Grant Agreement number: 325172

Project acronym: ENGAGED

Project title: Community building on active and healthy ageing

Funding scheme: Thematic Network (TN)

Call identifier: CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6

Challenge: 3 – ICT for Health, Ageing Well, Inclusion and Governance

Objective: CIP-ICT-PSP.2012.3.7: Community building on active and healthy ageing

Project website address: www.engaged-innovation.eu

Formation of 4 roadmap clusters and Guidelines mutual learning

D3.7-D3.9

Due date of deliverable: [31/05/2015] Actual submission date: [1/07/2015]

Start date of project: 01/02/2013 Duration: 24 months

Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: Noord-Brabant Deliverable main author: Marielle Swinkels (Noord-Brabant) Contributing authors: Helmi Ben Mhida (Faunhofer), Esther Davidsen (Zealand) Edwin Mermans (Noord-Brabant), Fernandez-Buckley (EHMA), Kine Nordstokka (SIX)

Version: 1.0

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013)

Dissemination Level PU Public X PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Service) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Service) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Service)

Document H is tory

Version Date Author Summary of Main Changes

0.1 18-09-2014 Helmi Ben Mhida, Edwin Mermans Drafting strategy formation 4 roadmap clusters (D3.8)

0.2 22-09-2014 ENGAGED consortium SC Finalising Strategy roadmap clusters (D3.8)

0.3 29-9-2014 Esther Davidsen Draft guidelines mutual learning workshops and guidelines (D3.7 en D3.9)

0.4 18 October Marielle Swinkels 2nd draft D3.7 en D3.9

0.5 25-06-2015 Daniel Fernandez-Buckley Updated report D3.7-D3.9

0.6 29-06-2015 Marielle Swinkels Final report D3.7, D3.8, D3.9

Tab le o f Contents

 

1   Introduction and background ................................................................................................ 4  

  Preparations ..................................................................................................................... 4  1.1   Six mutual learning workshops (D3.7) ............................................................................ 5  1.2

  Strategy of formation of 4 new roadmap clusters (D3.8) ................................................ 5  1.3

2   Guidelines ................................................................................................................................ 8  

  Basic guidelines 1.0 (D3.9) ............................................................................................. 8  2.1   Guidelines 3.0/ 4.0 (D3.9) ............................................................................................... 9  2.2

2.2.1  Peers and learners and mentorship ................................................................................ 10  2.2.2  Theoretical framework for collective learning .............................................................. 10  

2.2.3   Inspiration sessions ....................................................................................................... 10  2.2.4  Theory U for 3 learning levels ...................................................................................... 10  

2.2.5  Community of practice ................................................................................................. 11  2.2.6  The use of digital supporting tools ................................................................................ 11  

Appendix 1 Summary report example ................................................................................... 12  

1 Introduction  and  background    

Preparations  1.1

Based on the identified stakeholder groups it became clear that an extra effort was needed to involve more businesses, people of the workforce, experts from central Europe and investors. We decided therefore to change our approach slightly on the deliverable D3.5 Matchmaking event. We organised a series of 3 match making events for different mutual learning topics during existing network events of missing stakeholders in our community. We organised a match making interactive workshop at the AAL Forum 2013 to connect to AAL Businesses on the topics of User Empowerment, Interoperability, impact assessment and new business models. Based on this match making several AAL Businesses joined the workshop on interoperability and the workshop on Impact assessment. The presentation about ENAGED and the mutual learning workshop at the AAL Forum in 2013 has lead to the opportunity to organise the mutual learning workshop on business models at the AAL Forum of 2014 in Bucharest. This location had our preference as it enlarged the chance that experts from Central European regions could join this workshop. After the mutual learning workshop on the development of new business models another interactive workshop has been organised on request of the AAL JP during the Open Days in Brussels. A group of AAL businessed joined this workshop. During the ehealth week 2013 already a matchmaking event has been organised especially for the Evidence on impact assessment of preventive solutions. This has lead to the fact that the mutual learning workshop on this topic was organised in the eHealth week programme a year later in 2014. At 24 June a 3rd match making event has been organised during the annual conference of EHMA in Birmingham to mobilise professionals and managers of the workforce to attend to the last mutual learning workshop on new business models. For the final event of ENGAGED we also have experimented with a more active and new match making and collective action learning event that connected innovative businesses to investors and living labs. For the final event we have approached the European Venture for Philantrophy Association (EVPA) and some other investors network. Via several living labs we selected innovative AHA innovations that are close to the market to present their innovations by a Pecha kucha to a panel of investors and other experts. The excellent innovation has been selected, The entrepreneur will receive support of experts to bring the innovation to the market. With regard to pan-European collaboration we have connected to a multiple helix collaboration in Australie. This consortium visited several regions across Europe. Also a working visit has been planned to Shanghai in China during Mobile world congress in 14-17 July where CORAL will present the European innovation community and especially the education system for health care. ECHAlliance has made this connection.

Six  mutual  learning  workshops  (D3.7)  1.2

Six mutual learning workshops have been delivered D3.7 These learning activities have been carried out conform the description in the DOW. The mutual learning workshops used an interactive methodology and used different kind of formats for in depth collective learning. Four mutual learning workshops have been evaluated afterwards by a set of questions during a interview by phone. We approach 4 different types of stakeholders that participated in the workshop each time for the evaluation. Per workshop 4 people have been interviewed by phone afterwards. One of the mutual learning workshops used the Theory U methodology of sensing, presensing, prototyping and performance. This was the mutual learning workshop about impact assessment in Eindhoven. The outcomes of each workshop have been reported in a workshop summary template. Also based on these outcomes the first work streams for the roadmap development have been identified. An example of the summary template has been included in the appendix.

Strategy  of  formation  of  4  new  roadmap  clusters  (D3.8)  1.3

Based on the outcomes D3.8 has been delivered by a description of the strategy of the formation of 4 new roadmap clusters of collaborating partners, also within the AG’s of the EIP AHA that have worked on the development of 4 roadmaps. More specifically, the issues related to the following topics have been explored:

• Selected Roadmap thematic • Connected ML workshops • Addressed action groups (pillar) • Working team • Selected Expert will be highlighted.

In a second step, three main activities have been specified

• A1-Present a first (deep) understanding of the theme, highlight the relevant sections from the ML workshop report

• A2-For each theme, identify in a first step: o the actual situation o the targeted one o Specify the Gap o Highlight the Road Map items (Overview)

• A3-Deeply detail the proven point in section 3. Working teams have been identified by the exercise in the table 1.

Theme Connected ML Workshops

EU Action Group

Working Team Expert (EIP-AHA, ENGAGED, ReAAL, EU-AG and Expert on Reference side& CORAL region…)

Evidence 1-Evidence (user experience…Stimulate collect more user experience) 2-Prevention 3-Interoperability

C2 A2 B3

Team 1 NBRCO- Marielle Fraunhofer IGD-Helmi

ZEALCO- Esher, Xenia KRONIKGUNE-Lucia, Jmora

User Empowerment

4-User empowerment 2-Prevention 3-Interoperability

C2 A2 B3 A3

Team 2

TECNALIA-Carmen

NBRCO- Marielle CNR – ISTI - Stefano

Jon Dawson

Business Model 5-Business Model 2-Prevention

Consumer Oriented and linked with the health care domain C2 B3

Team 3

NTFH-Dag

Fraunhofer IGD-Helmi

Shabs Rajasekharan

Network sustainability…

Kent and WP2 leader

Check and commitment of EIP AHA AG 2 The proposal has been presented in a powerpoint to the EIPAHA Action Groups. The action groups approved on the key topics that we have been selected. It concerns three interrelated topics that are crucial for the uptake of innovative AHA solutions.

Dr Helmi Ben hmida © Fraunhofer IGD 2014

MUTUAL LEARNING WORKSHOPS TO ROADMAPS…

Evidence

Impact assessment

monitoring the impact of AAL

wide scale deployment

Evaluation criteria

Advantages…. Halth promotion Business Model Strategies for health BM for prevention Innovation in business models accelerating AALmarket Impact of major player on BM

User empowerment

User involvement

Understand, involve and empower

users

developing appropriate toolkits.

Add value…

Prevention…

Citezen responsibility for health…

Evidence ML

Innovative procurement

Interoperability

Prevention

User empowerment

Business Model

2 Guidelines    

Basic  guidelines  1.0  (D3.9)  2.1

From the start of the project we developed some basic guidelines for the mutual learning workshops to offer to a certain extent guidance to the partners of the consortium that were in the lead for organizing one of the mutual learning workshops. Strategy • Organise a mutual learning workshop in combination with another regional event. Try to

achieve a win win situation for engagement on European and local level. • Stay in the lead of the mutual learning workshop and stick to the standard format: organise

the workshop in the morning or afternoon and combine it with a social network lunch • Target group are experts 2/3 and 1/3 interested people • Collect information of experts and collect information about transferability of kwowledge • Co-create with regard to the programming of the event. Involve from the start the experts

that will have an active role or in case experts have a lot of expertise on the theme. Try to mobilise more experts and interested participants through the existing networks of other others.

• Ask your selve which network is not yet connected to the AHA Community, but can have added value during the workshop based on expertise, experiences or theoretical or research perspective.

Organisation • Small Working group of experts and contactpersons of a region actively involved • A moderator is needed for the workshop • Invitation: spread by EIP AHA, ENGAGED network, other networks across Europe and on

national levels • Google form to sign in integration of reimbursement request and confirmation and

reimbursement procedure: organised by EHMA • Ask permission for dissemination of PPT presentations of pitchers • Make pictures of the workshop • Spread a participant list with outline of results and PPT’s of pitches • Invite participants to the register on thehub portal • Organise a webinar if needed afterwards • Take care of filling in the template of the Summary report within two weeks time • Ask permission to call 4-5 participants to plan an interview by phone to evaluate the

mutual learning workshop and collect experiences with regard to the strategy.

• An evaluation and performance framework has been developed with a questionnaire that needs to be used during the interview.

• Report within 1 week the responses of the respondents and summarise the learning points and key experiences.

Fixed format to structure the mutual learning for beginners Introduction Engaged project 10 min Maximum of 3 pitchers (x 10 min) 30 min Interactive tables 80 min Interactive tables 35 participants ad random divided over 5 tables Moderators:5 moderators People can take a drink from the table before or during the discussion. Standard Programme Short introduction round: 1 min introduction per participant: name, organisation, expertise 2 central questions: 2 x 35 minutes sharing experiences, formulating of an answer • Put the flipover on the table with one question on it. • Participants fill in post-its with key words to answer the question. • The moderator starts to talk about it with the participants and cluster the post its. • At the end of each question an answer is formulated on the flipover. • After 40 minutes, the new flipover comes on the table with the second question. The same

process follows. • Sharing results between groups (10 min)

Guidelines  3.0/  4.0  (D3.9)  2.2

After the development of the evaluation and performance framework and based on the inputs from the exchange events and questionnaires the guidelines have been adjusted. Also as the reviewers of the mid term review made an important statement that impact and succesfactors needed to be emphasized much more in relation to the collective learning. The ENGAGED community has been starting in the first stage of the project to get to know the consortium partners better. This took time and trust in each other needed to be build. Also the concept of learning was not very common for a lot of members. Therefore it took time to develop the community and to learn by doing activities together such as the organization and

participation in the mutual learning workshops. The operational work of WP 3 has been a good approach to improve the connectedness between the partners of the consortium.

2.2.1 Peers  and  learners  and  mentorship    With regard to interactive learning approaches not all partners were experienced. A teacher and learner combination has been made within the consortium. This stratetegy works very well as has been a proven learning methodology since the middle ages.

2.2.2 Theoretical  framework  for  collective  learning    ENGAGED performed a desk research to improve the learning methodology to increase the effect of the learning and to increase the performance level of partners within the community. Theory U and theory on Collective Impact communities are very much aligned to the ENGAGED practice.

2.2.3 Inspiration  sessions    The next step what we did not do, but what could have helped was to organize several inspirational events in a creative environment with the consortium of ENGAGED and action groups from the EIPAHA. These event are necessary as the Exchange events and good practices already showed that we have a blind spot with regard to critical learning levels from the 1st person perspective and 2nd person perspective. We are use to the level of learning from a more rational and abstract perspective, but forget the other levels that are crucial to create more effect with collective learning. There is a lack of knowledge, a lack of inspiration and a lack of practical experience with more relation and individual based developmental learning methods. Inspiration is needed to mobilise learners to take the next step to learn more in practice.

2.2.4 Theory  U  for  3  learning  levels    Theory U has already been explained in several Deliverable reports of ENGAGED. This method has been used in one of the mutual learning workshops of ENGAGED on the topic of Impact Assessment. This workshop was intensively prepared and the different steps of co-sensing, co-presensing, co-creation, co-prototyping were carried out with a group of experts before the workshop took place. During a 1,5 day event we started from the prototyping stage to perform. Instead of starting talking we started doing. Several more prototypes have been developed in the session. Based on these prototypes the participants made a choice in the prototype that would create the most impact. The prototype of the Consumer Platform concept has been selected. Based

on that choice the participants started the U curve of learning again from co-sensing to a new prototype and a much more concrete action plan. This has led to the fact that in a few months the consumer platform has been developed by a startup. This learning experience has been very powerful. Our consciousness increased and we became aware that all the time we have not been learning in an effective way.

2.2.5 Community  of  practice    Based on this innovative way of more collective learning including all personal and interpersonal learning levels new guidelines need to be developed. Bringing the roadmaps into practice will be a good concrete collective action and exercise to learn more in a smaller Community of Practice to use these collective learning methods. Based on these experiences the guidelines for mutual learning can be refined.

2.2.6 The  use  of  digital  supporting  tools    Based on the identified stage of ENGAGED during the project- which is a developmental stage- with regard to the building of the learning community we have been concluding that digital tools only work in case the process and structure for collective learning is very clear. This is the same with regard to the community building process. At the end of the ENGAGED project it becomes more clear which kind of digital supporting tools can be usefull to support the structure of the learning community. The repository of the EIP AHA is good next step for the time being during the shift we are all in in moving from a Ego-centred community to a more Ecosystem oriented community. At the future stage fo a 4.0 learning ecosystem level we need other interactive tools definitely to support our learning structure. This learning structure is quite something else than a knowledge structure. We know that now after this intensive hard work of building a learning community for AHA. A collective learning structure needs other interactive existing intuitive smart e-learing tools. A Massive On line Open Course (MOOC) is recommended to use as a first digital supporting tool. Within a few weeks people that follow the course in their own speed learn more about the learning concept 4.0. A MOOC could be organized by ENGAGED partners, or the new Community of Practice together with the EIP AHA. https://www.edx.org/course/u-lab-transforming-business-society-self-mitx-15-s23x#! This could raise the awareness but also will increase the performance of the learning community of AHA.

Appendix  1    Summary  report  example    

Workshop summary template: Evidence on impact mutual learning seminar General information Workshop title Evidence on impact mutual learning seminar Moderator Marielle Swinkels Location Eindhoven Date 5-6 March 2014 Time Two days including an informal dinner and study visits Minutes Taker Marielle Swinkels Participants 50 experts Workshop overview Outline This event was a joint action of the CASA project, the Thematic network

ENGAGED and the action group C2 Deployment of innovative independent living solutions. To scale up independent living solutions in testing grounds and reference sites we need to collect and share more evidence on impact across Europe. However, in the area of independent living solutions the testing grounds for wide scale implementation lack a joint European framework of methodologies. Experts of regions across Europe of the CASA project and of the thematic network of ENAGED attended to this two day working event. They shared their experience and knowledge on research methodologies and indicators for collecting evidence on the impact. Also from the action groups, the monitor group and Reference Sites of the European Partnership of Active&Healthy Ageing experts joined this event. During the event not only knowledge was shared, but also we worked together on the development of a joint methodology framework for monitoring the impact. One of the CASA partners, Scotland, sent an experts as secondee from their region to share knowledge with the innovation clusters of the Reference site of Noord-Brabant. Also an expert of the MAST instrument contributed as a CASA secondee. The innovation clusters in Noord-Brabant are running four testing grounds for large scale deployment of independent living solutions. The experts have helped them to develop a framework for collecting data for evidence on impact. The testing grounds of the Reference site of Noord-

Brabant would like to use this framework. And share off course the results across Europe.

Objectives 1. To share knowledge and experiences on tools for impact assessment of AHA solutions

2. To develop a joined European methodology framework for monitoring the impact of independent living solutions to create a better overview of existing innovations ready for market uptake and the scientific and experiences based evidence of these innovations in practice.

3. To help the Brabant testing grounds for wide scale deployment of independent living solutions to develop a framework for impact assessment

Expected outcome

A draft concept of a Framework for impact assessment to be used in the testing grounds of the region of Noord-Brabant A common sense and vision about:

• The minimum set of assessment criteria we need to know about to choose and to buy or procure independent living innovations and to reach upscaling across Europe

• The approach for assessing existing evidence that is needed for wide scale deployment of independent living solutions.

• The scale of measurement and the organisation of the process needed for impact assessment in regions and the exchange between regions

Workshop Agenda Day 1: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 VENUE: Technical University (TU/e) Eindhoven, Metaforum Building, room MF08 9.30 hrs Introduction

Introduction of the CASA Regions for Smart Living and the ENGAGED learning community for deployment of AHA solutions by Edwin Mermans, Province of Noord-Brabant, member of CORAL

9.40 hrs Brabant Region of Smart Health

Introduction of the testing grounds for deployment of smart health solutions in Brabant and our involvement in the European Partnership of Active & Healthy Ageing as a 3* Reference Site, by Peter Portheine, Slimmer Leven 2020 cooperative

10.00 hrs Why and how to monitor the impact? 10.00 Monitoring the impact from a citizen’s perspective by Ab van de Wakker,

PON 10.20 Monitoring the impact from a professional worker’s perspective in future proof

(tele-)care perspective in Scotland by Nessa Barry, NHS24

10.35 Monitoring the impact from a patient’s perspective in telemedicine in Catalonia by Anna Kotzeva, MAST expert at the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Assessment, Catalonia (Spain)

10.50 Lessons learned about the acceptance and use of new technologies for independent living by Sebastiaan Peek, Fontys University

11.05 hrs Break 11.30 hrs The monitoring framework of the EIP AHA  

How to measure the impact of the European Innovation Partnership of Active & Healthy Ageing?, by Loukianos Gatzoulis, DG CONNECT, European Commission An insight into the theoretical concept on how to use certain indicators to measure impact on care systems, quality of life and Healthy Life years, by Christian Boehler of JRC-IPTS, European Commission

12.00 hrs Intro of the three working groups in 3 working sessions

The Brabant ambition: Building a framework for the testing grounds to value the outcome on evidence to stimulate the up scaling of AHA solutions in Brabant and across Europe by Marielle Swinkels, member of the coordination team of Action Group C2 and advisor to the Brabant Smart Health programme

12.15 hrs Lunch 13.30 hrs Working groups session 1: Which criteria to define and how to measure?

3 different working groups focus on a practical specific case path to collect and define a set of outcome criteria and methodologies for measurement on one of the following testing grounds of Noord-Brabant and other testing grounds across Europe for deployment of AHA solutions for: Topic 1: Dementia support and care Topic 2: Informal care Topic 3: eHealth

15.00 hrs Working group session 2: Who do we need to involve? 16.00 hrs Sharing the results of the working groups 17.00 hrs Conclusions day 1 17.15 hrs Closure

18.45 hrs Departure of bus from Art Hotel to dinner venue 19.00 hrs Formal dinner (Radio Royaal, Ketelhuisplein 10, Eindhoven (Strijp-S)) Day 2: Thursday, 6 March 2014 VENUE: Fontys University of Applied Sciences, (conference room to be confirmed) 9.30 hrs Intro of the programme

Introduction to today’s working programme by the moderator 9.45 hrs Working groups session 3: How to organise the process for impact

monitoring? Three working groups will work out the process which is needed to value the outcomes of the impact assessment of deployment of AHA solutions for: Topic 1: Dementia care and support Topic 2: Informal care Topic 3: eHealth

11.15 hrs Sharing the results of the working groups session 3 12.30 hrs Lunch 14.00 hrs Study visit to a Brabant testing ground (optional, details to be announced) Agenda Item Protocol Item: Expert pitches in Plenary session Agenda Item Name Plenary session Speakers: Peter Portheine (NBR), Anna Kotzeva (SPAIN), Nessa Barry

(SCOTLAND) , Sebastiaan Peek (NBR), Mirjam Smuleders (NBR), Loukianos Gatzoulis, Christian Boehler (EU CIE)

Time Notes Summary • To inform about the testing grounds of Noord-Brabant: Informal

care, Dementia, Self Care • To share knowledge about good practices of impact assessment

approaches and instruments from different end user perspectives of the Citizen, the Worker and the Patient in different domains of AHA: Telemedicine, Telecare, and Independent living

• To get an insight in the monitoring instrument for impact

assessment of the EIP AHA

Identified links to Roadmap Streams and Items

• Identification why it is important to share more knowledge about existing evidence on impact of independent living solutions across Europe (Why?)

• Lack of common impact assessment instrument in field of independent living related to Self Care, Informal Care and Dementia (Why?)

• Existing criteria for impact assessment of existing evidence (What?)

• The existing approaches and methodology in practice (How?) • The importance of the end users perspective (experiences) in

impact assessment (How?) • The importance of the different citizens contexts in regions and

municipalities in impact related to a criteria of resilience of citizens to identify the needs of citizens and to match the needs with the provision of innovative independent living solutions (How?)

Agenda Item Name Break out session 1: Minimum set of criteria of evidence (what

kind of evidence do we need?) Moderators: Jon Dawson (Smarter Futures and action group EIPAHA C2), Shabs

Rajasekharan (Smarter Futures and action Group EIPA AH C2) , Marielle Swinkels (Smarter Futures and action group EIP AHA C2)

Time Notes Summary Tree different subgroups (Dementia, Informal Care, Self Care) have

defined the minimum set of criteria to assess the existing evidence that is needed for procurers and end users to choose a innovative solution by using a Impact assessment Canvas of the testing grounds of Noord-Brabant. The following questions were answered: • Which criteria are missing? • Why is each criteria important? • What are the core measures and questions to consider? • How do we measure this criteria? • What is the end product of the measurement? (e.g. a testing report) • What are other aspects to consider during the implementation

process (CHECK instrument of Central Denmark) Identified links to • Awareness about the importance of the exchange of existing

Roadmap Streams and Items

evidence across Europe to improve the evidence culture • Minimum criteria set of existing evidence to share across Europe

between regions • Lack of experience based evidence (experiences of end users). • Lack of common accepted EU instrument for judgement of

professionals in independent living field (based more on scientific evidence based practice)

• A balance is needed between experience based evidence and evidence based practice for the valorisation of knowledge. Focus for roadmap of ENGAGED has to be on the experience based evidence as ENGAGED is focusing more on the involvement of the demand side in AHA.

Agenda Item Name Break out session 2: Who need the criteria of evidence? Who are

the target groups? Moderators: Jon Dawson (Smarter Futures and action group EIPAHA C2), Shabs

Rajasekharan (Smarter Futures and action Group EIPA AH C2) , Marielle Swinkels (Smarter Futures and action group EIP AHA C2)

Time Notes Summary In this break out sessions is defined by the three groups for who each

criteria of evidence is needed? The following questions were answered: • Who needs this criteria of evidence? • Who is responsible for delivering the evidence for each criteria? • Who needs to be involved during the measurement process?

Identified links to Roadmap Streams and Items

Existing criteria that benefit end users in their decision making needs to be the central focus. This is needed to create a better balance between experience based practice and evidence based practice. Less important for the roadmap are criteria that benefit procurers in their decision making based on scientific evidence based practice as this is taken care of by procurers and scientific quality institutes already and takes a very long time to bring innovative solutions to the market.

Agenda Item Name Break out session 3: How to organise the process to assess the

existing evidence across Europe? Moderators: Jon Dawson (Smarter Futures and action group EIPAHA C2), Shabs

Rajasekharan (Smarter Futures and action Group EIPA AH C2) ,

Marielle Swinkels (Smarter Futures and action group EIP AHA C2) Time Notes Summary The following questions are answered in each group:

The following questions need to be answered by each group. 1. What are important factors and constraints for the end products to

show the evidence of each domain properly? 2. Which scale can we use to value/ to qualify the evidence results

for each domain? 3. Which methodology do we need for the process of valuing across

Europe (e.g. by peer reviews, self assessment, etc.). 4. How can we structure this across Europe? Who needs to be

involved? Who has to be in the lead to register the overview and results?

Identified links to Roadmap Streams and Items

To develop a Consumer impact assessment platform

Agenda Item Name Plenary session: conclusions and follow up Moderators: Jon Dawson (Smarter Futures and action group EIPAHA C2), Shabs

Rajasekharan (Smarter Futures and action Group EIPA AH C2) , Marielle Swinkels (Smarter Futures and action group EIP AHA C2)

Time Notes Summary The moderators presented the conclusions by showing the canvas and

make use of the written conclusions of the rapporteur (10 min).After each presentation, there was space for discussion during 5 minutes. The last 30 minutes were used to come to a follow up appointment together. How to move forward? Which are the next steps to take? • There is a small development group of CASA experts and experts

of the testing grounds of Noord-Brabant. What are their next steps based on the input of the seminar?

• Who else is able to contribute to the development group and on which items?

• How are we going to share the results during the development process

• When can we deliver the framework to be tested in Noord-Brabant?

First ideas for next steps are: • The Reference Site Noord-Brabant will take the lead to

coordinate a follow up to explore the idea of the development of

a consumer platform at regional level. • The ENGAGED and CASA project will explore the idea on EU

level and will look for interested regions who would like to collaborate in a follow up stage with regard to the development of such a platform.

• An existing platforms survey by a quick scan needs to be done. • We have to search for interested commercial partners who are

willing to invest and to commercialize the concept. • For the exploration phase a working group and advisory group is

needed. • We have to include people with experiences on user ratings and

in a later stage of development communication and marketing skills and experiences are crucial to get a certain platform launched and to reach mass to achieve enough impact.

Identified links to Roadmap Streams and Items

Development of consumer impact assessment platform

Agenda Item Name Study Visit Testing grounds Noord-Brabant Moderators: Eveline Wouters (Fontys University and skills lab), OnsNet

Eindhovenof the Noord-Brabant testing ground eHealth. Time Notes Summary Skills Lab Fontys shows how experiences of end users are collected

and monitored by the skills lab with regard to students and linked to a PHD research in the homes of citizens of Helmond. OnsNet Eindhoven shows how a digital community platform for citizens empowers their independent living with regard to their health, social contact, informal care and self care. They shared how they have realised the wide scale deployment of the services across Eindhoven and the importance of active user involvement during this process.

Identified links to Roadmap Streams and Items

Collection of Experiences of end users and active user involvement are crucial for the upscaling of independent living solutions.

Roadmap Input Protocol Speaker/Moderator Time What Streams have been discussed in this Impact assessment of independent living

workshop solutions Are there any streams to add NO Are there any streams to remove completely NO Are there modifications to any stream? Yes, the focus is on the development of an

instrument to collect and get an insight in experience based evidence of end users and to link this with a minimum set of evidence based practice criteria judged by professionals

Are there new items to add? Yes, Experience based evidences by user ratings

Are there items to remove or modify? Are there any changes to the milestones? NO Are there any comments regarding the structure of the roadmap?

For more information about the development process we refer to the Roadmap description of the follow up after the mutual learning workshop.

Roadmap Template Name of Stream Current State 2014 2015 Desired State Impact assessment of independent living solutions

Lack of evidence culture in the field of independent living across Europe. Lack of experience based evidence Lack of good balance between experience based evidence and evidence based practice

Development of a consumer impact assessment platform for independent living solutions tested in the testing grounds in Noord-Brabant

Development of a European consumer impact assessment platform for independent living solutions in other regions in Europe

A European overview and insight in a minimum set of criteria for experience based evidence and evidence based practice to help consumers in their decision making process to make better use of independent living solutions in their daily live and to help entrepeneurs to scale up these solutions