105
Pantelis Angelidis - Vidavo, Greece
Malcolm Bain - Catalan Open Source Business Association (CatPL)
15:15 h. Round Table 3: Secure market’s success: the integration of users’ views
The client and the user. Different strategies to address the market? What the users have to
say?. Do we listen to them? Ethical issues.
Chair: Nena Georgantzi - AGE Platform Europe, Belgium
Wouter A. Keijser - Medical Director, HSH project, The Netherlands
Ignasi Saez - Geriatrician, Badalona Serveis Assistencials, Spain
Heidrun Mollenkopf - BAGSO, Germany
16:15 h.
Coffee break
16:45 h. Final conclusions and wrap up
What can we conclude from what we learned today? What are the next steps?
Joe Gorman - universAAL
Marco d’Angelantonio - Home Sweet Home
Joan Cornet - Mobile World Capital, Spain
17:15 h. Closing remarks
Antoni Maria Grau - General Director of Industry of the Department of Business and
Employment of the Government of Catalonia
17:25 h.
Conference Closing
09:00 to
18:00 h.
'Demo lounge' exhibition
Invited projects presenting their results to attendees in a parallel room.
Organizing projects:
Contact:
www.universaal.org
www.homesweethome-project.be
[email protected]
Registration:
Venue:
www.eventbrite.com/event/9111650191
www.mobileworldcentre.com
106
'Demo lounge' exhibition
Invited projects presenting their results to attendees in a parallel room.
Figure 4. universAAL Project.
Figure 5. WIISEL “Wireless Insole for Independent
& Safe Elderly Living" FP7 funded project.
Figure 2. ASSISTANT " Aiding SuStainable
Independent Senior TrAvellers to Navigate in
Towns” project funded by the AAL Joint
Programme and national funding.
Figure 3. ReAAL project represents the
prosecution of universAAL project.
107
Figure 6. ReAAL and universAAL projects.
Figure 7. Demo lounge during the lunch time.
108
Figure 8. universAAL training workshop for developers.
109
Post-Conference survey results
Figures below show some statistical data about the success rate of the event among the
attendees, their level of satisfaction with respect to their expectations and the quality of the
organization and management of the conference.
Figure 9. General satisfaction rate after the event expressed by the attendees.
110
Figure 10. The six diagrams show the results coming from the questionnaire filled in by the attendees after the end of
the conference. They responded to a number of questions about length, quality of the speakers, organization and
utility of the information provided.
111
10. Future dissemination on Home Sweet Home
As the project is coming to an end we are at a point that we have a lot of information that can
be spread to the different stakeholders and can be beneficiary to other EU projects in this field
of work.
Home Sweet Home is just one piece of the puzzle to build and extend the evidence base on
the impact if eHealth, eInclusion and Ambient Assisted Living on elderly care and on the
independence of older people. Therefore we will carry on sharing the lessons learnt through
the successes and failures in deploying ICT-based care services.
As you see in the figure below, Home Sweet Home is just one piece of the puzzle and can add
interesting information in order to support independence.
The Home Sweet Home results are being set out in a number of deliverables that will be put
public and will be available on the Home Sweet Home Website, like :
D3.8 Clinical and Quality of life impact assessment.
112
D3.10 Social Impact assessment.
D3.11 Economic Impact assessment.
D3.12 User Satisfaction assessment.
D3.13 Barriers to deployment.
D4.7 Implementation Guidelines.
D7.5 Trial Evaluation Report.
User stories about Home Sweet Home – qualitative analysis
…
Besides the dissemination via the website we still have a lot of partners that will keep
spreading the results from Home Sweet Home to other potential partners, projects, … like
AGE, HIM, …
113
Addendum : list of events during the final period where HSH was being disseminated
EVENT
Web link
Date
Place
Topic
Brussels
MATERIA
LS
Brochures
ENGAGED project –
Steering
Committee
Meeting
NET
EUCEN
workshop,
Usercentricity
in
the
education
and
inclusiveness domains
TechnolAGE
final
conference
N.A.
04.02.2013
http://www.neteucen.org/scenarios.
php
06.02.2013
Brussels
Brochures
User Involvement
http://www.technola
ge.org/
14.02.2013
Brussels
Brochures
Business
and
financing models for
ICT for ageing well
Kick-off
Meeting: N.A.
Social Innovations in
Active and Healthy
Ageing
21.02.2013
Brussels
Brochures
King
Badouin
Foundation’s
led
project on Social
Innovation
AgeingWell newsletter
n.2
AGE Health Expert
Group
AGE
Annual
Conference on agefriendly environments
25.02.2013
EU
Newsletter
18.04.2013
Brussels
http://www.age17.05.2013
platform.eu/fr/domai
nes-dactionpolitique/solidariteentre-lesgenerations/dernieres
-nouvelles/1626-ageannual-thematicconference-towardan-age-friendly-euby-2020
Seminar on « Seniors http://www.age30.05.2013
entrepreneurs
in platform.eu/en/agesupport
of
youth policyemployment »
work/employmentand-activeageing/latest-newson-activeageing/1618invitation-tocommittee-of-
Brussels,
BE
Oral
presentation
leaflets and
stand
ICT network
AHA
Health
Brussels
leaflet
http://www.ictageingwell.net/
N.A.
114
Active&
Ageing
employment,
long learning
Healthy
for
life-
regions-seniorentrepreneurs-agejoint-seminar-on-lseniorsentrepreneurs-insupport-of-youthemployment-r-30may-2013
User Advisory Board http://www.ageSmartCare
platform.eu/ageprojects/health-andlong-term-care/1648smartcare?showall=
&start=1
Dublin AHA Summit
http://www.ahaconfe
rence2013.ie/
GSMA
Mobile N.A.
Meeting
Series
Breakfast
–
Personalised Health
Digital Agenda for http://www.cor.euro
Europe
pa.eu/en/news/events
/Documents/program
me_digital_agenda.p
df
SPC Working group on N.A.
ageing
Confrontation Europe, N.A.
eHealth Task Force
Atis4all meeting with N.A.
ETNA network
5.06.2013
Brussels
Sharing
Integrated care
experiences
on
these
projects
1314.06.2013
26.06.2013
Dublin
leaflets
Brussels
Active and healthy
ageing
Presentation Health,
eHealth
and leaflet
patient
empowerment
20.07.2013
Brussels
Leaflets
ICT for inclusion
25/06/2013
Brussels
Leaflets
Long-term care
09/07/2013
Brussels
Leaflets
eHealth
1718/09/2013
Leaflets
Assistive
technologies
Peer review on Dignity http://ec.europa.eu/s
in care
ocial/main.jsp?catId
=1024&langId=en&
newsId=1903&furth
erNews=yes
2527/09/2013
Vilamou
ra,
Portugal
Stockhol
m
AGE
Universal N.A.
Accessibility
and
Independent
Living
Expert Group Meeting
ENGAGED
User N.A.
Empowerment Mutual
Learning Workshop
AGE
Manifesto N.A.
24/10/2013
Brussels
23/10/2013
Eindhov
en
5/11/2013
Brussels
SC in the Long-term care
peer review
presentation
/mentioned
all
AGE
projects
Oral
Accessibility
presentation
on
the
project
Leaflets
User Involvement
Leaflets
115
EP campaign
Launching event
WIDER
Innovation http://www.widerFair
project.eu/registratio
n.html
JADE project
conference
final http://www.jadeproje
ct.eu/jadecms/default
.aspx?pag=0.3.1&ne
wsID=39&lang=en
AGE
Monthly http://www.agenewsletter CoverAGE
platform.eu/coverage
-en-en-gb-6
Ageing Well newsletter http://www.ictageingwell.net/
Carenet conference
20/11/2013
Barcelon
a
5/12/2013
Brussels
January,
EU
February,
October and
November
2013
and
April 2014
issues about
qualitative
study
January
EU
2014
http://www.carenetpr 26.02.2014
oject.eu/category/pro
ject/events/?lang=en
8th
European www.inova.snv.jussi 31.03.2014
eAccessibility Forum
eu.fr/evenements/col
loques/colloques/82_
index_en.html
Brussels
Paris
Leaflets and Age-friendly
oral
innovation
presentation
on
qualitative
study
Leaflets
ICT in active and
healthy ageing
articles
Ageing
Article
about
results
of
qualitative
study
Presentation
about
qualitative
study
Presentation
of
user
involvement
methodolog
y (AB +
qualitative
study)
ICT network
AHA
116
for
EU project on ICT
skills for
User involvement

project progress report

Transcription

Similar documents

Current Issue - Tongan Alliance of America

Butter Sweet Corn Muffin

HSH.2014 Annual Report

HSH.2011.Annual Report

,%%*a{t8^.r - Poupart`s Bakery

No.15 | May 2012

Jul.12.15

to Sponsorship information and highlights of BritWeek 2009

Roberts Field Renovation

repose and resurrection

2016 foy catalogue

at the showgrounds dalby, queensland