Towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management
Background The aim of this process evaluation was to provide insight into facilitators and barriers to the delivery of community-based personalized dementia care of two different case management models, i.e. the linkage model and the combined intensive case management/joint agency model. These two e...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Van Mierlo, Lisa D [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2014 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Van Mierlo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: BMC geriatrics - London : BioMed Central, 2001, 14(2014), 1 vom: 08. Juli |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:14 ; year:2014 ; number:1 ; day:08 ; month:07 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1186/1471-2318-14-84 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR027460266 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR027460266 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230519134611.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201007s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/1471-2318-14-84 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR027460266 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)1471-2318-14-84-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Van Mierlo, Lisa D |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2014 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Van Mierlo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( | ||
| 520 | |a Background The aim of this process evaluation was to provide insight into facilitators and barriers to the delivery of community-based personalized dementia care of two different case management models, i.e. the linkage model and the combined intensive case management/joint agency model. These two emerging dementia care models differ considerably in the way they are organized and implemented. Insight into facilitators and barriers in the implementation of different models is needed to create future guidelines for successful implementation of case management in other regions. Methods A qualitative case study design was used; semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 stakeholders on the execution and continuation phases of the implementation process. The stakeholders represented a broad range of perspectives (i.e. project leaders, case managers, health insurers, municipalities). Results The independence of the case management organization in the intensive model facilitated the implementation, whereas the presence of multiple competing case management providers in the linkage model impeded the implementation. Most impeding factors were found in the linkage model and were related to the organizational structure of the dementia care network and how partners collaborate with each other in this network. Conclusions The results of this process evaluation show that the intensive case management model is easier to implement as case managers in this model tend to be more able to provide quality of care, are less impeded by competitiveness of other care organizations and are more closely connected to the expert team than case managers in the linkage model. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Case management |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Dementia care |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Implementation |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Process analysis |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Meiland, Franka JM |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Van Hout, Hein PJ |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Dröes, Rose-Marie |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t BMC geriatrics |d London : BioMed Central, 2001 |g 14(2014), 1 vom: 08. Juli |w (DE-627)335488994 |w (DE-600)2059865-8 |x 1471-2318 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:14 |g year:2014 |g number:1 |g day:08 |g month:07 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-84 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_375 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 14 |j 2014 |e 1 |b 08 |c 07 | ||
| author_variant |
m l d v mld mldv f j m fj fjm h h p v hhp hhpv r m d rmd |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:14712318:2014----::oadproaieitgaedmnicraulttvsuynohipeettoodf |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2014 |
| publishDate |
2014 |
| allfields |
10.1186/1471-2318-14-84 doi (DE-627)SPR027460266 (SPR)1471-2318-14-84-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Van Mierlo, Lisa D verfasserin aut Towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Van Mierlo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( Background The aim of this process evaluation was to provide insight into facilitators and barriers to the delivery of community-based personalized dementia care of two different case management models, i.e. the linkage model and the combined intensive case management/joint agency model. These two emerging dementia care models differ considerably in the way they are organized and implemented. Insight into facilitators and barriers in the implementation of different models is needed to create future guidelines for successful implementation of case management in other regions. Methods A qualitative case study design was used; semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 stakeholders on the execution and continuation phases of the implementation process. The stakeholders represented a broad range of perspectives (i.e. project leaders, case managers, health insurers, municipalities). Results The independence of the case management organization in the intensive model facilitated the implementation, whereas the presence of multiple competing case management providers in the linkage model impeded the implementation. Most impeding factors were found in the linkage model and were related to the organizational structure of the dementia care network and how partners collaborate with each other in this network. Conclusions The results of this process evaluation show that the intensive case management model is easier to implement as case managers in this model tend to be more able to provide quality of care, are less impeded by competitiveness of other care organizations and are more closely connected to the expert team than case managers in the linkage model. Case management (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dementia care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Implementation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Process analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meiland, Franka JM aut Van Hout, Hein PJ aut Dröes, Rose-Marie aut Enthalten in BMC geriatrics London : BioMed Central, 2001 14(2014), 1 vom: 08. Juli (DE-627)335488994 (DE-600)2059865-8 1471-2318 nnns volume:14 year:2014 number:1 day:08 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-84 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 14 2014 1 08 07 |
| spelling |
10.1186/1471-2318-14-84 doi (DE-627)SPR027460266 (SPR)1471-2318-14-84-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Van Mierlo, Lisa D verfasserin aut Towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Van Mierlo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( Background The aim of this process evaluation was to provide insight into facilitators and barriers to the delivery of community-based personalized dementia care of two different case management models, i.e. the linkage model and the combined intensive case management/joint agency model. These two emerging dementia care models differ considerably in the way they are organized and implemented. Insight into facilitators and barriers in the implementation of different models is needed to create future guidelines for successful implementation of case management in other regions. Methods A qualitative case study design was used; semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 stakeholders on the execution and continuation phases of the implementation process. The stakeholders represented a broad range of perspectives (i.e. project leaders, case managers, health insurers, municipalities). Results The independence of the case management organization in the intensive model facilitated the implementation, whereas the presence of multiple competing case management providers in the linkage model impeded the implementation. Most impeding factors were found in the linkage model and were related to the organizational structure of the dementia care network and how partners collaborate with each other in this network. Conclusions The results of this process evaluation show that the intensive case management model is easier to implement as case managers in this model tend to be more able to provide quality of care, are less impeded by competitiveness of other care organizations and are more closely connected to the expert team than case managers in the linkage model. Case management (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dementia care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Implementation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Process analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meiland, Franka JM aut Van Hout, Hein PJ aut Dröes, Rose-Marie aut Enthalten in BMC geriatrics London : BioMed Central, 2001 14(2014), 1 vom: 08. Juli (DE-627)335488994 (DE-600)2059865-8 1471-2318 nnns volume:14 year:2014 number:1 day:08 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-84 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 14 2014 1 08 07 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/1471-2318-14-84 doi (DE-627)SPR027460266 (SPR)1471-2318-14-84-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Van Mierlo, Lisa D verfasserin aut Towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Van Mierlo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( Background The aim of this process evaluation was to provide insight into facilitators and barriers to the delivery of community-based personalized dementia care of two different case management models, i.e. the linkage model and the combined intensive case management/joint agency model. These two emerging dementia care models differ considerably in the way they are organized and implemented. Insight into facilitators and barriers in the implementation of different models is needed to create future guidelines for successful implementation of case management in other regions. Methods A qualitative case study design was used; semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 stakeholders on the execution and continuation phases of the implementation process. The stakeholders represented a broad range of perspectives (i.e. project leaders, case managers, health insurers, municipalities). Results The independence of the case management organization in the intensive model facilitated the implementation, whereas the presence of multiple competing case management providers in the linkage model impeded the implementation. Most impeding factors were found in the linkage model and were related to the organizational structure of the dementia care network and how partners collaborate with each other in this network. Conclusions The results of this process evaluation show that the intensive case management model is easier to implement as case managers in this model tend to be more able to provide quality of care, are less impeded by competitiveness of other care organizations and are more closely connected to the expert team than case managers in the linkage model. Case management (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dementia care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Implementation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Process analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meiland, Franka JM aut Van Hout, Hein PJ aut Dröes, Rose-Marie aut Enthalten in BMC geriatrics London : BioMed Central, 2001 14(2014), 1 vom: 08. Juli (DE-627)335488994 (DE-600)2059865-8 1471-2318 nnns volume:14 year:2014 number:1 day:08 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-84 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 14 2014 1 08 07 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1186/1471-2318-14-84 doi (DE-627)SPR027460266 (SPR)1471-2318-14-84-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Van Mierlo, Lisa D verfasserin aut Towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Van Mierlo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( Background The aim of this process evaluation was to provide insight into facilitators and barriers to the delivery of community-based personalized dementia care of two different case management models, i.e. the linkage model and the combined intensive case management/joint agency model. These two emerging dementia care models differ considerably in the way they are organized and implemented. Insight into facilitators and barriers in the implementation of different models is needed to create future guidelines for successful implementation of case management in other regions. Methods A qualitative case study design was used; semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 stakeholders on the execution and continuation phases of the implementation process. The stakeholders represented a broad range of perspectives (i.e. project leaders, case managers, health insurers, municipalities). Results The independence of the case management organization in the intensive model facilitated the implementation, whereas the presence of multiple competing case management providers in the linkage model impeded the implementation. Most impeding factors were found in the linkage model and were related to the organizational structure of the dementia care network and how partners collaborate with each other in this network. Conclusions The results of this process evaluation show that the intensive case management model is easier to implement as case managers in this model tend to be more able to provide quality of care, are less impeded by competitiveness of other care organizations and are more closely connected to the expert team than case managers in the linkage model. Case management (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dementia care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Implementation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Process analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meiland, Franka JM aut Van Hout, Hein PJ aut Dröes, Rose-Marie aut Enthalten in BMC geriatrics London : BioMed Central, 2001 14(2014), 1 vom: 08. Juli (DE-627)335488994 (DE-600)2059865-8 1471-2318 nnns volume:14 year:2014 number:1 day:08 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-84 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 14 2014 1 08 07 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1186/1471-2318-14-84 doi (DE-627)SPR027460266 (SPR)1471-2318-14-84-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Van Mierlo, Lisa D verfasserin aut Towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Van Mierlo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( Background The aim of this process evaluation was to provide insight into facilitators and barriers to the delivery of community-based personalized dementia care of two different case management models, i.e. the linkage model and the combined intensive case management/joint agency model. These two emerging dementia care models differ considerably in the way they are organized and implemented. Insight into facilitators and barriers in the implementation of different models is needed to create future guidelines for successful implementation of case management in other regions. Methods A qualitative case study design was used; semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 stakeholders on the execution and continuation phases of the implementation process. The stakeholders represented a broad range of perspectives (i.e. project leaders, case managers, health insurers, municipalities). Results The independence of the case management organization in the intensive model facilitated the implementation, whereas the presence of multiple competing case management providers in the linkage model impeded the implementation. Most impeding factors were found in the linkage model and were related to the organizational structure of the dementia care network and how partners collaborate with each other in this network. Conclusions The results of this process evaluation show that the intensive case management model is easier to implement as case managers in this model tend to be more able to provide quality of care, are less impeded by competitiveness of other care organizations and are more closely connected to the expert team than case managers in the linkage model. Case management (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dementia care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Implementation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Process analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meiland, Franka JM aut Van Hout, Hein PJ aut Dröes, Rose-Marie aut Enthalten in BMC geriatrics London : BioMed Central, 2001 14(2014), 1 vom: 08. Juli (DE-627)335488994 (DE-600)2059865-8 1471-2318 nnns volume:14 year:2014 number:1 day:08 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-84 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 14 2014 1 08 07 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in BMC geriatrics 14(2014), 1 vom: 08. Juli volume:14 year:2014 number:1 day:08 month:07 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in BMC geriatrics 14(2014), 1 vom: 08. Juli volume:14 year:2014 number:1 day:08 month:07 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Case management Dementia care Implementation Process analysis |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
BMC geriatrics |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Van Mierlo, Lisa D @@aut@@ Meiland, Franka JM @@aut@@ Van Hout, Hein PJ @@aut@@ Dröes, Rose-Marie @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2014-07-08T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
335488994 |
| id |
SPR027460266 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR027460266</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519134611.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/1471-2318-14-84</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR027460266</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)1471-2318-14-84-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Van Mierlo, Lisa D</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Van Mierlo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background The aim of this process evaluation was to provide insight into facilitators and barriers to the delivery of community-based personalized dementia care of two different case management models, i.e. the linkage model and the combined intensive case management/joint agency model. These two emerging dementia care models differ considerably in the way they are organized and implemented. Insight into facilitators and barriers in the implementation of different models is needed to create future guidelines for successful implementation of case management in other regions. Methods A qualitative case study design was used; semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 stakeholders on the execution and continuation phases of the implementation process. The stakeholders represented a broad range of perspectives (i.e. project leaders, case managers, health insurers, municipalities). Results The independence of the case management organization in the intensive model facilitated the implementation, whereas the presence of multiple competing case management providers in the linkage model impeded the implementation. Most impeding factors were found in the linkage model and were related to the organizational structure of the dementia care network and how partners collaborate with each other in this network. Conclusions The results of this process evaluation show that the intensive case management model is easier to implement as case managers in this model tend to be more able to provide quality of care, are less impeded by competitiveness of other care organizations and are more closely connected to the expert team than case managers in the linkage model.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Case management</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dementia care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Implementation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Process analysis</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Meiland, Franka JM</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Van Hout, Hein PJ</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dröes, Rose-Marie</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC geriatrics</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">14(2014), 1 vom: 08. Juli</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)335488994</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2059865-8</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2318</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:14</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:08</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-84</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_375</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">14</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">08</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Van Mierlo, Lisa D |
| spellingShingle |
Van Mierlo, Lisa D misc Case management misc Dementia care misc Implementation misc Process analysis Towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management |
| authorStr |
Van Mierlo, Lisa D |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)335488994 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1471-2318 |
| topic_title |
Towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management Case management (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dementia care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Implementation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Process analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Case management misc Dementia care misc Implementation misc Process analysis |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Case management misc Dementia care misc Implementation misc Process analysis |
| topic_browse |
misc Case management misc Dementia care misc Implementation misc Process analysis |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
BMC geriatrics |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
335488994 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
BMC geriatrics |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)335488994 (DE-600)2059865-8 |
| title |
Towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR027460266 (SPR)1471-2318-14-84-e |
| title_full |
Towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management |
| author_sort |
Van Mierlo, Lisa D |
| journal |
BMC geriatrics |
| journalStr |
BMC geriatrics |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2014 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Van Mierlo, Lisa D Meiland, Franka JM Van Hout, Hein PJ Dröes, Rose-Marie |
| container_volume |
14 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Van Mierlo, Lisa D |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1186/1471-2318-14-84 |
| title_sort |
towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management |
| title_auth |
Towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management |
| abstract |
Background The aim of this process evaluation was to provide insight into facilitators and barriers to the delivery of community-based personalized dementia care of two different case management models, i.e. the linkage model and the combined intensive case management/joint agency model. These two emerging dementia care models differ considerably in the way they are organized and implemented. Insight into facilitators and barriers in the implementation of different models is needed to create future guidelines for successful implementation of case management in other regions. Methods A qualitative case study design was used; semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 stakeholders on the execution and continuation phases of the implementation process. The stakeholders represented a broad range of perspectives (i.e. project leaders, case managers, health insurers, municipalities). Results The independence of the case management organization in the intensive model facilitated the implementation, whereas the presence of multiple competing case management providers in the linkage model impeded the implementation. Most impeding factors were found in the linkage model and were related to the organizational structure of the dementia care network and how partners collaborate with each other in this network. Conclusions The results of this process evaluation show that the intensive case management model is easier to implement as case managers in this model tend to be more able to provide quality of care, are less impeded by competitiveness of other care organizations and are more closely connected to the expert team than case managers in the linkage model. © Van Mierlo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( |
| abstractGer |
Background The aim of this process evaluation was to provide insight into facilitators and barriers to the delivery of community-based personalized dementia care of two different case management models, i.e. the linkage model and the combined intensive case management/joint agency model. These two emerging dementia care models differ considerably in the way they are organized and implemented. Insight into facilitators and barriers in the implementation of different models is needed to create future guidelines for successful implementation of case management in other regions. Methods A qualitative case study design was used; semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 stakeholders on the execution and continuation phases of the implementation process. The stakeholders represented a broad range of perspectives (i.e. project leaders, case managers, health insurers, municipalities). Results The independence of the case management organization in the intensive model facilitated the implementation, whereas the presence of multiple competing case management providers in the linkage model impeded the implementation. Most impeding factors were found in the linkage model and were related to the organizational structure of the dementia care network and how partners collaborate with each other in this network. Conclusions The results of this process evaluation show that the intensive case management model is easier to implement as case managers in this model tend to be more able to provide quality of care, are less impeded by competitiveness of other care organizations and are more closely connected to the expert team than case managers in the linkage model. © Van Mierlo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Background The aim of this process evaluation was to provide insight into facilitators and barriers to the delivery of community-based personalized dementia care of two different case management models, i.e. the linkage model and the combined intensive case management/joint agency model. These two emerging dementia care models differ considerably in the way they are organized and implemented. Insight into facilitators and barriers in the implementation of different models is needed to create future guidelines for successful implementation of case management in other regions. Methods A qualitative case study design was used; semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 stakeholders on the execution and continuation phases of the implementation process. The stakeholders represented a broad range of perspectives (i.e. project leaders, case managers, health insurers, municipalities). Results The independence of the case management organization in the intensive model facilitated the implementation, whereas the presence of multiple competing case management providers in the linkage model impeded the implementation. Most impeding factors were found in the linkage model and were related to the organizational structure of the dementia care network and how partners collaborate with each other in this network. Conclusions The results of this process evaluation show that the intensive case management model is easier to implement as case managers in this model tend to be more able to provide quality of care, are less impeded by competitiveness of other care organizations and are more closely connected to the expert team than case managers in the linkage model. © Van Mierlo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_375 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-84 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Meiland, Franka JM Van Hout, Hein PJ Dröes, Rose-Marie |
| author2Str |
Meiland, Franka JM Van Hout, Hein PJ Dröes, Rose-Marie |
| ppnlink |
335488994 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1186/1471-2318-14-84 |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T01:57:45.593Z |
| _version_ |
1803611815905591296 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR027460266</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519134611.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/1471-2318-14-84</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR027460266</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)1471-2318-14-84-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Van Mierlo, Lisa D</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Towards personalized integrated dementia care: a qualitative study into the implementation of different models of case management</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Van Mierlo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background The aim of this process evaluation was to provide insight into facilitators and barriers to the delivery of community-based personalized dementia care of two different case management models, i.e. the linkage model and the combined intensive case management/joint agency model. These two emerging dementia care models differ considerably in the way they are organized and implemented. Insight into facilitators and barriers in the implementation of different models is needed to create future guidelines for successful implementation of case management in other regions. Methods A qualitative case study design was used; semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 stakeholders on the execution and continuation phases of the implementation process. The stakeholders represented a broad range of perspectives (i.e. project leaders, case managers, health insurers, municipalities). Results The independence of the case management organization in the intensive model facilitated the implementation, whereas the presence of multiple competing case management providers in the linkage model impeded the implementation. Most impeding factors were found in the linkage model and were related to the organizational structure of the dementia care network and how partners collaborate with each other in this network. Conclusions The results of this process evaluation show that the intensive case management model is easier to implement as case managers in this model tend to be more able to provide quality of care, are less impeded by competitiveness of other care organizations and are more closely connected to the expert team than case managers in the linkage model.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Case management</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dementia care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Implementation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Process analysis</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Meiland, Franka JM</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Van Hout, Hein PJ</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dröes, Rose-Marie</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC geriatrics</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">14(2014), 1 vom: 08. Juli</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)335488994</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2059865-8</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2318</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:14</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:08</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-84</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_375</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">14</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">08</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.398514 |