Multiplier project

1999-2001COMMUNITY CARE EDUCATION IN

EUROPE - TOWARD SHARED UNDERSTANDING

PartnersFINLAND

• Oulu Polytechnic, School of Health and Social Care

• Mikkeli Polytechnic, School of Social Welfare and Health Care

• Satakunta Polytechnic, School of Social and Health Care in Harjavalta

• University of Oulu, Department of Nursing and Health Administration

• Finnish Federation for Nurses

Partners

HUNGARY

• Hungarian Nursing Association

THE NETHERLANDS

• Haagland College

POLAND

• Polish Nursing Association

• Medyczne Studium Zawodowe Nr 12

Project group members:

• Salla Seppänen, Mikkeli Polytechnic

• Aini Ojala, Oulu Polytechnic

• Hanna Hyttinen & Kari A. Sirkka, Satakunta Polytechnic

• Merja Nikkonen, University of Oulu

• Katalin Mucha & Zoltan Balogh, Hungarian Nursing Association

• Halina Ciéslak & Zofia Sienkiewicz, Warsaw Medical Academy, Medyczne Studium Zawodowe nr 1

• Elzbieta Chróscicka & Krystyna Szpak-Lipinska, Polish Nursing Association

• Andre Wénd & Bert Gotink, Mondriaan OnderwijsGroep

Aims of the project

• Disseminate the results of the Leonardo da Vinci pilot project

COMMUNITY CARE - Developing an International Degree Programme for Nurse Education

• Test and develop further philosophy, key skills and content of community care in nursing defined through earlier pilot project

The multiplier project aims in European level (FIN, H,NL,P)

• to specify the competence of nurse working in community care

• to specify the role, tasks and working discipline of a nurse in community care

National seminars were hold to promote discussion of community care in nursing

• Poland 8.- 9.5.2000, Busko

• Finland 26.-27.4.2001, Helsinki

• Hungary, 14.5. 2001, Budapest

COMMUNITY CARE IN NURSING

- HOW DO THE NURSES IN FINLAND, HUNGARY, POLAND AND THE

NETHERLANDS DEFINE COMMUNITY CARE ?

QUESTIONNAIRECommunity Care

- Toward shared understanding

The nurses´ perception of community care

in Finland, The Netherlands, Hungary and Poland

Nationally implemented questionnaire for nurses and public health/ district

nurses • In Finland, Helsinki• In the Netherlands, the Haag• In Hungary, Budapest• In Poland, Warsaw• Aimed for 250 questionnaires / country• In primary and specialised care

STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRES

MULTIPLE CHOICES

• BACKGROUND QUESTIONS 1-7

LIKERT SCALE 1-5

• WORK QUESTIONS 8- 15

• PERCEPTIONS OF

COMMUNITY CARE QUESTIONS 16-22

RESULTS

• FINLAND (N= 224)

• THE NETHERLANDS (N=91)

• HUNGARY (N=249)

• POLAND (N=198)

• TOTAL (N=747)

• 89,6 %

• 36,4%

• 99,5%

• 79,2%

• 74,7%

AGE OF NURSES/COUNTRY (N= 747)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

FINLAND THE NETHERLANDS HUNGARY POLAND

29

30-49

50

SEX (%)/ COUNTRY

0

50

100

150

WOMAN

MAN

WOMAN 91,5 80,2 94 96,9

MAN 8,5 19,8 6 3,1

FINLANDTHE

NETHERLHUNGAR

YPOLAND

SECTOR OF HEALTH CARE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

FINLAND THENETHERLANDS

HUNGARY POLAND

PRIMARY

SPECIALISED

WORKPLACE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

FINLAND THE NETHERLANDS HUNGARY POLAND

OUTPATIENTCLINIC

WARD

HOMECARE

FIRST AID

FACILITIES/PREREQUISITIES OF WORK

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

5,00

FINLAND THENETHERLANDS

HUNGARY POLAND MAIN

MEET CLIENT'S NEEDS TIMETOOLS/SPACES MULTI-PROBLEMATIC CLIENTCOOPERATION KNOWLEDGECONTROL OF WORK

CONTENT OF WORK

0,000,501,001,502,002,503,003,504,004,505,00

FINLAND

THE NETHERLANDS

HUNGARY

POLAND

MEAN

CO-OPERATION WITH

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

FINLAND THENETHERLANDS

HUNGARY POLAND MEAN

MEDICAL DOCTOR NURSE SOCIAL WORKER DIETICIAN

PHYSIOTHERAPIST VOLUNTEERS CLIENTS RELATIVES OF PATIENT

NURSE STUDENTS NURSE TEACHERS PARISH WORKERS

SECTORS/PARTNERS OF COMMUNITY CARE

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

FINLAND THENETHERLANDS

HUNGARY POLAND MEAN

HEALTH CARE

SOCIAL WORK

CLIENT'S SOCIALNETWORK

VOLUNTARYWORK

PATIENTORGANISATIONS

CO-ORDINATOR OF CARE

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

NURSE/DISTRICTNURSE

SOCIAL WORKER MEDICAL DOCTOR

FINLAND

THE NETHERLANDS

HUNGARY

POLAND

MEAN

DEFINITION OF CLIENT

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

PERSON FAMILY GROUP COMMUNITY

FINLAND

THENETHERLANDS

HUNGARY

POLAND

MEAN

SECTORS OF NURSING

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

PREVENTIVE PALLIATIVE REHABILITATIVE ACUTE

FINLAND

THE NETHERLANDS

HUNGARY

POLAND

MEAN

SECTORS OF NURSING

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

HOME CARE LONG-STAYCARE

INSTITUTIONALCARE

INTENSIVECARE

FINLAND

THENETHERLANDS

HUNGARY

POLAND

MEAN

THE NURSE SHOULD ASSESS

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

FINLAND

THENETHERLANDS

HUNGARY

POLAND

MEAN

MEET THE NEEDS OF

00,5

11,5

22,5

33,5

4

4,55

POPULATION FAMILY INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY

FINLAND

THENETHERLANDS

HUNGARY

POLAND

MEAN

OBJECTIVE OF COMMUNITY CARE

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

DEVELOPPROFESSON

SUPPORTINDEPENDENCE

COORDINATECARE

PROVIDEHIGHQUALITY

CARE

INPACT INCOMMUNITY

FINLAND

THENETHERLANDS

HUNGARY

POLAND

MEAN

VALUES AND PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY CARE

EQUALITY BETWEEN CLIENT AND PROFESSIONAL

4,19 4,18

3,96

3,51 3,62

3

3,2

3,4

3,6

3,8

4

4,2

4,4FINLAND

THENETHERLANDS

HUNGARY

POLAND

MEAN

EQUALITY BETWEEN CLIENTS

3,913,74

4,63

3,664,05

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5 FINLAND

THENETHERLANDS

HUNGARY

POLAND

MEAN

HOLISTIC CARE

3,48

3,914,13

3,14

3,61

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5FINLAND

THENETHERLANDS

HUNGARY

POLAND

MEAN

RIGHTS OF CLIENT

4,09

4,56

4,30

4,40

4,45

3,80

3,90

4,00

4,10

4,20

4,30

4,40

4,50

4,60 FINLAND

THENETHERLANDS

HUNGARY

POLAND

MEAN

ECONOMY

3,48

3,914,13

3,14

3,61

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

FINLAND

THE NETHERLANDS

HUNGARY

POLAND

MEAN

TECHNOLOGY

3,85

3,03

4,233,91 3,89

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5 FINLAND

THENETHERLANDS

HUNGARY

POLAND

MEAN

PATIENT’S CULTURAL BACKGROUND

4,083,71 3,71

3,28

3,71

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

FINLAND THE NETHERLANDS HUNGARY POLAND MEAN

RESPONSIBLE OF DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY CARE

00,5

11,5

22,5

33,5

44,5

5

FINLAND

THE NETHERLANDS

HUNGARY

POLAND

MEAN

THEROY BASE FOR COMMUNITY CARE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

FINLAND THE NETHERLANDS HUNGARY POLAND

ETHICS PHILOSOPHY SOCIOLOGY

PEDAGOGY NURSING SCIENCE BIOLOGY

MEDICINE MICROBIOLOGY PSYCHOLOGY

KNOWLEDGE IN COMMUNITY CARE

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

FINLAND THE NETHERLANDS HUNGARY POLAND

INTERACTION AND COMMUNICATION EPIDEMIOLOGYTHEORIES OF NURSING FAMILY DYNAMICENVIROMENTAL KNOWLEDGE MULTI-CULTURAL CAREINGINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY THEORIES OF SOCIAL WORKRECORDING AND COMPILE STATISTICS EVALUATION OF HEALTHTEACHING AND LEARNING THEORIES TEAM WORK THEORY

CONCLUSIONS• NURSES´ PERCEPTION OF COMMUNITY CARE IS MUCH

SAME IN THESE FOUR PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES• GROUP OF PEOPLE AND COMMUNITY AS A CLIENT

NEED TO BE DISCUSSED MORE• THE ROLE OF VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS AND

VOLUNTEERS IN HEALTH CARE AND NURSING NEED TO BE CLARIFIED

• HOLISM IS SEEN AS AN IMPORTANT VALUE -HOW IT IS IMPLEMENTED IN PRACTICE?

• MULTISICENTIFIC THEORY BASE FOR COMMUNITY CARE NEED TO BE DEVELOPED

• NURSES´ POSSIBILITIES AND SKILLS TO IMPACT OF THE CARE PROVIDING IN LOCAL LEVEL NEED TO BE INCREASED