D 1.16 Home Sweet Home progress report 4

PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

Grant Agreement number: 250449

Project acronym: HOME SWEET HOME

Project title: Health monitoring and sOcial integration environMEnt for Supporting WidE ExTension of independent life at HOME

Project type: □ Pilot A Pilot B □ TN □ BPN

Periodic report: intermediate □ 1st □ 2nd □ 3rd □ 4th

Period covered: from 1/3/2013 to 28/2/2014

Project coordinator name, title and organisation: Dimitri De Rooze

HOME SWEET HOME Co-ordinator Phone: +32 3 338 27 83 Mobile: +32 472 32 26 81 Email: [email protected]

Project website address: http://www.homesweethome-project.eu/

HSH Project Progress Report 4

Grant Agreement nr. 250449 2 Progress Report 3

Table of contents

SECTION 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

SECTION 1 PUBLISHABLE SUMMARY 4

SECTION 2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES FOR THE PERIOD 6

SECTION 3 WORK PROGRESS AND ACHIEVEMENTS DURING THE PERIOD 7

SECTION 4 DELIVERABLES AND MILESTONES TABLES, KPI TABLE 30

SECTION 5 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 35

SECTION 6 EXPLANATION OF THE USE OF THE RESOURCES 61

SECTION 7 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUMMARY FINANCIAL REPORT 62

SECTION 8 [ONLY FOR ACTUAL COST REIMBURSEMENT] CERTIFICATES 63

ANNEX I STATUS OF THE ACTIONS FROM THE THIRD PROJECT REVIEW

HELD ON 25TH APRIL, 2014 64

ANNEX II DISSEMINATION REPORT 76



Section 0 Executive Summary

The goal of this deliverable D1.16 is to provide an in depth view of the work done by the HOME

SWEET HOME project consortium during the fourth and last reporting period namely from

1/3/2013 to 28/2/2014.

In section 1 a publishable summary of the project is provided for communication purposes.

Section 2 summarises the objectives of the work for this reporting period, basically the real

finalisation of the pilot activities with the actual data collection and monitoring of the older persons’

status, and the final analysis of the outcomes, facilitated by the action of the HOME SWEET

HOME Management team.

Section 3 provides a detailed report of the progress made Workpackage by Workpackage. The most

notable items here are a detailed list of dissemination initiatives carried out (WP2), the activities of

the Advisory Group (WP4) in charge for a high level monitoring of the project with an external,

independent view where an additional, unforeseen task (the Qualitative Study) was designed and

successfully carried out, whereas WP6 and 7 account for the real service operation of the pilot sites.

This is obviously the most critical area of the project as throughout the project’ lifetime the most

relevant deviations from plans were to be found here.

For this reason this is the area where the Management Team and the Steering Committee have put

the most significant efforts and thanks to these the objectives of the project have been reasonably

achieved with the exception on the Italian pilot site.

Section 4 provides the status of the deliverables, Milestones and KPI tables, whereas Section 5

focusses on the Project Management side, with an updated GANTT chart and detailed tables with

the person month tables per partner and per activity.

The main observation is that taking into account the 12 months extension which has been approved

by the European Commission, and due to a certain level of underspending experienced in the

previous reporting period, it has been possible to redistribute the person months allocation over a

longer period.

The remaining sections account for the use of resources on a partner-by-partner basis and for other

administrative details. Finally Appendix I reports on the Status of the actions from the last Project

Review of 25th

April 2013.

The overall picture of the project which stems out from this report is that the project has reached its

natural end with a satisfactory level of achievement of the foreseen results, although this level of

achievement is uneven across the four pilot sites and it has not always been possible to fully

implement all the envisaged solutions: but the conclusion that some of these solutions are not viable

is one of the important lessons we have learned from the project.



Section 1 Publishable summary

HOME SWEET HOME started on 1st March 2010 and trials a new, economically sustainable home

assistance service which extends older persons independent living and finished on the 28th

February

2014 with the total duration extended from the initially foreseen three years to a full four years

lifetime.

The trials were held in four European countries (Belgium, Ireland, Italy and Spain) according to the

randomised controlled trial (RCT) methodology. The objectives of the project were to measure

organisational, economic and clinical effects and to compare the results between a study group and a

control group. Older persons in the control group received normal care such as it was already

provided by local health and social services, whereas people in the study group received additional

ICT-based services.

These additional services supported older persons in their daily activities and allowed caregivers to

remotely assess their ability to stay independent. While systems of this kind inevitably represent an

intrusion in the older persons’ private life, in the case of HOME SWEET HOME particular care has

been put to limit to a bare minimum the need for other people to interfere with the older person’s

private life unless a clear need is detected by the system.

The project comprised the following services:

Monitoring and Alarm Handling,

eInclusion,

Domotics,

Daily Scheduler,

Navigation

and Mental Faculty Maintaining.

The Monitoring and Alarm Handling is based on a Decision Support System which analyses in

real time data collected from medical and environmental sensors, fall detectors and geopositioning

systems. Standard behavioural patterns are established for individuals; sudden, major changes trigger

alarms.

eInclusion is achieved through intuitive videoconferencing based on the familiar TV paradigm and

adapted for use by people unfamiliar with IT technology.

Domotics and Daily Scheduler help older persons to organise their daily activities and to manage

the house in spite of growing physical and mental impairments.

The navigation system takes people who got lost to the closest safe place.

Cognitive training is implemented through interactive games based on cognitive adaptive

technology. Complexity of exercises is adjusted to the performance and current mental level of the

user.

HOME SWEET HOME has measured the differences between control group and study group on:

evolution in the quality of life (assessed by the SF36 questionnaire at the beginning, midterm

and end of the trial period);

duration of independent life;

amount of situation of risk;



changes in the feeling of isolation;

amount of transfers to older persons homes;

cost of social care;

cost of health care.

The project was implemented by a Consortium of 17 partners, both private and public, with a very

strong presence of health and social authorities with budgetary responsibilities for health and older

persons’ care, together with social service providers, healthcare providers, contact centres, healthcare

insurers, an older persons’ people representative association, technology providers and business

consultants.

The project finished on 28th

February 2014 and the final outcomes and findings will be pcompiled

and published soon.

Project logo:

Contact person: Dimitri De Rooze

HOME SWEET HOME Co-ordinator

Phone: +32 3 338 27 83

Mobile: +32 472 32 26 81

E-mail: [email protected]

Project website: http://www.homesweethome-project.eu/

http://www.homesweethome-project.eu/



Section 2 Project objectives for the period The objectives of the fourth reporting period were the following:

To proceed with the data collection and monitoring of older persons’ data in the pilots;

To implement the Retention Strategy (for which a specific document was prepared and

circulated among all partners) in order to minimise the level of dropouts;

To collect T24 data;

To perform the final statistical analysis on the collected information and data so as to

elaborate the final outcomes;

To properly complete the project activities and bring the support to the older persons in both

the control and intervention groups to an end, managing the relationship with them;

To implement strict monitoring methods and supporting tools by the Management Team in

order to successfully bring the project to its natural end within the contractual timescale;

To disseminate project information to interested parties;

To successfully carry out 2 PSC Meetings, a number of regional workshops, two Project

Reviews (the third and the fourth one) and one Final Conference;

As requested, a summary of the recommendations from the previous reviews including a description

on how the Management Team have taken them into account, can be found in Appendix I.



Section 3 Work progress and achievements during the period

Work Package 1: Project Co-ordination, Management and Quality Assurance

The main objectives of this package are the following:

- effective management of the project in all its aspects;

- ensuring that project goals are achieved within the financial and human resources allocated to

the project;

- co-ordination of the Consortium activities;

- management of the contractual issues and of the relationship with the European Commission;

- reporting to the Commission;

- Quality Assurance.

During the fourth reporting period, the Management Team has carried out the usual management and

co-ordination activities plus “ad hoc” activities which were judged necessary to steer the Project in

the right direction. These activities include:

Management of the contractual issues and of the relationship with the European Commission.

Daily co-ordination of the Consortium activities;

Monitoring of and support for the partners in the execution of their tasks;

Liaison with the User Advisory Group, with the Clinical Group and the Technical Contact

persons;

Management of the action list;

Management of the issue- and risk register;

Preparation and organisation of:

o The third Project Review held in Brussels on the 25th of April, 2013;

o The 8th

Project Steering Committee (PSC) meeting held in Treviso on 1st and 2nd

October, 2013;

The 9th

Project Steering Committee (PSC) meeting held in Badalona on the15th of January,

2014

A number of recommendations and of requests for resubmission of deliverables were issued

by the Review Panel after the Third review. All the recommendations have been implemented

and the deliverables resubmitted. A table summarizing the implementation of the

recommendations is provided as Annex I to this report.

Carrying out and chasing internal reporting + monitoring;

Contractual reporting to the Commission;

Collecting status reports from our partners twice a month;

Quality check of all deliverables before they were submitted;



Work Package 2: Dissemination This WP intends to give high visibility to the activities carried out in the Project. Target audiences

for this dissemination effort are the public and private purchasers and providers of health and social

care to older persons people, social and health insurers, social and health care professionals and

general public.

The dissemination effort will be organised along three communication lines:

- The HOME SWEET HOME website, which will be a living window of the project and will

be constantly updated with the latest results achieved throughout the entire lifecycle of the

Project.

- The HOME SWEET HOME leaflet which will be produced in two versions to support the

presentation of the Project in relevant conferences and fairs. This represents the “classical”

but still widespread marketing tool of any project.

- The HOME SWEET HOME Workshops and Conferences:

o The HOME SWEET HOME Regional Conferences will bring together in each of the

participating Regions 20-30 potential early adopters from neighbouring regions and

countries;

o Midterm Workshop and the Final Conference where 50-60 and 80-100 sector players

respectively will be invited for a face-to-face presentation of the project results to

promote its adoption by public and private social and health care providers.

The full dissemination report for this reporting period is provided as Annex II to this document.

Here we present a summary of the said report.

Based upon our stakeholder analysis we agreed that the 4th period in the Project still needed to focus

on our participants and their relatives in order to keep them motivated for the closing period. Since

this is the 3th year where our participants are using the HOME SWEET HOME services we still need

to focus on avoiding dropouts in both the control and the study group.



Besides our focus on our participants and their relatives we used the fourth period also to inform the

other stakeholders (see arrows) about the results, lessons learned and other important information

about Home Sweet Home. Moreless since we will close down the project a lot of other dissemination

opportunities will occur, now that we can release the gathered information about 4 years of Home

Sweet Home.

As some of our dissemination actions are not specifically for one target group we summarised our

dissemination actions here :

1. Personalised communication :

As mentioned in the former Reviews our focus remained also in this period to keep our

participants and their relatives motivated by stimulating them and informing them about the project.

Besides the physical visits we also spent a lot of effort in making newsletters to keep them informed

but also to make them realise how important they are irrespective of the fact that they are in the study

or in the control group.

o Some examples of the newsletters we made in Belgium and Ireland during the final period

are provided in Annex II.



Besides the use of a regular newsletter we sent out a letter (see Annex II) to all our users at the end

of the project in order to thank them.

2. Website

As agreed at the former Review we had changed our ‘CMS’ system from Smartsite to Drupal.

In the final period we have made some small changes and upgrades to the website.

Our objectives for the new website where the following and we think that all of them where

obtained.

o Easier to use and maintain technology

o Cost efficient (Drupal is an open source technology)

o More modern and fresh look and a more dynamic website

o More friendly in use so that other participants can add information on it by themselves

o Integration with new dissemination tools such as twitter, movies, …

o More living website



Due to the fact that at this stage of the project we have gathered a lot of information that can

be disseminated, we have decided to maintain de website until at least the end of 2015. At the end of

2015 we will evaluate the use of the website and the necessity to have it running longer.



3. Brochures & leaflets

A leaflet has been produced in order to inform about the entire Project. Partners can use this

leaflet as a basis for their own translated version, which can include specific information related to

their target audience. The leaflet has also been announced on LinkedIn, Facebook and our website

and spread through the different events we participated in.

Qualitative analysis

One of the remarks following one of our project reviews consisted in

gathering qualitative information about the HSH users and their

feeling about the project. Therefore a qualitative analysis was set up

and together with the support of the Advisory Board and Age we

have produced a publication on the outcome of a small qualitative

study that took place within the Home Sweet Home user group. The

study aimed at shedding the light to barriers and enablers for the

acceptance of new technologies that where introduced to help older

persons live autonomously and manage better their health. It is

written from the perspective of older persons who use technologies in

their everyday living and it is addressed to all the stakeholders who

are involved in the development and deployment of such solutions :

researchers, service providers, industry and SME’s, public

authorities, health and social care professionals, informal caregivers,

insurers and mutualities and older persons themselves. Instead of

discussing elements specific only to the project, the publication is

drafted in a way that can be useful to various similar settings and sets

of services.

First some information about Home Sweet Home and the study is provided. Then the results of the

study are summarized as answers to the questions : who are older persons and what matters to them ?

In the end, recommendations for future research and practice are given, before presenting the case

studies, which were analysed in order to reach conclusions and lessons learned.

Our qualitative analysis is being disseminated via the website, website of partners (Age, ZB, …),

Twitter, Linked-in, …

4. Video on HSH

In May 2012 we made some videos in order to inform our stakeholders about HSH:

o A day in the life of some of our participants (we followed some of our participants during a

day in order to show the public about HSH, how it is being used, what it means, …);

o A video about the project with short interviews with team members and users;

o A short video per item in order to present the means and use;

o A short video about the installation



In June 2013 an additional video was made by the Spanish delegation for dissemination use.

http://youtu.be/NFquHKt9_-A




These videos where displayed and published on:

o HSH Website;

o YouTube;

o Websites of the HSH partners;

o Facebook pages;

o Linked-in pages;

o Shown in several occasions as, e.g. at the final Workshop, …

o …

5. Conferences and workshops

Only the titles of the conferences are provided here. Full information can be found in Annex II.

19/05/2013 – delegation from Liège, Waterloo, Charleroi and Luxembourg visited the Antwerp

HSH project – Antwerp – Belgium

Eneo is an organisation from Wallonie (www.eneo.be) enabling the rights of the older and has

40.000 senior members. A delegation from different parts of the south of Belgium came over to have

a look at the Home Sweet Home project and followed a workshop on our project.

http://www.eneo.be/



19/11/2013 – Regional Conference in Italy – Rome by Darco Servizi.

The occasion of the conference was the first showing on cinema of a reportage about migrants

working in Rome as long term carer for older people or people with disabilities, called “BADAMI”.

The Italian word “bàdami” means “take care of me” and it recalls both the word “badante” which is

an informal way of referring to “long term carers” and the need to better take care of long term carers

and the families of older people and people with disabilities.

26/02/2014 – Final conference : ICT and E-Skills for social Care – Brussels - Belgium

AGE was invited to give a presentation for the final conference of the project Carenet, which worked

on the improvement of ICT skills in the long-term care sector. Bearing in mind the legal and ethical

framework in which social care is provided in Europe and drawing from the experience of AGE

Platform Europe, Nena Georgantzi, Legal Officer, presented older persons’ views on ICT for care

and independent living. In addition, she exposed lessons learned from the Home Sweet Home, which

finalised a qualitative study on ICT acceptance from the perspective of older users.

Final Conference – Barcelona, January 16th

, 2014

Conference Title: ENABLERS FOR SUCCESS - E4S CONFERENCE

ICT support to Active and Healthy Aging: Paving the way from pilot to the Market

A dynamic one-day conference and exhibition

Mobile World Centre – Barcelona

Thursday, 16 January 2014

14/05/2014 – 5th

interactive Congres Facility Management in Care – Antwerp - belgium

On Wednesday 14 May – Zorgbedrijf Antwerp participate in a Care Congres about Facility

Management by organising some workshops about Home Sweet Home – the lessons learned and

trends for the future.

6. Future dissemination on Home Sweet Home

As the project is coming to an end we are at a point that we have a lot of information that can be

spread to the different stakeholders and can be beneficiary to other EU projects in this field of work.

Home Sweet Home is just one piece of the puzzle to build and extend the evidence base on the

impact if eHealth, eInclusion and Ambient Assisted Living on elderly care and on the independence

of older people. Therefore we will carry on sharing the lessons learnt through the successes and

failures in deploying ICT-based care services.



As you see in the figure below, Home Sweet Home is just one piece of the puzzle and can add

interesting information in order to support independence.

The Home Sweet Home results are being set out in a number of deliverables that will be put public

and will be available on the Home Sweet Home Website, like :

D3.8 Clinical and Quality of life impact assessment.

D3.10 Social Impact assessment.

D3.11 Economic Impact assessment.

D3.12 User Satisfaction assessment.

D3.13 Barriers to deployment.

D4.7 Implementation Guidelines.

D7.5 Trial Evaluation Report.

User stories about Home Sweet Home – qualitative analysis



…

Besides the dissemination via the website we still have a lot of partners that will keep spreading the

results from Home Sweet Home to other potential partners, projects, … like AGE, HIM, …

The full list of events held during the final period where HSH has been disseminated is

provided in annex II.



Work Package 3: Evaluation, Business Modelling and Development Planning This WP has the following main objectives:

- assessing, independently from the project team, the impact of the HOME SWEET HOME

services on:

o the social and health condition of older persons people;

o the quality of life of the older persons people receiving the service;

o the economics of older persons care delivery.

- surveying the satisfaction of the different categories of users with the service;

- evaluating the potential market for the HOME SWEET HOME services in the EU taking into

considerations the differences between one country and another;

- preparing a Deployment Plan for the subsequent deployment of the service. This will include

a detailed cost/benefit analysis, a billing strategy, and a series of recommendations for setting

up and customising the service.

During the reporting period, all the foreseen deliverables, namely the three

D3.8 Clinical and QoL Impact assessment (incorporating D3.9)

D3.10 Social Impact assessment

D3.11 Economic Impact assessment

D3.12 User Satisfaction assessment

D3.13 HOME SWEET HOME Barriers to deployment

were produced and submitted.

Also, D3.14, Final Deployment Plan was completed with contributions from the various partners.

Unfortunately the contribution for Italy was limited to that from Darco because ASL di Latina never

replied to requests to provide information about their deployment plans in spite of escalating the

issue to the Top Management of the Local Health Authority”.

Also the other foreseen deliverables, namely



Work Package 4: Functional specifications refinement and guidelines elaboration This WP aims to refine the functional specifications of the HOME SWEET HOME Platform. The

starting point for this iterative refinement process is the specifications of the platform, which is

currently available.

The specifications will be progressively refined during the lifecycle of the Pilots making use of the

wisdom of the User Advisory Group, and of the feedback from the pilots that will be collected and

elaborated.

Elaborating guidelines for the successful implementation of HOME SWEET HOME-like services.

This iterative process and the close interaction between technical partners and Advisory Groups

ensures that by the end of the phase the specifications of the Platform are perfectly in line with

market demand

During the fourth reporting period, the following activities were carried out:

The D4.6 Advisory Group (AG) Final Feedback was drafted to reflect the concluding

activities of the AG, in particular the visit to the pilot site of Louth, the outcomes of the

qualitative study and the final recommendations arising from the AG activities throughout the

project. Moreover, the AG comments fed into the final version of D7.4 and the project final

report, as they included long-term considerations and suggestions for future research and

deployment.

Concretely, during this period considerable efforts were made to complete the qualitative

study, which was not initially foreseen as a project deliverable. Following the suggestion of

the AG, several preparatory meetings as presented in D.4.4 (Advisory Group Intermediate

Feedback) and the agreement reached during the 2013 review, AGE coordinated the work

which led to a separate deliverable (D4.8) and a shorter printed and online version to be used

for dissemination purposes.

After consulting all Advisory Group members to gather some initial questions, Heidrun

Mollenkopf and Marja Pijl, from the HSH Advisory Group worked on a voluntary basis on a

first draft of the questionnaire for the qualitative interviews. Then a small working group was

established comprised by the two Advisory Group members and Nena Georgantzi and

Ophélie Durand from AGE Platform Europe, in order to guide the study and deliver the

expected results. Wouter Keisjer and Raniero Chelli from the HSH management team were in

charge of the communications with the pilot sites.

A fist exchange of views on the evolution of the interviews took place during the PSC

meeting in Treviso on October 1st 2013, where all pilots reported that they had selected users

for the interviews: Latina, Louth and Antwerp were planning to involve 5 participants,

whereas Badalona planned to interview all 9 participants of the study group. The Belgian,

Irish and Spanish pilot sites delivered the results by the set deadline (15th November 2013).

After several reminders to the Italian pilot site on the 12th

December 2013, the management

team decided that it is no longer possible to wait for the Italian interviews and therefore the

working group proceeded with the analysis of the received questionnaires from the 3 pilot

sites.

During the Advisory Group meeting in Dundalk on the 18th November 2013 the AG experts,

decided to prepare a document presenting in a synthetised manner the answers from the 3

pilot sites which participated in the study alongside the previously agreed smaller number of

case studies.



On the occasion of the PSC meeting in Badalona and the HSH Final Conference on the 17th

January in Barcelona, the working group met to draft conclusions based on the qualitative

study, harmonise the presentation of the case studies and present some lessons learned and

recommendations to project partners as well as the participants of the Final Conference. At

that time, it was also decided that the outcomes of the qualitative analysis would be presented

in a separate deliverable and only a summary would be included in the Final Feedback of the

Advisory Group. Moreover, AGE was asked to explore the possibility of a separate

publication.

After confirming the availability of the budget, AGE received offers for the design and

publication of the brochure on the outcomes of the qualitative study and coordinated this

work, which led to the publication of the paper entitled ‘ICT for Ageing Well – Listen to what

older persons think!’, which is available here: http://age-

platform.eu/images/stories/Publications/HSH_publication_webversion.pdf

Moreover in November 2013, AGE organised a group visit of the AG to Louth where

experts talked with the Irish partners and visited two of the users of the HSH technology. The

outcomes of this visit are depicted in D4.6

Additionally, AGE has disseminated the project and the results of the qualitative study on a

number of occasions and built synergies with the European Innovation Partnership on Active

and Healthy Ageing.

http://age-platform.eu/images/stories/Publications/HSH_publication_webversion.pdf

http://age-platform.eu/images/stories/Publications/HSH_publication_webversion.pdf



Work Package 5: Enhancement of the HOME SWEET HOME Platform

This work package aims to enhance the HOME SWEET HOME platform thanks to feedback from

the pilots. The platforms will be adapted on the basis of the functional specifications refined through

the interaction between the technical partners and the Advisory Group (see WP4 description) and

will make use of the existing HOME SWEET HOME Platform and other ready-made components

and sub-systems.

Original development will be limited to bridging software to integrate additional components and

sub-systems and to minor adaptations of the platform to align it with user requirements. New

versions of the platform will be fully tested before they are released for the subsequent set-up of the

validation sites.

Two versions of the Platform are foreseen during the lifecycle of the Pilots in addition to the original

platform at the start of the Project to incorporate in the environment the suggestions derived from the

initial part of the trials.

The second version of the Platform should achieve a completeness and comprehensiveness to support

the further deployment of the HOME SWEET HOME services outside the original pilots.

There are no changes to report concerning the evolution of the HSH platform.



Work Package 6: HOME SWEET HOME service set-up and technical support

The HOME SWEET HOME platforms will be installed in the pilot sites. This implies the

procurement of the monitoring, domotic, mental faculty training and eInclusion platforms, their

installation onsite and the testing of the systems installed in the older persons’ homes. In parallel the

central modules of the HOME SWEET HOME environment will be installed in the Contact Centres

and integrated with the existing IT infrastructure of such centres.

A two-tier helpdesk will be set-up. User will receive first level support from the Contact Centre

operators who, in turn, will have access to a second level helpdesk for problems that go beyond the

competence of such operators.

The Help desk and contact centre in each site continued to operate normally until the end of the

contractual period, after which they were discontinued after having informed the participants in the

trials



Work Package 7: Real-life trials

They are aimed at:

- testing the HOME SWEET HOME environment with a real-life user sample and evaluating

their level of acceptance and satisfaction with the concept and with the specific

implementation of the services represented by the platform (usability, user-friendliness,

relevance, etc.);

- collecting quantitative data towards assessing the impact of the service on the economics of

delivering social and health care and on the clinical conditions of the Study Group.

A close co-ordination and a frequent exchange of view will be maintained among the users and the

HOME SWEET HOME partners involved in the for real-life trials which are carried out in parallel.

Monthly meetings among the various teams will be held through videoconferencing and

teleconferencing to exchange experiences, ideas and suggestions.

During the fourth reporting period, the following activities were carried out. They are described from

the partners’ perspective.

Belgian Pilot, update for the fourth reporting period.

1. Current situation:

Recruitment:

o Randomized: 62

o Study: 16

15 dropouts

o Control: 25

2 dropouts (to nursing home, not interested anymore), 4 passed away

Installation

o In Touch: 16

o Ello!: 16

o Environment sensors: 16

Movement, smoke, temp, water

o Medical sensors: 16

Scale, blood pressure

o Mambo: 16

2 keyfobs for every Mambo: one to wear and one waterproof for the bathroom

To install

o Keymatic: 15 delivered

investigation of possibilities: ongoing - few left, no possibilities to install so far : after investigation

at our own doors we have reached the following conclusions:

installation is not possible on all types of doors.

is this system reliable since it operates on batteries? The lock and the

remote control both operate on batteries. If the battery is low it is

possible that the door won’t open anymore with the remote control

when the batteries of the keymatic are flat, the lock can be opened by

turning a wheel on the keymatic, but this repetitive movement can

strain the wrist of the user.



The radio frequency could be a security issue.

a door system using a badge is far more easy to use for elderly people

(this was shown in other projects)? Doors can be opened just by

putting the badge next to the badge reader, even when the badge stays

inside the wallet or handbag. A badge is easily to replace or reprogram

in case of lost or changes in habitants.

o Winmatic: cannot be placed (please see D6.2 for more details)

o Climatic: cannot be placed (please see D6.2 for more details)

Data collection T24

o Final CRF: all done

o Diaries: monthly: all done

Call Centre/ Helpdesk Activity

o Updating protocols: OK

o Alarm set up: OK

o Mambo alarms: OK

2. The project team @work

Meetings with the project team +- every 3 weeks at Digipolis

o ZNA: medical issues;

o Mutas: alarm topics;

o Zorgbedrijf: technical support, coordination, occupational therapist;

o Digipolis: technical support, coordination;

o Voorzorg: occupational therapist;

o CM: physiotherapist;

o Zwijsen: technical installations.

Spreading the candidates per therapist

o Zorgbedrijf: 9 study, 12 control group;

o Voorzorg: 5 study, 7 control group;

o CM: 10 study, 9 control group.

Follow up in Google docs

o All the members of the project team document each contact they have with their

seniors: technical visits, monthly diary, social visits, etc.

o At every project meeting all the candidates are followed up: are there technical issues?

Is an extra visit needed? Are the values of the sensors coming through? Is the Mambo

online, etc…?

Job for the project team ongoing and to be continued

o Configuration of the alarms on the Portal:

medical alarms to be handled by sending a weekly overview to the medical

coordinator: ok, done

environment alarms to be set up: ok, done

o Ello! training (and motivating candidates); upgrade to new version busy – no new

candidates found

o Investigation of possibilities to install HomeMatic (keymatic): the possibility of

adding domotic remote controls has a great impact because it facilitates independent

living, as it allows to remotely control the house (by relatives or call centre) in case of

difficulties for the elderly person;

o Test:

Technical part :



The pending call was correctly shown on the navigation webpage.

The position was correct within a range of a few meters and the position

updated.

o Usability : The frequency of the position update should be more frequent.

The operator wasn’t always informed in time when the “older person” took a

wrong turn.

The proposed route wasn’t always the ideal route for a person on foot to the

safe point.

o

o EPIDATA workshop: input CRF’s and monthly diaries in database; T24 realised

o Newsletter to end the project and to check which devices the people want to keep.

Only off line devices are free to use after the project : smoke detector, scale, blood

pressure meter

o Battery replacement plan: stopped in January while the project ends

o New games have been installed and used by the seniors : OK

3. Problems dealt with

Technical problems

o No new technical problems

Dropouts

o Last drop outs : going to nursing homes or passed away

Spanish Pilot, update for the fourth reporting period.

1. Current Situation

Recruitment:

o Randomized: 30

o Study: 9

o Control: 11

o Dropouts: 10

4 (passed away)

3 (admitted to nursing home)

2 (declined participation)

1 (moved to relative’s home)

o Extra participants needed: 0

Installations:

o In Touch: 9

o Ello!: 8


Movement, smoke, temp, water


Scale, blood pressure

o Mambo: 9

1 keyfobs for every Mambo

o Homematic devices: 0

No Homematic devices can be installed at participants’ houses at the Badalona

Pilot Site. For more info please see explanation and pictures in D 6.2.



o Uninstall platforms at the end of the project: Realized by the teamwork.

Data collection

o CRF: done

o Diaries: monthly: done

o All data collected and sent them to the project coordinator.


o Protocol implemented by Call CentreAsmedit and ongoing.

o Registration of data / activity: Asmedit has created an excel database with the

participants’ contact and monitoring their actions.

2. The project teamwork

BSA Pilot Site Team: clinical staff + technical staff

o Teamwork for installation phase, and monitoring and resolution problems (In Touch

and environmental devices).

o Daily contact in El Carme centre: most suitable person to solve problems following

protocols.

o The nursing staff conducted evaluations and testing protocol and the coordinator

update the data in internal EPIDATA.

Asmedit Call Centre

o First action after an alarm or call. Monitoring since 24/7 and ongoing.

o Weekly contact with BSA pilot team;

o Free access to call centre activity and register for real-time information.

Contacts and monthly monitoring

o Clinical members of BSA pilot team note down contacts, visits and alarms triggered

by the platform in shared files in the internal server of BSA. Although Asmedit is

responsible for responding to and managing calls and alarms, the BSA pilot team is

responsible for collecting and registering;

o Extra visits needed from both clinical or technical staff are performed within 24 and

48 hours after the problem is detected. Telephone contacts are done regularly to

improve adherence to the project and collect monthly information.

o The teamwork visited all participants in the collection of devices and uninstall

platforms.

o Some letters of thanks were sent to the participants (control and case group) to thank

for their help and cooperation.

Implemented actions

o Set up an observation group: We install a multiple platform in our centre to observe

its functionality in hospitalised patients. Its implementation did not provide medical

support for team given that it were supplementing some of the advantages of the

device by the medical protocol itself.

o Implemented and checked another device (related with the integration of technology

in smartphones Mambo)

3. Problems to deal with

Technical problems

o Ello!: Finally, the problems with the videoconference didn’t solve, and participants

had problems to use it easily.



Italian Pilot, update for the fourth reporting period.

1. Current situation:

Recruitment

o Randomized: 65

o Study: 30

dropouts: 6 dropped out (1deceased; 1 because the relative disagreed, 4

because disappointed by technical problems);

o Control: 35

Installation

o In Touch: 30

After replacement of 4 units, again 3 still have problems.

o Ello!: 30

Distributed. Start of usage from mid April 2013. Still connection problems

make difficult the start of regular service. Patients don’t have interest in this

feature.


Movement, Smoke, Temperature, Water

o Medical sensors:

All 30 participants have received weight scales and blood pressure monitors.

10 Pulse/Oximeters were given to patients on the basis of specific pathology;

19 Glucometers were given to patients on the basis of specific pathology;

15 ECGs were given to patients on the basis of specific pathology;

o Mambo: 30

Distributed but not used by patients because they refure to use a second GSM.

To install

o Winmatic: cannot be placed (please see D6.2 for more details)

o Climatic: cannot be placed (please see D6.2 for more details)

Data collection

o CRF: all done at T0 and T12 and T24

o Diaries: not collected


o Regular service started operational 24/7 since the 1st of September 2012..

Replacement of the internet connection from UMTS to 4G for the all the 30 participants.

Configuration of alarms on the Portal done.

Definition of the protocol with the call centre done.

2. Project team work

Follow up of patients pushing for equipment regular usage.



Push on patients for teleconferencing usage

Push on patient for Mambo usage

Collection of data for Qualitative Analysis

Collection of data for T24 measurements

3. Outstanding Problems

The reluctance we experienced in the previous period in using the system by the patients has

continued also for technical problems that affected the InTouch and their fragility to power

blackouts.

Moreover it is confirmed that probably the great inexperience in using technology in general and

the low level of digital culture is a barrier to the diffusion of this kind of system in a countryside

population with low level of education. More attention to training of patients and of their

relatives should be given when trying to deploy the system in such a social environment.

A tighter support to elderly patients would be needed in order to avoid disaffection to the

system.

Irish Pilot, update for the fourth reporting period.

1. Current Situation

Recruitment:

o Randomized: 60

o Study: recruited 30; Dropped out: 4

2 Deceased

1 declined participation

1 grew anxious with volume of calls from the Call Centre

o Control: recruited 30; Dropped out: 11

4 moved to nursing home

2 passed away

5 declined participation

Installations:

o In Touch: 30

o Environment sensors:

Movement 60

Smoke 30

Temperature 30

Water 30


Weight Scale: 30

blood pressure: 30



Glucometer: 6

Asthma monitor: 2

o Mambo: 30

1 keyfob for every Mambo

o Homematic devices: 0

No Homematic devices can be installed at participants’ houses at the Louth

Pilot Site. For more info please see explanation and pictures in D 6.2.

Data collection

o CRF: T0 complete, T12 complete & T24 complete

o Diaries: monthly: complete


o Protocol and escalation paths implemented by Call Centre Rigney Dolphin Group

completed.

2. The project team work

Pilot Site Team:

o Installations completed

o De-installations and equipment moves to be determined by HSE project partner

o Participants were congratulated for their contribution to the project

3. Outstanding issues

Participants:

o Participants to be notified of possible continued service options

o Final local dissemination event to be agreed



Section 4 Deliverables and milestones tables, KPI table

Del.

No.

Deliverable Title Estimated

person-

months

Nature Diss.

level

Due Date Actual /

(Forecast)

Date

D2.1 HOME SWEET HOME

website – Preliminary version

2.00 R PU 31Mar10 See D2.3

D1.1 Project/Quality Plan 6.00 R CO 30Apr10 31Aug10

v1.0; Reissued

v1.1 5Jan11


website

9.00 O PU 31May10 20Sep10 v1.0

D4.1 User requirements 15.00 R PU 31May10 27Sep10 v1.2

D4.2 Advisory Group Initial

Feedback

3.00 R PU 31May10 15Oct10 v1.0


Dissemination Plan

7.50 R PU 30Jun10 27Sep10 v1.0

D4.3 Platform Functional

Specifications - version 1

7.00 R PU 31Jul10 20Sep10 v1.0

D1.2 Trial Protocol 7.75 R PU 31Aug10 30Sep10 v1.0

D1.4 Intermediate Progress Report -

Period 1

3.00 R CO 31Aug10 30Sep10

D3.1 Clinical Impact indicator list 2.00 R PU 31Aug10 20Sep10 v1.0;

reissued 25

Feb v1.1

D3.2 QoL Questionnaire 1.00 R CO 31Aug10 27Sep10 v1.0

D3.3 Social Impact indicator list 2.00 R CO 31Aug10 27Sep10 v1.1;

Reissued v1.2

4 Apr 11

D3.4 Economic Impact indicator list 2.00 R CO 31Aug10 29 Dec 10

D3.5 User Satisfaction

Questionnaires

2.00 R CO 31Aug10 27Sep10 v1.0

D6.1 Informed Consent Forms 8.00 O PU 31Aug10 20Sep10 v1.1

D1.3 CRT Registration 0.25 O PU 30Sep10 16 Oct 10

v0.2

D5.1 Enhanced HOME SWEET

HOME Platform v1

10.00 D PU 30Nov10 25Apr11

D6.2 Sensor fitted homes 15.00 O CO 30Nov10 25Apr12

D6.3 Contact Centre environment 10.00 O CO 30Nov10 14Apr11

D6.4 Helpdesks 12.00 O CO 30Nov10 14Apr11

D7.1 Indicator measurements at

Validation start

4.00 R CO 30Nov10 25Apr12


Leaflet – Version 1

3.45 O PU 31Dec10 17Dec10

D1.5 Financial Statement - Period 1 3.00 R CO 28Feb11 3June11

D1.6 Progress Report - Period 1 3.00 R CO 28Feb11 Version 0.7

3June11

V0.8 3June11



Del.

No.


person-

months

Nature Diss.

level

Due Date Actual /

(Forecast)

Date


Market evaluation

8.00 R PU 2Apr12 12Apr13

D3.7 HOME SWEET HOME Draft

Business Plan

4.50 R PU 30Apr12 12Apr13

D4.4 Advisory Group Intermediate

Feedback

2.75 R PU 31Jul11

30Apr12

12Apr13


Period 2

3.00 R CO 31Aug11 Nov11

D1.8 Financial Statement - Period 2 3.00 R CO 29Feb12 6Feb13

D1.9 Progress Report - Period 2 3.00 R CO 29Feb12 2May12

D5.2 Enhanced HOME SWEET

HOME Platform v2

15.50 D PU 30May12 No change

from D5.1


Midterm Workshop

5.00 O PU 29Jun12 Held 17Jan13

Doc 10Apr13

D4.5 Platform Functional

Specifications - version 2

6.00 R PU 31Aug12 Jan13


Period 3

3.00 R CO This deliverable was dropped

in agreement with the Project

Officer


midterm

4.00 R CO 30Nov12 9Apr13

D7.3 Intermediate Trial Evaluation

Report

4.00 R PU 31Jan13 12Apr13

D1.11 Financial Statement - Period 3 3.00 R CO 28Feb13 17Apr13

D1.12 Progress Report - Period 3 3.00 R CO 28Feb13 13 April 2013


Leaflet – Version 2

2.00 O PU 31Jan14 06May14


Regional Conferences

17.50 O PU 29Nov13 25Apr14

D3.8 Clinical Impact assessment 6.00 R PU 28Feb14 4May14

D3.9 QoL Impact assessment 10.00 R PU 28Feb14 n/a, combined

with D3.8

D3.10 Social Impact assessment 8.00 R PU 28Feb14 4May14

D3.11 Economic Impact assessment 11.50 R PU 28Feb14 4May14

D3.12 User Satisfaction assessment 11.50 R PU 28Feb14 4May14


Barriers to deployment

1.00 R PU 2Dec13 25Apr14

D4.6 Advisory Group Final

Feedback

3.00 R PU 30Sep13 05May14

D6.5 Installation and operating cost

summary

14.00 R PU 31Dec13 4May14


Validation end

4.00 R CO 31Jan14 4May14

D2.8 HOME SWEET HOME Final

Conference

6.50 O PU 31Jan14 2Apr14

D3.14 HOME SWEET HOME Final

Business Plan

4.00 R CO 28Feb14 4May14



Del.

No.


person-

months

Nature Diss.

level

Due Date Actual /

(Forecast)

Date

D4.7 Implementation Guidelines 13.50 R PU 29Nov13 25Apr14

D7.5 Final Trial Evaluation Report 4.00 R PU 28Feb14 4May14

D1.13 Final Report 3.25 R CO 28Feb14 4May14

D1.14 Public Final Report 1.00 R PU 28Feb14 4May14

D2.9 Final plan for the

dissemination and use of

HOME SWEET HOME results

3.00 R PU 28Feb14 4May14

D7.6 Real-life Trials 183.00 O CO 28Feb14 Covered by

D7.5

D4.8 HSH Qualitative study Report N.A. (this

deliverable

was not

foreseen in

the

original

DOW

R PU N.A. 05May14

D1.15 Financial Statement - Period 4 3.00 R CO 28Feb14 Submitted via

NEF

D1.16 Progress Report - Period 4 3.00 R CO 28Feb14 4May14

Milestones

Milestone

number

Milestone name WP Delivery

date

Actual

Date

MS1 Definition of the detailed list of indicators and

questionnaires

WP3 31Aug10 31Oct10

MS2 Approval by the Ethics Boards WP1 31Sep10 30Sep10

MS3 Completion of the RCT registration WP1 30Oct10 30June11

MS4 Completion of the equipment procurement WP6 30Sept2011 18 May 12

MS5 Completion of the trial set-up WP6 30Sep2011 15 June 12

MS6 Completion of the elderly people recruitment

WP3 30Apr2012 30 April

2012

MS7 Completion of the intermediate trial evaluation

WP7 31Jan2013 13 April

2013

MS8 Release of the Final Business Plan

WP3 28Feb2014 06 may

2014

MS9 Satisfactory completion of the trials WP7 28Feb2014 28Feb2014

MS10 Satisfactory closure of the Project

WP7 28Feb2014 28Feb

2014



Key Performance Indicators

The Complete KPI table is as follows.

Project

Objective

Impact

Indicator KPI

nr. Objective/expected result Indicator name

Expected Progress Actual

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 3

1, 3, 4,

1.1, 1.2,

1.3, 3.1,

4.1

1

Number of elderly people in the

Study Group actively using the

service solution

ELDER NUMBER 0 105 100 95 89

5 5.2

2 Reduction in number and duration

of episodes hospitalisation HOSPITALISATION 0% 0% n.a. 10%

Louth: CG 21, IG 27

1

1.3

3 Number of undetected falls FALLS 100% 20% 10% 5%

Automatic fall detection does not work

as planned; we have calls to contact

centre as a result of falls v. falls

reported in monthly diaries, but this is

a different metric. About 30% of falls

are reported to Contact Centres

5 5.3

4 Reduction in number of accesses to

Emergency Rooms EMERGENCY 0% 0% 5% 10%

Louth: CG 13, IG 6

1-7

1.1, 1.2,

1.3, 2.1,

3.1, 4.1,

5.1, 5.2,

5.3, 6.1,

7.1

5 Marketability of the solution MARKETABILITY N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 (+2 initiated in 2014)

N/A N/A

6 Audience reached through

dissemination events AUDIENCE 0 0 100 200 800+

5, 6, 7

5.1, 5.2,

5.3, 6.1

7 Global savings released SAVINGS N/A N/A N/A N/A

No savings have been identified from

the trials conducted:

•Possibly because of the inclusion

criteria (frail older people), no

reductions in clinical events for the



Project

Objective

Impact

Indicator KPI

nr. Objective/expected result Indicator name

Expected Progress Actual

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 3

intervention group were detected

•Because of the small number of

participants (relative to the total

population of older people being cared

for), it was not possible to implement

any revised workflow processes which

may have resulted in savings.



Section 5 Project management

Fourth reporting period

The project management activities carried out during the fourth reporting period have been described in

the subsection related to WP1 above. Below the challenges and achievements of this reporting period

can be found:

One important activity which has been carried out in spring 2013 has been to prepare the third

Annual Review which was held in Brussels on the 25ht of april, 2013: the outcome of this

meeting was that the Commission found the HOME SWEET HOME Consortium not fully

performing its contractual obligation and gave them the deadline of the 30th of June to reissue

a number of deliverables and documents in order to bring them to a satisfactory level of

quality. This was done although some iterations were needed until at the beginning of

December the final version of the review report was issued by the review panel giving the

project the green light to continue.

The most critical situation was the one of the Italian pilot, due to a number of factors which

have been mentioned several times. Although most of the technical problems were sorted out,

the critical situation continued due to the difficulties encountered by ASL Latina to allocate

the proper staff to the project, which resulted in a low level of uptime of the devices at the

patients’ homes, and this situation has continued until the end of the project.

As regards the other three sites (namely Belgium, Spain and Ireland) the situation was better

and most of the project’s activities were carried out as foreseen.

The situation in Latina, due to the problems reported above, never reached a level comparable to the

other pilot sites and some of the data collection activities such as the completion of the Participant

diaries have not been carried out regularly or not at all. This raises issues about the comparability of

data between Latina and the other pilot sites.

On the other hand Latina is providing invaluable lessons about the implication of deploying AAL

platforms and services in a rural and mountainous area where nothing is easy and where the cultural

background is very different of that found in most urban areas. And this even without considering

that the trial in Latina has coincided with the worst financial and political crises that Italy and Lazio

have gone through since the end of the Second World War.

Although Latina has not provided scientifically valid evidence, it has provided us with a lot of

understanding of the problems that we can expect to come across when we will try to roll out AAL

services throughput the European Union.

The recommendation of the Management Team has been to keep Latina until the end of the Project

and to do the very best to squeeze out of this experience as much information as possible e.g. by

interviewing people there rather than asking them to provide written contributions what has turned

out to be very difficult for them to do, which was done on the occasion of the qualitative study.



GANTT chart1

1 In updating the Gantt we have realised that there is an inconsistency between the Gantt and the deliverable list in the DoW. However none of them represent the reality of the

deliverables because the report requested by the Project Officer for the Follow-up meeting in June 2012 was erroneously numbered D1.7 while it should not have been given

any number. We apologise for the confusion that this might have created











Person-Month Status Table - Actual vs. planned for the entire Project

Consortium

WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 WP7 TOTAL

Nr short name Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned

1 ZORGANTWERP 3.46 7.00 2.42 12.25 0.29 5.00 0.06 2.25 - - 4.46 1.00 16.60 26.00 27.29 53.50

2 DIGIPOLIS 3.09 3.50 4.10 3.75 0.57 5.00 1.07 2.75 - - 1.97 5.00 8.02 15.00 18.82 35.00

3 MUTAS 1.61 1.00 0.31 2.25 0.77 6.00 0.13 1.75 - - 26.12 6.00 34.24 12.68 63.19 29.68

4 ZNA - 1.50 - 2.25 3.18 6.00 - 2.25 - - 0.45 2.00 - 7.00 3.63 21.00

5 KPSF 5.07 1.00 1.14 2.25 1.57 1.00 - 2.25 1.23 6.00 - 3.00 - - 9.01 15.50

6 AGE 1.68 1.00 4.41 2.25 2.39 7.42 4.64 13.00 - - - - - - 13.12 23.67

7 HIM 36.71 30.45 0.52 4.77 1.52 8.75 0.28 5.00 2.04 6.10 1.64 8.00 0.10 - 42.81 63.07

8 BSA 1.94 0.50 1.65 2.00 2.58 7.50 1.71 2.25 - - 4.66 3.50 19.67 25.00 32.21 40.75

9 TICSALUT 2.36 1.00 4.90 7.25 0.38 2.00 1.30 1.75 - - 1.30 1.50 4.91 9.00 15.15 22.50

10 CMA 1.99 - 2.64 - 1.77 3.00 0.58 - 0.01 - 1.28 - 4.37 8.25 12.65 11.25

11 DEVOORZORG 1.86 - 0.42 - 0.30 - 0.53 - 0.03 - 2.78 - 1.32 9.00 7.23 9.00

12 LCC 1.78 0.50 0.04 1.35 - 2.50 - 1.50 - - 0.25 1.50 0.79 17.00 2.86 24.35

13 TMR 0.80 0.80 0.23 0.23 - - - - 2.06 3.06 - - - - 3.09 4.09

14 DARCO 1.54 1.00 1.09 3.75 0.31 5.00 0.29 2.75 - - 2.28 6.00 53.82 17.00 59.33 35.50

15 LATINA 8.92 0.50 - 1.50 1.23 5.00 - 3.00 - - 3.00 2.00 7.34 22.48 20.49 34.48

16 CATTID 2.92 1.00 2.46 3.75 2.14 1.50 9.42 3.50 4.86 4.00 3.50 6.00 - - 25.31 19.75

17 DKIT 3.20 0.50 3.23 3.75 3.01 4.00 1.74 5.25 - - 9.26 5.50 19.67 4.00 40.10 23.00

18 HSENE 1.24 0.50 0.23 1.35 0.44 3.50 0.41 2.00 - - 0.19 2.00 24.33 24.00 26.84 33.35

TOTAL 80.18 51.75 29.80 54.70 22.45 73.17 22.15 51.25 10.23 19.16 63.14 53.00 195.18 196.41 423.13 499.44



Person-Month Status Table - Actual vs. planned for the period

Consortium WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 WP7 TOTAL

Nr short name Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned

1 DIGIPOLIS 0.77 1.75 1.70 3.06 0.16 0.75 - 0.90 - - 1.20 - 6.69 9.10 10.51 15.56

2 ZORGANTWERP 0.40 0.88 1.43 0.94 0.06 0.75 0.17 1.10 - - 0.46 - 2.14 5.25 4.66 8.91

3 MUTAS - 0.25 - 0.56 - 0.90 - 0.70 - - 14.16 0.90 22.43 4.44 36.59 7.75

4 ZNA - 0.38 - 0.56 1.26 0.90 - 0.90 - - - - - 2.45 1.26 5.19

5 KPSF - 0.25 1.14 0.56 1.57 0.15 - 0.90 1.23 1.12 - - - - 3.94 2.98

6 AGE 0.38 0.25 1.88 0.56 1.54 2.60 2.70 5.20 - - - - - - 6.50 8.61

7 HIM 9.29 7.61 0.33 2.39 0.24 1.75 0.05 2.00 0.01 - 0.03 - 0.02 - 9.97 13.75

8 BSA 0.33 0.13 0.69 0.50 - 1.13 0.31 0.90 - - - - 14.39 8.75 15.72 11.40

9 TICSALUT 0.67 0.25 1.62 1.81 - 0.30 0.24 0.70 - - - - 4.30 3.15 6.83 6.21

10 CMA 0.72 - 0.76 - 0.45 0.45 0.40 - - - 0.24 - 2.25 2.89 4.82 3.34

11 DE VOORZORG 0.46 - 0.39 - 0.16 - 0.51 - 0.03 - 0.67 - 0.94 3.15 3.15 3.15

12 LCC 0.63 0.13 - 0.34 - 0.38 - 0.60 - - - - 0.66 5.95 1.29 7.39

13 TMR - 0.20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.20

14 DARCO 0.16 0.25 - 0.94 - 0.75 - 1.10 - - - - 42.34 5.95 42.50 8.99

15 LATINA 2.52 0.13 - 0.15 - 0.75 - 1.20 - - - - 5.51 7.87 8.03 10.09

16 CATTID 0.91 0.25 1.14 0.94 0.86 0.60 2.57 1.40 2.14 1.00 1.29 0.90 - - 8.91 5.09

17 DKIT 1.08 0.13 2.34 0.94 1.40 0.60 0.02 2.10 - - 4.09 0.83 16.46 1.40 25.38 5.99

18 HSE NE 0.08 0.13 - 0.34 0.10 0.53 - 0.80 - - - - 23.74 8.40 23.91 10.19

TOTAL 18.40 12.94 13.42 14.59 7.79 13.27 6.96 20.50 3.41 2.12 22.13 2.63 141.86 68.74 213.97 134.79



Person-Months Status Table – Additional table

PERIOD: 01/03/10 - 28/02/13

TO

TA

L

Coord

inat

or

DIP

OL

IS

MU

TA

S

ZN

A

KP

SF

AG

E

HIM

BS

A

TIC

SA

LU

T

CM

A

Workpackage 1 Actual(Previous periods) 61.78 2.69 2.69 1.61 - 5.07 1.30 27.42 1.61 1.69 1.27

Actual (this Period) 18.40 0.77 0.40 - - - 0.38 9.29 0.33 0.67 0.72

Actual (Total) 80.18 3.46 3.09 1.61 - 5.07 1.68 36.71 1.94 2.36 1.99

Planned (total) 51.75 7.00 3.50 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 30.45 0.50 1.00 -

Workpackage 2 Actual(Previous periods) 10.09 0.72 2.67 0.31 - - 2.54 0.19 0.95 3.28 1.88

Actual (this Period) 13.42 1.70 1.43 - - 1.14 1.88 0.33 0.69 1.62 0.76

Actual (Total) 23.51 2.42 4.10 0.31 - 1.14 4.41 0.52 1.65 4.90 2.64

Planned (total) 54.70 3.75 12.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 4.77 2.00 7.25 -

Workpackage 3 Actual(Previous periods) 14.65 0.13 0.51 0.77 1.92 - 0.85 1.28 2.58 0.38 1.32

Actual (this Period) 7.79 0.16 0.06 - 1.26 1.57 1.54 0.24 - - 0.45

Actual (Total) 22.44 0.29 0.57 0.77 3.18 1.57 2.39 1.52 2.58 0.38 1.77

Planned (total) 73.17 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 1.00 7.42 8.75 7.50 2.00 3.00

Workpackage 4 Actual(Previous periods) 15.19 0.06 0.90 0.13 - - 1.94 0.23 1.40 1.06 0.18

Actual (this Period) 6.96 - 0.17 - - - 2.70 0.05 0.31 0.24 0.40

Actual (Total) 22.15 0.06 1.07 0.13 - - 4.64 0.28 1.71 1.30 0.58

Planned (total) 51.25 2.25 2.75 1.75 2.25 2.25 13.00 5.00 2.25 1.75 -

Workpackage 5 Actual(Previous periods) 6.82 - - - - - - 2.03 - - 0.01

Actual (this Period) 3.41 - - - - 1.23 - 0.01 - - -

Actual (Total) 10.23 - - - - 1.23 - 2.04 - - 0.01

Planned (total) 19.16 - - - - 6.00 - 6.10 - - -

Workpackage 6 Actual(Previous periods) 41.02 3.26 1.51 11.96 0.45 - - 1.61 4.66 1.30 1.04

Actual (this Period) 22.13 1.20 0.46 14.16 - - - 0.03 - - 0.24

Actual (Total) 63.14 4.46 1.97 26.12 0.45 - - 1.64 4.66 1.30 1.28



PERIOD: 01/03/10 - 28/02/13

TO

TA

L

Coord

inat

or

DIP

OL

IS

MU

TA

S

ZN

A

KP

SF

AG

E

HIM

BS

A

TIC

SA

LU

T

CM

A

Planned (total) 53.00 1.00 5.00 6.00 2.00 3.00 - 8.00 3.50 1.50 -

Workpackage 7 Actual(Previous periods) 53.32 9.91 5.87 11.81 - - - 0.08 5.28 0.61 2.12

Actual (this Period) 141.86 6.69 2.14 22.43 - - - 0.02 14.39 4.30 2.25

Actual (Total) 195.18 16.60 8.02 34.24 - - - 0.10 19.67 4.91 4.37

Planned (total) 196.41 26.00 15.00 12.68 7.00 - - - 25.00 9.00 8.25

Total project Actual (Previous periods) 209.16 16.77 14.16 26.60 2.37 5.07 6.62 32.84 16.48 8.33 7.83

Actual (this Period) 213.97 10.51 4.66 36.59 1.26 3.94 6.50 9.97 15.72 6.83 4.82

Actual (Total) 423.13 27.29 18.82 63.19 3.63 9.01 13.12 42.81 32.21 15.15 12.65

Planned (total) 499.44 45.00 43.50 29.68 21.00 15.50 23.67 63.07 40.75 22.50 11.25

PERIOD: 01/03/10 - 28/02/12 D

E V

OO

RZ

OR

G

LC

C

TM

R

DA

RC

O

LA

TIN

A

CA

TT

ID

DK

IT

HS

E N

E

Workpackage 1 Actual(Previous periods) 1.40 1.16 0.80 1.38 6.40 2.01 2.12 1.16

Actual (this Period) 0.46 0.63 0.16 2.52 0.91 1.08 0.08

Actual (Total) 1.86 1.78 0.80 1.54 8.92 2.92 3.20 1.24

Planned (total) - 0.50 0.80 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50

Workpackage 2 Actual(Previous periods) 0.03 0.04 0.23 1.09 - 1.32 0.89 0.23

Actual (this Period) 0.39 - - - 1.14 2.34 -

Actual (Total) 0.42 0.04 0.23 1.09 - 2.46 3.23 0.23

Planned (total) - 1.35 0.23 3.75 1.50 3.75 3.75 1.35



PERIOD: 01/03/10 - 28/02/12

DE

VO

OR

ZO

RG

LC

C

TM

R

DA

RC

O

LA

TIN

A

CA

TT

ID

DK

IT

HS

E N

E

Workpackage 3 Actual(Previous periods) 0.14 - - 0.31 1.23 1.29 1.61 0.34

Actual (this Period) 0.16 - - - 0.86 1.40 0.10

Actual (Total) 0.30 - - 0.31 1.23 2.14 3.01 0.44

Planned (total) - 2.50 - 5.00 5.00 1.50 4.00 3.50

Workpackage 4 Actual(Previous periods) 0.02 - - 0.29 - 6.85 1.72 0.41


Actual (Total) 0.53 - - 0.29 - 9.42 1.74 0.41

Planned (total) - 1.50 - 2.75 3.00 3.50 5.25 2.00

Workpackage 5 Actual(Previous periods) - - 2.06 - - 2.72 - -

Actual (this Period) 0.03 - - - 2.14 - -

Actual (Total) 0.03 - 2.06 - - 4.86 - -

Planned (total) - - 3.06 - - 4.00 - -

Workpackage 6 Actual(Previous periods) 2.11 0.25 - 2.28 3.00 2.21 5.17 0.19


Actual (Total) 2.78 0.25 - 2.28 3.00 3.50 9.26 0.19

Planned (total) - 1.50 - 6.00 2.00 6.00 5.50 2.00

Workpackage 7 Actual(Previous periods) 0.38 0.13 - 11.48 1.83 - 3.21 0.60

Actual (this Period) 0.94 0.66 42.34 5.51 - 16.46 23.74

Actual (Total) 1.32 0.79 - 53.82 7.34 - 19.67 24.33

Planned (total) 9.00 17.00 - 17.00 22.48 - 4.00 24.00

Total project Actual(Previous periods) 4.08 1.58 3.09 16.83 12.46 16.39 14.72 2.93

Actual(thisPeriod) 3.15 1.29 - 42.50 8.03 8.91 25.38 23.91

Actual(Total) 7.23 2.86 3.09 59.33 20.49 25.31 40.10 26.84

Planned (total) 9.00 24.35 4.09 35.50 34.48 19.75 23.00 33.35



Comments on person-months status table

The discrepancy between the planned effort and the actual one is almost exclusively due to the effect of the Contact Centre activities and to the need

to provide a 24/7 coverage as it has been reinstated several times in previous Project Reviews. The impact of such a coverage was underestimated at

the time of preparing the budget. The way the Contact Centres have organised themselves to provide the service varies from one site to another.

This explains the differences in the effort claims between Darco and the other partners providing this kind of service. The issue will be thoroughly

covered during the Annual Review.



Effort by person for the period

Digipolis N° Person hours N° Person

Months

Lutgart Messens 288.00 2.06

Lieven van Gestel 216.00 1.54

Jurgen Jalink 128.00 0.91

Hans Beyers 4.00 0.03

Kevin De Mulder 16.00 0.11

TOTAL 4.66

Zorgantwerp N° Person hours

N° Person

Months

Sarah Peeraerts 912.00 6.51

Dimitri De Rooze 416.00 2.97

Edwin Houdeveld 144.00 1.03

TOTAL 10.51

Mutas N° Person hours

N° Person

Months

Tom Lenie 75.00 0.54

Greet Van Nuffelen 92.00 0.66

Isabelle Vanrusselt 65.00 0.46

Martine Moreels 1,189.50 8.50

Katrien Vandermeulen 364.00 2.60

Kim Blogie 1,222.00 8.73

Hilde Derauw 1,339.00 9.56

Vintsent Bekaert 776.00 5.54

TOTAL 36.59

ZNA N° Person hours

N° Person

Months



Vandewoude Maurits 176 1.26

TOTAL 1.26

KPSF N° Person hours

N° Person

Months

Astrid Herman 380.00 2.71

Kristof Reekmans 56.00 0.40

Jeroen Ruysen 116.00 0.83

TOTAL 3.94

AGE N° Person hours

N° Person

Months

Gheno Ilenia 236.60 1.80

Georgantzi Nena 447.64 3.41

Maude Luherne 78.79 0.60

Ophélie Durand 90.00 0.69

TOTAL 6.50

HiMSA N° Person hours N° Person Months

M.d'Angelantonio 283.50 2.03

J.Oates 270.00 1.93

M.Wuensche 146.00 1.04

W.Keijser 172.00 1.23

R.Chelli 304.00 2.17

HelmutPrior 39.00 0.28

G.d'Angelantonio 181.00 1.29

TOTAL 9.97



BSA N°Personhours N°PersonMonths

J.R.Llopart 169.00 1.21

S.Santaeugenia 137.00 0.98

I.Saez 841.00 6.01

J.Roque 277.00 1.98

M.J.Ciudad 298.00 2.13

JoanCunill 68.00 0.49

MeritxellOliveras 301.00 2.15

JordiPiera 110.00 0.79

TOTAL 15.72

TISCALUT N°Personhours N°PersonMonths

J.Manyach 144.00 1.03

L.Tarin - -

C.Ceinos 177.00 1.26

I.Garcia-Milà 126.50 0.90

M.deSanpedro 143.00 1.02

Francesc Moya 365.00 2.61

TOTAL 6.83

CMA N°Personhours N°PersonMonths

Hugo Goedemé 187.00 1.34

Anja Van Gremmegen 14.00 0.10

Wouter Geerts 12.00 0.09

Maria Beyens 18.00 0.13

Isabel Klok 236.00 1.69

Stefanie Steeman 208.00 1.49

TOTAL 4.82



Devoorzorg N°Personhours N°PersonMonths

Rudy Cornelis 59.00 0.42

Caroline Van Herck 264.00 1.89

Linda Huybrechts 118.00 0.84

TOTAL 3.15

LCC N°Personhours N°PersonMonths

Bernie Woods 2.00 0.01

Joesph McGuinness 8.50 0.06

Marie McGorman 2.00 0.01

Mary Deery 12.50 0.09

Willie Walsh 58.00 0.41

Catherine McConville 60.00 0.43

Justin Sexton 30.00 0.21

Bridie Hickey 7.00 0.05

TOTAL 1.29

DARCO N°Personhours N°PersonMonths

Annagrazia Laura 112.00 0.70

Santo Viapiana 8.00 0.05

Emiliano Deferrari 68.00 0.43

Antonella Altobelli 26.00 0.16

Daniel Petruccioli 24.00 0.15

Basile Naomi 591.00 3.69

Bisio Desirèe 558.00 3.49

Casciotti Fabiana 60.00 0.38

Ciocchetti Lorenzo 143.00 0.89

Costantini Alessio 81.00 0.51

D'Andreis Marco 164.00 1.03

DeAngelisS tefano 41.00 0.26



Doda Alma 433.00 2.71

Donnarumma Francesco 695.00 4.34

Durante Matteo 304.00 1.90

Furia Massimiliano 272.00 1.70

Galeoni Micaela 477.00 2.98

Giovannelli Andrea 71.00 0.44

Malatesta Gianluca 298.00 1.86

Mandanici Massimo 88.00 0.55

Olivieri Guido 81.00 0.51

Passeri Silvia 143.00 0.89

Rocca Marco 121.00 0.76

Rossi Sabrina 66.00 0.41

Salleso SegliesiAlessandro 20.00 0.13

Valenza Katia 81.00 0.51

Montecchio Marco 252.00 1.58

Musicarelli Elisa 30.00 0.19

Gambini Mario 135.00 0.84

Nirta Francesco 176.00 1.10

Liberati David 226.00 1.41

Panzieri Riccardo 31.00 0.19

Sincini Melissa 7.00 0.04

Fatteri Santino 760.00 4.75

Saglimbene Michele 127.00 0.79

Lostia Fabrizio 30.00 0.19

TOTAL 42.50

LATINA N°Personhours N°PersonMonths

Luigi Ardia 296.00 2.11

Vincenzo Faustinella 442.00 3.16

Roberta Centra 112.00 0.80

Giovanni Barbanti 20.00 0.14

Paolo Squillace 206.00 1.47



Emanuela Morsello 48.00 0.34

TOTAL 8.03

CATTID N°Personhours N°PersonMonths

Ugo Biader 64.00 0.46

Carlo Maria Medaglia 200.00 1.43

Andrea Ingrosso 320.00 2.29

Eliseo Sciarretta 320.00 2.29

Alessandra Taormina 64.00 0.46

Erijka Priori 160.00 1.14

Mastronardi 120.00 0.86

TOTAL 8.91

DKIT N°Personhours N°PersonMonths

Rodd Bond 21.00 0.15

Stuart Quinn 736.50 5.26

Yolanda Connolly 107.50 0.77

Ann O'Hanlon 117.00 0.84

Joanne Finnegan 1,506.00 10.76

Shauna McGee 823.00 5.88

Ron Finegan 137.00 0.98

Karen Doherty 105.00 0.75

TOTAL 25.38

HSENE N°Personhours N°PersonMonths

Mary McKearney 11.00 0.08

Public Health Nursing Service 363.00 2.59

Catherine Smyth 40.00 0.29

William McAllister 14.00 0.10

Home Support Service 2,920.00 20.86



TOTAL 23.91

Cost Budget Follow-up Table

PARTICIPANTS

TYPE OF

EXPENDITURE

(as defined by

participants)

BUDGET

ACTUALCOSTS

(EUR) Pct. Spent Remaining

Budget

(EUR)

Previous

Periods

Current

Period Total Total

e a1 b1 e1 c1/e e-e1

DIGIPOLIS Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 239,250 56,289 16,120 72,409 30% 166,841

Overheads 71,775 16,887 4,836 21,723 30% 50,052

Subcontracting 1,948 - - - 0% 1,948

Other direct costs 39,499 15,903 18,203 34,106 86% 5,393

Total Costs 352,472 89,079 39,159 128,238 36% 224,234

Requested EC Funding 282,000 44,540 19,579 64,119 23% 217,881

Zorgbedrijf Antwerpen Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 236,250 87,551 50,627 138,178 58% 98,072

Overheads 70,875 26,265 15,188 41,453 58% 29,422

Subcontracting 43,000 13,794 - 13,794 32% 29,206


Total Costs 559,949 165,624 122,574 288,197 51% 271,751


MUTAS Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 215,981 108,978 100,651 209,629 97% 6,351

Overheads 64,794 32,693 30,195 62,889 97% 1,905

Subcontracting - - - - 0% -

Other direct costs 12,511 2,530 323 2,853 23% 9,658

Total Costs 293,286 144,201 131,170 275,371 94% 17,915


Ziekenhuis Netwerk Antwerpen Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 323,400 36,520 19,360 55,880 17% 267,520

Overheads 97,020 10,956 5,808 16,764 17% 80,256

Subcontracting - 1,300 - 1,300 0% -1,300



PARTICIPANTS

TYPE OF

EXPENDITURE

(as defined by

participants)

BUDGET

ACTUALCOSTS


Budget

(EUR)

Previous

Periods

Current

Period Total Total


Other direct costs 12,485 - 1,196 1,196 10% 11,289

Total Costs 432,905 48,776 26,364 75,140 17% 357,765


Klinisch Psychologe St.-Franciskusziekenhuis Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 58,577 26,991 19,200 46,191 79% 12,386

Overheads 17,573 8,097 5,760 13,857 79% 3,716

Subcontracting 69,200 69,172 - 69,172 100% 28


Total Costs 165,585 112,174 26,202 138,376 84% 27,209


AGE-European Older People’sP latform Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 106,515 25,117 24,686 49,803 47% 56,712

Overheads - - - - 0% -

Subcontracting - 1,827 - 1,827 0% -1,827


Total Costs 150,955 28,079 28,166 56,245 37% 94,710


Health Information Management SA Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 409,955 229,444 70,991 300,435 73% 109,520

Overheads 122,987 68,833 21,297 90,130 73% 32,856

Subcontracting 36,000 5,400 21,650 27,050 75% 8,950


Total Costs 606,354 331,457 117,084 448,541 74% 157,813

Requested EC Funding 303,177 165,729 58,541.82 224,271 74% 78,907

Badalona Serveis Assistencials Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 244,500 110,720 85,914 196,634 80% 47,866

Overheads 73,350 33,216 25,774 58,990 80% 14,360



PARTICIPANTS

TYPE OF

EXPENDITURE

(as defined by

participants)

BUDGET

ACTUALCOSTS


Budget

(EUR)

Previous

Periods

Current

Period Total Total


Subcontracting 31,500 3,606 3,000 6,606 21% 24,894


Total Costs 457,922 197,578 145,029 342,607 75% 115,315


Departament de Salut de la Generalitat de

Catalunya (TICSALUT) Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 135,000 51,591 38,322 89,913 67% 45,087

Overheads 40,500 15,477 11,497 26,974 67% 13,526

Subcontracting - - 422 422 0% -422


Total Costs 192,905 71,568 50,816 122,384 63% 70,521


Christelijke Mutualiteit Antwerpen Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 45,000 26,304 16,200 42,504 94% 2,496

Overheads 13,500 7,891 4,860 12,751 94% 749


Other direct costs 12,485 952 - 952 8% 11,533

Total Costs 70,985 35,147 21,060 56,207 79% 14,778


Thuiszorg Antwerpen VZW Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 45,000 21,748 16,224 37,972 84% 7,028

Overheads 13,500 6,524 4,867 11,392 84% 2,108



Total Costs 70,985 28,818 21,091 49,909 70% 21,076


Louth County Council Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 121,750 13,187 7,544 20,731 17% 101,019



PARTICIPANTS

TYPE OF

EXPENDITURE

(as defined by

participants)

BUDGET

ACTUALCOSTS


Budget

(EUR)

Previous

Periods

Current

Period Total Total


Overheads 36,525 3,956 2,263 6,219 17% 30,306



Total Costs 165,775 19,579 10,680 30,258 18% 135,517


TeleMedicina Rizzoli S.p.A. Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 32,120 24,266 - 24,266 76% 7,853

Overheads 9,636 7,280 - 7,280 76% 2,356



Total Costs 51,103 32,143 - 32,143 63% 18,959

Requested EC Funding 25,551 16,072 - 16,072 63% 9,480

DARCO Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 177,500 69,081 87,701 156,782 88% 20,718

Overheads 53,250 20,724 26,310 47,035 88% 6,215

Subcontracting - 1,200 - 1,200 0% -1,200


Total Costs 248,235 98,063 117,050 215,114 87% 33,121


AziendaUSLdiLatina Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 172,400 103,197 46,612 149,809 87% 22,591

Overheads 51,720 30,959 13,984 44,943 87% 6,777

Subcontracting 93,000 4,349 3,814 8,163 9% 84,837


Total Costs 515,946 203,825 126,139 329,963 64% 185,982

Requested EC Funding 257,973 101,912 63,069.36 164,982 64% 92,991

CATTID Total Person-Month



PARTICIPANTS

TYPE OF

EXPENDITURE

(as defined by

participants)

BUDGET

ACTUALCOSTS


Budget

(EUR)

Previous

Periods

Current

Period Total Total


Personnel Costs 79,000 56,733 31,682 88,415 112% -9,415

Overheads 23,700 17,020 9,505 26,524 112% -2,824

Subcontracting 3,072 3,072 - 3,072 100% -


Total Costs 125,285 83,928 41,874 125,802 100% -517

Requested EC Funding 62,643 41,964 20,937 62,901 100% -258

Dundalk Institute of Technology (Netwell

Centre) Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 115,000 80,254 86,910 167,164 145% -52,164

Overheads 34,500 24,076 26,073 50,149 145% -15,649

Subcontracting 44,400 2,000 10,706 12,706 29% 31,694


Total Costs 449,712 236,509 159,096 395,605 88% 54,107


Health Service Executive – North Eastern Area Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 166,750 23,451 71,520 94,971 57% 71,779

Overheads 50,025 7,035 21,456 28,491 57% 21,534


Other direct costs 7,500 - - - 0% 7,500

Total Costs 224,275 30,486 92,976 123,462 55% 100,813


Whole Consortium Total Person-Month

Personnel Costs 2,923,947 1,151,420 790,264 1,941,684 66% 982,263

Overheads 845,230 337,891 237,079 574,970 68% 270,260

Subcontracting 322,120 105,720 39,593 145,312 45% 176,808

Other direct costs 1,043,337 362,004 216,998 579,002 55% 464,335

Total Costs 5,134,634 1,957,035 1,276,528 3,233,563 63% 1,901,071

Requested EC Funding 2,632,925 978,517 638,264 1,616,781 61% 1,016,144



Cost generating meetings

WP, Task and title Date and Place Participant(s) Purpose and Main

conclusions

WP1-D1.9-Progress Report-

Period 2

10/05/2012

Brussels (Belgium)

Lutgart Messens (DIGIPOLIS), John Oates (HIMSA), Wouter

Keijser (HIMSA), Raniero Chelli (HIMSA), Marco

d´Angelantonio (HIMSA), Tom Lenie (MUTAS), Annie Ceron

(MUTAS), Astrid Herman (SFZ), Jeroe Ruysen (SFZ), Nena

Georgantzi (AGE), Josep Llopart (BSA), Carmen Ceinos

(TICSALUT), Hugo Goedeme (CMA), Linda Huybrechts

(DEVOORZORG), Annagrazia Laura (DARCO), Massimo

Melina (CATTID), Joanne Finnegan (DKIT), Stuart Quinn

(DKIT), Dimitri De Rooze (ZORGANTWERP), Maurits

Vandewoude (ZNA)

Annual Project Review

WP2–D2.2-HOME SWEET

HOME Dissemination Plan

16-19/05/2012

Heraklion (Greece)

Annagrazia Laura (DARCO), Marco d’Angelantonio (HIMSA),

Alice Sinigaglia (AGE) Design4All workshop


Period 2

24-25/06/2012

Brussels (Belgium)

Dimitri De Rooze (ZORGANTWERP), John Oates (HIMSA),

Helmut Prior (HIMSA), Raniero Chelli (HIMSA), Marco

d´Angelantonio (HIMSA), Paolo Squillace (LATINA).

Follow-up Review – Period 2

WP7-D7.6–Real-life trials 01/10/2012 Louth

(Ireland) Catherine McConville (LCC) Internal project meeting

WP7-D7.6–Real-life trials 04/10/2012

Priverno (Italy)

Paolo Squillace (LATINA), Luigi Ardia (LATINA), Vincenzo

Faustinella (LATINA), Roberta Centra (LATINA), Giovanni

Barbanti(LATINA)

Project Internal meeting - The

situation of the project

activities in Latina was

discussed


Period 3

18-19/10/2012

Brussels (Belgium)

Raniero Chelli (HIMSA), Marco d’Angelantonio (HIM), John

Oates (HIM), Wouter Keijser (HIM), Dimitri De Rooze

(Zorgbedrijf), Lutgart Messens (Digipolis), Astrid Herman (SFZ),

Maurits Vandewoude (ZNA), Jeroen Ruysen (SFZ), Annagrazia

Laura (DARCO), Emiliano Deferrari (DARCO), Carmen Ceinos

(TiCSalut), Josep Ramon Llopart, Joanne Finnegan (DKIT),

Stuart Quinn (DKIT),William Walsh (LCC), Nena

Georgantzi(AGE), Riccardo Maderna(HIMSA)

PSC6




conclusions


Priverno (Italy)



Barbanti (LATINA




discussed


Priverno (Italy)



Barbanti (LATINA




discussed


Period 3 and WP4-D4.6-Advisory

Group Final Feedback

03/12/2012

Antwerp (Belgium)

Nena Georganzti (AGE), Ophélie Durand (AGE), Angela Cluzel

(AGE), Heidrun Mollenkopf (AGE), Maria Pijl (AGE), Philippe

Swennen (AGE), Barbro Westerholm (AGE), John Oates (HIM),

Wouter Keijser (HIM)

Site visit to Antwerp by

Management Team and

Advisory Board

WP7-D7.6–Real-life trials 12-13/12/2012

Priverno (Italy)

Annagrazia Laura (DARCO), Paolo Squillace (LATINA), Luigi

Ardia (LATINA), Marco d’Angelantonio (HIMSA) and Raniero

Chelli (HIMSA)

Meeting with Coordinator and

ASL Latina


Priverno (Italy)



Barbanti (LATINA)




discussed


Period3

16-17/01/2013

Barcelona (Spain).

Raniero Chelli (HIMSA) ,Marco d’Angelantonio (HIMSA), John

Oates (HIMSA), Graziella d’Angelantonio (HIMSA) Dimitri De

Rooze (Zorgbedrijf), Lutgart Messens (Digipolis), Lieven Van

Gestel (Digipolis), Linda Huybrechts (DeVoorzorg), Astrid

Herman (SFZ), Jeroen Ruysen (SFZ), Annagrazia Laura

(DARCO), Emiliano Deferrari (DARCO), Carmen Ceinos

(TiCSalut), Ignasi Garcia Mila (TiCSalut), Ignasi Saez (BSA),

Jordi Roque (BSA), Maria Jose Ciudad (BSA), Joanne Finnegan

(DKIT), Stuart Quinn (DKIT), William Walsh (LCC), Nena

Georgantzi (AGE), Tom Lenie(Mutas)

PSC7 meeting and Advisory

Board meeting + Workshop




conclusions


Badalona (Spain)

Marco d’Angelantonio (HIMSA), John Oates (HIMSA), Ignasi

Saez (BSA), Jordi Roque (BSA), Maria Jose Ciudad (BSA), Site Visit to Badalona

WP7-D7.6–Real-life trials 28-29/01/2013

Dundalk (Ireland)

Marco d’Angelantonio (HIMSA), John Oates (HIMSA), Joanne

Finnegan (DKIT), Stuart Quinn (DKIT) Site Visit to Ireland


Priverno (Italy)

Annagrazia Laura(DARCO), Emiliano Deferrari (DARCO),

Marco d’Angelantonio (HIMSA) Raniero Chelli(HIMSA), Paolo

Squillace (LATINA), Luigi Ardia (LATINA)

Progress Meeting Between

Darco, Latina and HIMSA



Section 6 Explanation of the use of the resources The explanation of the use of the resource tables have been submitted in a separate document.

The explanation of the use of resources has been submitted

through the NEF.



Section 7 Financial statements and Summary financial report

The Financial statement and the summary financial report

have been submitted through the NEF.



Section 8 [only for actual cost reimbursement] Certificates

List of Certificates due for this period, in accordance with Article II.4.7 of the Grant

Agreement.

Beneficiary Organisation

short name

Certificate on the

financial statements

provided?

yes / no

Any useful comment, in

particular if a certificate is not

provided

1 DIGIPOLIS no Expenditure threshold not

reached

2 ZORGANTWERP no Expenditure threshold not

reached

3 MUTAS no Expenditure threshold not

reached

4 ZNA no Expenditure threshold not

reached

5 KPSF no Expenditure threshold not

reached

6 AGE no Expenditure threshold not

reached

7 HIM no Expenditure threshold not

reached

8 BSA no Expenditure threshold not

reached

9 DSGC no Expenditure threshold not

reached

10 CMA no Expenditure threshold not

reached

11 DE VOORZORG no Expenditure threshold not

reached

12 LCC no Expenditure threshold not

reached

13 TMR no Expenditure threshold not

reached

14 DARCO no Expenditure threshold not

reached

15 LATINA no Expenditure threshold not

reached

16 CATTID no Expenditure threshold not

reached

17 DKIT no Expenditure threshold not

reached

18 HSE NE no Expenditure threshold not

reached



ANNEX I Status of the actions from the third Project Review held on 25th April, 2014

RE: HOME SWEET HOME – Contract Nr: 250449

Introduction.

This document contains the answers to the recommendations formulated by the Home Sweet

Home reviewers in the Technical Review Report dated 01/10/2013. The response to

recommendation n. 8 was already provided by the first deadline set out in the above

mentioned report.

In the meantime an additional letter was produced and forwarded by the Home Sweet Home

Management team to the Project Officer clarifying the HSH consortium’s position regarding

the Business Plan Deliverable. This letter is attached to the present report together with the

other relevant annexes.

Comment/request Action to be taken/

Comments

status

Sec. 1.b Recommendations

1) Produce a table comparing

impact indicators planned in DoW

compared to the actual status where

appropriate

Although the KPI table was

already included in D1.12 v10

(c. 29th August) on page 45,

we have extracted the said

table and updated it. The

revised table is attached as

“HSH KPIs ex D1.12 v10”

Done




Comments

status

2) For the Louth pilot, a control

check should be completed soon

concerning the response times of

the map display in the navigation

system

In August 2013 after validation

tests run by CATTID, which

identified the problem in the

configuration of the Mambo, 2

test devices in the Louth lab

were reconfigured and reset.

Another test was carried out on

both devices using the same

conditions as the May test.

Both devices were visible on

the portal map.

All Mambo devices were

subsequently recalled and

reset.

At PSC 8 in Treviso we were

tasked by the Project

Management to carry out a

response test on the portal.

This test was carried out in late

October and early November.

Results showed that the

response upload for change of

position on the portal was

anything from 2 to 3 ½ minutes

depending on cloud cover and

location. This is normal

considering that the Mambo is

configured to send an SMS

with the position every 2

minutes.

Done




Comments

status

3) The statistical justification

should be given soon as to why

30% dropouts are acceptable as

opposed to the previously

mentioned 20%, A simple

statement is not sufficient

The justification was provided

in detail during the Review

Meeting. The same arguments

have been compiled in a short

document which is attached as

“Comment on power

Calculation”. The main point is

that the consortium never said

that 20% was the maximum

acceptable threshold. The

attached document contains the

graph which was shown and

commented during the last

review meeting clearly

demonstrating that even 30%

dropouts would produce a

meaningful result.

Done




Comments

status

4) Resolve the 5 minute delay in

locating Mambo users on GPS soon

– modern technology simply

doesn’t suffer these problems

This is the same problem

reported under

recommendation n.2 but for the

other sites as well. Apparently

it is a problem due to the

Mambo devices which has to

be considered and end-of-life

product. Tests are being run

with a state-of-the-art

smartphone and the first results

are very satisfactory, however

it is clearly note feasible to

change the device three months

before the end of the project, if

nothing else because this

would imply a new round of

training for the elderly persons.

One of the important lessons

we have learned from the pilots

is that the system will only be

accepted by the users if the

functions currently provided by

the Mambo are embedded into

the smartphone that a growing

number of elderly person have

learnt to use. At the same time,

this will also solve the delay

problem experienced with the

Mambo, as the tests have

shown.

Done




Comments

status

5) Provide evidence that the risk

and issue registers have been

updated and are now in such a form

as to enable identification of

relevant risks, and manage speedy

resolution of issues where these

risks crystallise

The project is now

approaching its natural end and

therefore the probability that

new risk situation arise is

becoming lower and lower, this

is the reason why the updated

risk analysis attached is just an

updated version of the previous

one. Two different pieces of

information are provided:

The Risk Management logs,

one for the whole project and

one for each pilot site. This is

the standard risk analysis file.

Only for the Irish Pilot an

update has been provided, as

for the other ones no new risk

factors have been identified.

The Issue register, where the

main issues encountered in the

project’s lifetime are listed and

the remedial actions are

summarised.

Done

6) Submit the Retention Plan and

show how it has helped to avoid

further dropouts

A document reflecting the

ways the pilot sites have dealt

with the problem of Dropouts

is attached as “Retention Plan”

Done

7) Submit a completed Deliverable

1.12

The revised, final version is

attached.

Done




Comments

status

8) Submit a completed Deliverable

3.6 which includes a comparison of

HSH costs with competing services

in each country, demonstrating that

the proposed HSH service is price-

competitive, or better, with other

similar services This should

include a discussion on the

proposed replacements for the

telehealthcare unit, the Mambo, the

teleconferencing service and, if

judged worth continuing with, the

domotic devices.

See more details in Section 5

following

The market addressed by the

elderly care providers

participating in HOME

SWEET HOME is not a

consumer market, but a captive

one, and it will remain captive

for the foreseeable future. It

does not make sense therefore

to compare the services they

provide with other services

price-wise because they will be

offered for free to individuals

qualifying for these after they

have been assessed. The

purpose of the project is not

comparing one technological

platform with another, but

rather understanding which out

of the wide spectrum of

services provided through the

platform are worthwhile to

provide in the future. At first

glance, the domotic devices are

not easily adaptable to an

existing flat or house, and

therefore in the future they will

only be considered when new

flats will be built, which is

certainly the case in Antwerp.

Whether the domotic devices

eventually installed in the flats

are the HomeMatic ones

foreseen in HOME SWEET

HOME or other ones is totally

irrelevant for the purpose of

the Project, which was never

aimed at evaluating the merits

of a specific platform

compared to another. The

replacement component issue

is now covered in D3.6, but the

other requests are not

appropriate in the framework

of the Project and have been

ignored.

Done, D3.6

submitted on 11th

November.




Comments

status

The project is requested to respond

to the recommendations 1-7 above

by 1 December 2013 and

recommendation 8 by 11 November

2013 If these deadlines are not met,

the reviewers are currently minded

to recommend to the Commission

that it begins the process of ending

the project

Although we can understand

the dissatisfaction of the

Reviewers with some aspects

of the Project, we can hardly

see the rationale of terminating

the Project less than 3 months

before its natural end. This will

not allow the Commission to

save any money, and will

hamper the Project to provide

useful input for future project

and into the EIP for Active and

Health Ageing which addresses

exactly the same issues as

HOME SWEET HOME

although at a far higher level.

All

recommendations

have been

addressed.

The project’s biggest problem is

what to try to commercialise at the

end of EC funding:

The project does not try to

commercialise any platform or

any product. HOME SWEET

HOME is run by elderly care

providers and is aimed at

evaluating the impact of ICT-

based service on a number of

indicators covering the

acceptance, the usability, the

sustainability, etc. of these

services. The platform is just

an enabler for the provision of

services and represents the

technology level at the start of

the Project. There are no

doubts that if the Project

started today, there would be a

different platform because

technology has evolved in the

meantime but the functionality

of it will remain basically the

same. Should the participating

elderly care decide to continue

providing the services, a

replacement of some elements

of the solution would be more

than appropriate and the

conditions for such a

Answer provided




Comments

status

replacement will have to be

discussed between the

individual providers and the

platform supplier. It is worth

noting in this context that

Appendix III to the DoW

(section APP.III.10) contains

the commitment of the

participating elderly care

providers to continue providing

the services after the end of the

EU funded phase if the Project

demonstrates that the services

“have a positive impact on the

various aspects considered in

the evaluation (health,

wellbeing, user satisfaction,

etc.) and that they are

financially sustainable for all

the elderly persons who qualify

for receiving them because of

their social, physical and

mental conditions”.

The original tele-healthcare device

is now so out of date that in its

current form it is unsaleable – as

stated in D3.6, the tablet

replacement should be explored

immediately

Such a change is not foreseen

in the contract between the

platform supplier and the

elderly care providers


SWEET HOME. The upgrade

of the platform, which would

not make sense for the few

months remaining before the

end of the EU-funded phase

especially considering the time

need to retrain the older user to

use a different piece of

technology.

Answer provided




Comments

status

The Mambo device seems to be

quite hopeless with long & critical

delays that modern smartphones

simply don’t have: it cannot be

either cost effective or customer

responsive to continue. Alternatives

such as the older persons’ phone

made by Doro should be urgently

investigated

Because project excluded older

people with dementia, it

effectively excluded the most

likely persons to benefit from

it. In addition, mobile phones

are now much more pervasive,

even among older people.

Since there is, as yet, no

reliable fall detection

algorithm, value of Mambo or

Mambo replacement is

debateable.

The ‘ello videoconferencing seem

likewise to be deeply unattractive.

There is now a range of

possibilities – if the free Skype is

not acceptable, Vidyo make a better

quality and more secure system that

is easy to use and inexpensive.

Skype is likely replacement –

many already have PC/laptop

with this.

The domotic control hardware

seems to be so specialised as to

question its general usability; if the

decision is made to continue

offering it as a service, then the

project needs to research equipment

that can actually be used in older

persons’ homes

Homematic devices require

intrusive work on doors,

windows etc, and are

unacceptable to many users.

Need is unclear, even if project

was unable to check this.

Environmental devices are OK.




Comments

status

All the above urgently need tying

together into a compelling service

offering that compares favourably

in overall price with the principal

competition in each country.

We have to insist on the fact

none of the partners


SWEET HOME is in the

business of providing services

on the free market. All of them

are institutional provider of

elderly care and have a captive

market represented by the

population they are paid for

looking after. Competition

exists of course among the

platform suppliers but this

aspect falls completely outside

the scope of the Project. In the

procurement of platforms for

the continuation of the current

service or the extension of it,

the participating elderly care

providers will put the potential

providers in competition with

one another to get the best

value for money but this,

again, falls completely outside

the scope of the Project.




Comments

status

In addition, too many difficulties

have appeared in the

implementation, usability, market

expectancies, etc of the system.

Also, preliminary results are not

very encouraging that the use of

such a system would have an

impact on elderly people’s health

status or quality of life.

It is too early to infer that the

use of such a system would

have an impact on elderly

people’s health status or

quality of life. As in any RCT

results cannot be published

before the end on the Project.

Having said that, no major

changes are expected on the

people’s health status because

a survey of some 135 RCT of

telemonitoring conducted a

couple of years ago by Richard

Wootton, Director of Research

of the Norwegian Centre for

Integrated Care and

Telemedicine, showed that, on

average, telemonitoring has a

neutral effect of health status.

Of the contrary, DREAMING,

a predecessor project to

HOME SWEET HOME

showed a statistically

significant improvement in the

health related quality of life.

There are no reasons why

HOME SWEET HOME should

not get to the same

conclusions.

Regarding the “Impact indicators”

table, in most cases it is said N/A,

so, why are they considered as

indicators? Also, in those indicators

that are explained, the results are

not very good. Specially worrying

is that of falls, that is not working

(explained before)?

It was expected at the start of

the project that fall detection

algorithms would improve. In

practice, there appears still to

be no acceptable algorithm /

device that detects falls

reliably.

Deliverable

n.

Approve/reject Status/remarks Resp

1.12 Reject In place of 1.10 and 1.11 which are no longer

produced. Section 6 is still missing.

Attached



Deliverable

n.

Approve/reject Status/remarks Resp

2.5 Reject Resubmitted on 24th

June 2013. Should be

resubmitted with concrete conclusions and

recommendations from workshop as explained

in the last review.

ACTION: Agenda concludes with

“Conclusion and close”, so some response on

conclusions must be provided MdA

Revised

version has

been

resubmitted

3.6 Reject Resubmitted on 12th

August 2013, Italian data

still missing from section 5.4.

Costs for HSH are very high, and not

compared with other products providing a

similar service.

Revised

version has

been

resubmitted



ANNEX II Dissemination report

Based upon our stakeholder analysis we agreed that the 4th period in the Project still needed

to focus on our participants and their relatives in order to keep them motivated for the closing

period. Since this is the 3th year where our participants are using the HOME SWEET HOME

services we still need to focus on avoiding dropouts in both the control and the study group.

Besides our focus on our participants and their relatives we used the fourth period also to

inform the other stakeholders (see arrows) about the results, lessons learned and other

important information about Home Sweet Home. Moreless since we will close down the

project a lot of other dissemination opportunities will occur, now that we can release the

gathered information about 4 years of Home Sweet Home.



As some of our dissemination actions are not specifically for one target group we summarised

our dissemination actions here :

2. Personalised communication :

As mentioned in the former Reviews our focus remained also in this period to keep our

participants and their relatives motivated by stimulating them and informing them about the

project. Besides the physical visits we also spent a lot of effort in making newsletters to keep

them informed but also to make them realise how important they are irrespective of the fact

that they are in the study or in the control group.

o Here are some examples from the newsletters we made in Belgium and Ireland at the final

period.









Besides the use of a regular newsletter we sent out a letter to all our users at the end of the

project in order to thank them.







2. Website

As agreed at the former Review we had changed our ‘CMS’ system from Smartsite to Drupal.

In the final period we have made some small changes and upgrades to the website.

Our objectives for the new website where the following and we think that all of them where

obtained.

o Easier to use and maintain technology

o Cost efficient (Drupal is an open source technology)

o More modern and fresh look and a more dynamic website

o More friendly in use so that other participants can add information on it by themselves

o Integration with new dissemination tools such as twitter, movies, …

o More living website



Due to the fact that at this stage of the project we have gathered a lot of information that can

be disseminated, we have decided to maintain de website until at least the end of 2015. At the

end of 2015 we will evaluate the use of the website and the necessity to have it running

longer.



7. Brochures & leaflets

A leaflet has been produced in order to inform about the entire Project. Partners can use this

leaflet as a basis for their own translated version, which can include specific information

related to their target audience. The leaflet has also been announced on LinkedIn, Facebook

and our website and spread through the different events we participated in.

Qualitative analysis

One of the remarks following one of our project reviews consisted in

gathering qualitative information about the HSH users and their

feeling about the project. Therefore a qualitative analysis was set up

and together with the support of the Advisory Board and Age we

have produced a publication on the outcome of a small qualitative

study that took place within the Home Sweet Home user group. The

study aimed at shedding the light to barriers and enablers for the

acceptance of new technologies that where introduced to help older

persons live autonomously and manage better their health. It is

written from the perspective of older persons who use technologies in

their everyday living and it is addressed to all the stakeholders who

are involved in the development and deployment of such solutions :

researchers, service providers, industry and SME’s, public

authorities, health and social care professionals, informal caregivers,

insurers and mutualities and older persons themselves. Instead of

discussing elements specific only to the project, the publication is

drafted in a way that can be useful to various similar settings and sets

of services.

First some information about Home Sweet Home and the study is provided. Then the results

of the study are summarized as answers to the questions : who are older persons and what

matters to them ? In the end, recommendations for future research and practice are given,

before presenting the case studies, which were analysed in order to reach conclusions and

lessons learned.

Our qualitative analysis is being disseminated via the website, website of partners (Age, ZB,

…), Twitter, Linked-in, …







8. Video on HSH

In May 2012 we made some videos in order to inform our stakeholders about HSH:

o A day in the life of some of our participants (we followed some of our participants during a

day in order to show the public about HSH, how it is being used, what it means, …);

o A video about the project with short interviews with team members and users;

o A short video per item in order to present the means and use;

o A short video about the installation



In June 2013 an additional video was made by the Spanish delegation for dissemination use. http://youtu.be/NFquHKt9_-A

These videos where displayed and published on:

o HSH Website;

o YouTube;

o Websites of the HSH partners;

o Facebook pages;

o Linked-in pages;

o Shown in several occasions as, e.g. at the final Workshop, …

o …




9. Conferences and workshops

19/05/2013 – delegation from Liège, Waterloo, Charleroi and Luxembourg visited the

Antwerp HSH project – Antwerp – Belgium

Eneo is an organisation from Wallonie (www.eneo.be) enabling the rights of the older and has

40.000 senior members. A delegation from different parts of the south of Belgium came over

to have a look at the Home Sweet Home project and followed a workshop on our project.

http://www.eneo.be/



19/11/2013 – Regional Conference in Italy – Rome by Darco Servizi.

The occasion of the conference was the first showing on cinema of a reportage about migrants

working in Rome as long term carer for older people or people with disabilities, called



“BADAMI”. The Italian word “bàdami” means “take care of me” and it recalls both the word

“badante” which is an informal way of referring to “long term carers” and the need to better

take care of long term carers and the families of older people and people with disabilities.

Agenda

The Italian Regional Conference was held in Rome on the 19th of November 2013 at Cinema

Aquila, via L’Aquila 58.

h. 18.00 Welcoming, open desk

h. 18.30 – 18,40 Greetings and presentation of the documentary (reading by Mariangela

Forcina)

h. 18.40 – 19.00 Showing of the reportage BADAMI

h. 19.00 – 20.00 Speakers (5 to 10 minutes per speaker)

Speaker’s panel:

Larzia Lo Guzzo, Curator of the reportage – moderator

Mariangela Forcina, Director and photographer;

Mimosa Martini, Reporter;

Marco D'Angelantonio, Director General of HiMsa-Bruxelles

Cecile Kyenge, Minister of Integration of Italy;

Rita Visini,Counsellor on Social Policies of Lazio Region;

Erica Battaglia President of the Commission on Social Issues of ROMA CAPITALE;

Mario Monge, President of SOLCO Consortium of social cooperatives;

Maurizio Marotta, President COIN Cooperative Integrate Onlus.

A long list of invitations was made. The parterre of the cinema could count on the presence of

more than a hundred people The conference was addressed primarily to institutions and policy



makers, to show the problems of families which are not supported by a strong net of social

and health services, together with the problems of migrant long term carers who have

difficulties in working in new, culturally different environments, with no clear recognition of

their skills and tasks to do within their job, and no support from institutions.

There was also a strong presence of professionals coming from the third sector, which is the

main actor providing private long term care services in Italy, as well as dealing with migrant

workers.

The presence of the delegates of Home Sweet Home had the objective to show how

technology in health care services is crucial to help better off the life of older people and

people with disabilities and to raise the quality of work of long term carers, releasing them

from some responsibilities and giving them easier instruments to care. At the same time the

new technologies of tele-care prove to be less expensive than traditional care, helping public

health care to foresee a more organized and cost effective integrated care to people, especially

in this actual framework of ageing and economical crisis. That is why on the desk in the foyer

of the cinema there was a table with Home Sweet Home leaflets and a monitor showing the

project’s dissemination videos.

The breakdown of attendees is shown below.

Table : Attendees by category

Category

Institutions – National level 2%

Institutions – Regional Level 5%

Institutions – Local level 5%

Third sector – Migrants 32%

Third sector – Disability 25%

Third sector – Social Care 31%

Industry 1%

The full agenda, the press-book and some of the contribution of the speakers can be found in

Italian language in the website of “Presidio Del Lazio” which was the promoter of the event

together with Home Sweet Home.

http://www.presidiolazio.it

All dissemination materials of the event and some of the proceedings (in Italian) can also be

found in the download area of Home Sweet Home project portal.

The dissemination activities carried out for the Italian Regional Conference were focused on

the publication of leaflets, brochures, posters, invitations and the catalogue and DVD

featuring the reportage shown at the event. . These activities are outlined in the following

sections.

http://www.presidiolazio.it/



The catalogue published for the event, containing photographs by Mariangela Forcina about

migrant long term carers and their assisted patients, also features a DVD containing the

reportage BADAMI. All copies have been distributed to the participants.

Photographs taken during the BADAMI event can be found at the Home Sweet Home web

portal, and below:

Figure 1 – Speakers of the Regional Conference. Left to right, Marco D’Angelantonio,

coordinator of project Home sweet Home, Maurizio Marotta, president of Consorzio Sociale

COIN, Cecile Kyenge, Minister of Integration, Mariangela Forcina, director and

photographer, Mario Monge, president of SOLCO, Rita Visini, Counsellor on Social Policies

of Lazio Region.



Figure 2 – Moderator Larzia Lo Guzzo with Mariangela Forcina, film director, Mimosa

Martini, journalist and writer.

Figure 3 – Moderator Larzia Loguzzo and Marco D’Angelantonio, coordinator of Home

Sweet Home Project.



The Regional conference was covered in health and third sector specialised media. A press-

review of the event can be found in the Home sweet Home web portal.

Posters and leaflet of the Italian Regional Conference can be found both in the web portal

Presidio del Lazio, of the Lazio Region, and in the Home Sweet Home web portal.

http://www.presidiolazio.com

http://www.presidiolazio.com/



Figure 4 – Italian Regional Conference, English invitation

Figure 4 – Italian Regional Conference poster



26/02/2014 – Final conference : ICT and E-Skills for social Care – Brussels - Belgium

AGE was invited to give a presentation for the final conference of the project Carenet, which worked on the

improvement of ICT skills in the long-term care sector. Bearing in mind the legal and ethical framework in

which social care is provided in Europe and drawing from the experience of AGE Platform Europe, Nena

Georgantzi, Legal Officer, presented older persons’ views on ICT for care and independent living. In addition,

she exposed lessons learned from the Home Sweet Home, which finalised a qualitative study on ICT acceptance

from the perspective of older users.

The conference was recorded and all presentations are available online here.

14/05/2014 – 5th

interactive Congres Facility Management in Care – Antwerp - belgium

On Wednesday 14 May – Zorgbedrijf

Antwerp will participate in a Care

Congres about Facility Management

by organising some workshops about

Home Sweet Home – the lessons

learned and trends for the future.

http://www.carenetproject.eu/detailed-programme-of-the-final-conference/







Final Conference – Barcelona, January 16th

, 2014

Addressed to the stakeholders of the Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) market of products and

services for the elder, E4S conference provided a forum for discussion on the different

strategies that can be approached to reach the market in this area, exploring also the ways

forward to respond to the challenge from the technical side. Experts, IT developers, and end

users had the opportunity to share a day with an open exchange of news and views about the

ICT support oriented to the Active and Healthy Ageing.

The conference consisted of a one-day event, divided in two sessions, the morning and the

afternoon, with a lunch break for networking.

By 2025 more than 20% of Europeans will be 65 or over, with a particularly rapid increase in

the number of over 80s. Greater life expectancy is of course a positive result of progress, but

it raises important challenges for the 21st century: how to meet the higher demand for

healthcare? How to adapt health systems to the needs of an ageing population while keeping

them sustainable in societies with smaller workforce? Moreover, the demographic changes are

expected to have substantial consequences on public finances in the EU. On the basis of

current policies, age-related public expenditures (pensions, health-care and long-term care)

are projected to increase by 4.1% to around 29% of GDP between 2010 and 2060.

In the context of an ageing Europe, with some of its member states endangered by the failure

of the welfare state and questioned its capacity to maintain the social model, the opportunity

to invest in innovative services built around new technologies that can provide cost effective

solutions to cope with the shortcuts the Public services are facing is a safe bet for the future.



The way the European Union, through the R&D programmes of the EC, has been addressing

the topic is a reflection of the evolution undergone in Europe and the demographic changes

related with life expectancy occurring in the last 15 years. The development of a new market

for the elderly should combine, with the help of the technologies, the empowerment of the

elderly in taking care of their health, with the self-management of their disease and a whole

new set of services that should satisfy the growing needs.

To make technology a key enabler for the success of AAL solutions, the providers have to

assure users a simple and affordable access to new services and apps that support their current

devices and particular user interface needs. The availability of common open platforms based

on a standardized approach using existing components, services, and external systems seems

to be the key to guarantee the feasibility and sustainability of innovative solutions.

In this context, E4S conference provided a forum for understanding and discussing different

strategies in this area, and to explore ways forward for the future to respond to the challenge

from the technical side.

Progress so far (represented by the organizing projects and their strategies to promote

innovation) and the growth of the critical-mass to increase the chances of impact for

individual projects in the real deployment of a market for AAL products and services were the

protagonists.

Do they actually have a market now?. What can we learn from them? From different

perspectives, universAAL as enabler and Home Sweet Home as way to the market, showed

their expectation for the short and long-term markets.

E4S also had the pleasure to host Alexandre Kalache (President, International Longevity

Centre – Brazil) as keynote speaker who offered to the audience a critical overview of a social

issue becoming a market opportunity highlighting government’s point of views from

inclusion to the active and healthy aging and empowerment.

On the other hand Jan Komarek presented the EC view: the current programme Horizon2020,

the future and the main trends as well the expectations of the EC on next projects.

Afterwards three round tables have been arranged involving representatives of Public

Administrations, Users, the Industry, and Insurance companies allowing speakers and

attendees to share opinions and make questions on the following three main topics:

- The barriers between the medical and the social services: integrating care. The view of the

Public Administrations as enablers: billing, reimbursement models, and public procurement.

- The IT perspective and the E4S: From open source to interoperability and standards. From

legal issues to regulations. How flexible can we expect the market to be? What kind of

technical/standardisation progress is needed? How to assure the right to privacy and security

in this context?

- The boundary between the healthy elderly person and the patient: The client and the user.

Different strategies to address the market? What the users have to say?. Do we listen to them?

Ethical issues.



Thanks to the interaction among speakers and participants, the event achieved its main

objective: to promote a debate about ways to make it real.

Additionally, the conference hosted during the whole day a ‘Demo lounge’, where the

projects ‘universAAL', 'Home Sweet Home' and others European projects in the area of AAL

showed demonstrations of their results and features.

Lastly, the conference offered also to the attendees a unique opportunity of networking with

other people operating in ICT and health sectors and explore potential synergies. Moreover,

lessons learnt, strategies for bridging pilots to real market for deployment or increasing the

chances of impact for individual projects in the real deployment of a market for AAL

products and services have been some of the topics at the centre of the conference.

Figure 1. Conference venue, Mobile World Capital, Barcelona.



Conference programme

ENABLERS FOR SUCCESS - E4S CONFERENCE

ICT support to Active and Healthy Aging: Paving the way from pilot to the Market

A dynamic one-day conference and exhibition

Mobile World Centre – Barcelona

Thursday, 16 January 2014

08:30 h. Registration

09:10 h. Introduction to the Conference

Joe Gorman – Dimitri De Rooze Coordinators, universAAL and Home Sweet Home projects

Welcome address

Cristina Iniesta Director of Health and Chair of the Barcelona Public Health Agency (ASPB)

Oscar Pallarols Competence Center Director, Mobile World Capital Barcelona

09:30 h. Presentations of universAAL and Home Sweet Home projects

Casper Marcusen - RSD (universAAL)

Dimitri De Rooze - Zorgbedrijf Antwerpen (Home Sweet Home)

10:15 h. Alexandre Kalache: "Enabling Active Ageing in an Age-friendly Society"

President, International Longevity Centre - Brazil

Senior Advisor on Global Aging, the New York Academy of Medicine

HelpAge International Global Ambassador on Ageing

11:00 h. Coffee break and free discussion

11:30 h. Jan Komarek : “The opportunities of H2020”

Project Officer, European Commission, Directorate-General CONNECT, H2 Unit. European

Commission

12:00 h. Round Table 1: The barriers between the medical and the social services

Integrating care. The view of the Public Administrations as enablers: billing, reimbursement

models, public procurement.

Chair: Ad van Berlo – Smart Homes, The Netherlands

Agneta Granström - Norrbotten County Council, Sweden

Claus Duedal Pedersen - Region South Denmark

Antoni Dedeu - Department of Health, Generalitat de Catalunya

13:00 h. Lunch break and networking

14:15 h. Round Table 2: The IT perspective and the Enablers for success

From open source to interoperability and standards. From legal issues to regulations. How

flexible can we expect the market to be?

Chair: Ramon Palacio- Polytechnic University of Barcelona

Reiner Wichert - Fraunhofer-Allianz AAL, Germany



Pantelis Angelidis - Vidavo, Greece

Malcolm Bain - Catalan Open Source Business Association (CatPL)

15:15 h. Round Table 3: Secure market’s success: the integration of users’ views

The client and the user. Different strategies to address the market? What the users have to

say?. Do we listen to them? Ethical issues.

Chair: Nena Georgantzi - AGE Platform Europe, Belgium

Wouter A. Keijser - Medical Director, HSH project, The Netherlands

Ignasi Saez - Geriatrician, Badalona Serveis Assistencials, Spain

Heidrun Mollenkopf - BAGSO, Germany

16:15 h. Coffee break

16:45 h. Final conclusions and wrap up

What can we conclude from what we learned today? What are the next steps?

Joe Gorman - universAAL

Marco d’Angelantonio - Home Sweet Home

Joan Cornet - Mobile World Capital, Spain

17:15 h. Closing remarks

Antoni Maria Grau - General Director of Industry of the Department of Business and

Employment of the Government of Catalonia

17:25 h. Conference Closing

09:00 to 'Demo lounge' exhibition

18:00 h. Invited projects presenting their results to attendees in a parallel room.

Organizing projects: Contact: www.universaal.org [email protected]

www.homesweethome-project.be

Registration: Venue: www.eventbrite.com/event/9111650191 www.mobileworldcentre.com

http://www.universaal.org/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.homesweethome-project.be/

http://www.eventbrite.com/event/9111650191

http://www.mobileworldcentre.com/



'Demo lounge' exhibition Invited projects presenting their results to attendees in a parallel room.

Figure 2. ASSISTANT " Aiding SuStainable Independent Senior TrAvellers to Navigate in

Towns” project funded by the AAL Joint Programme and national funding.

Figure 3. ReAAL project represents the prosecution of universAAL project.

Figure 4. universAAL Project. Figure 5. WIISEL “Wireless Insole for Independent & Safe Elderly Living" FP7 funded project.

Figure 6. ReAAL and universAAL projects.



Figure 7. Demo lounge during the lunch time.



Figure 8. universAAL training workshop for developers.



Post-Conference survey results Figures below show some statistical data about the success rate of the event among the

attendees, their level of satisfaction with respect to their expectations and the quality of the

organization and management of the conference.

Figure 9. General satisfaction rate after the event expressed by the attendees.



Figure 10. The six diagrams show the results coming from the questionnaire filled in by the attendees after the end of

the conference. They responded to a number of questions about length, quality of the speakers, organization and

utility of the information provided.



10. Future dissemination on Home Sweet Home

As the project is coming to an end we are at a point that we have a lot of information that can

be spread to the different stakeholders and can be beneficiary to other EU projects in this field

of work.

Home Sweet Home is just one piece of the puzzle to build and extend the evidence base on

the impact if eHealth, eInclusion and Ambient Assisted Living on elderly care and on the

independence of older people. Therefore we will carry on sharing the lessons learnt through

the successes and failures in deploying ICT-based care services.

As you see in the figure below, Home Sweet Home is just one piece of the puzzle and can add

interesting information in order to support independence.

The Home Sweet Home results are being set out in a number of deliverables that will be put

public and will be available on the Home Sweet Home Website, like :

D3.8 Clinical and Quality of life impact assessment.



D3.10 Social Impact assessment.

D3.11 Economic Impact assessment.

D3.12 User Satisfaction assessment.

D3.13 Barriers to deployment.

D4.7 Implementation Guidelines.

D7.5 Trial Evaluation Report.

User stories about Home Sweet Home – qualitative analysis

…

Besides the dissemination via the website we still have a lot of partners that will keep

spreading the results from Home Sweet Home to other potential partners, projects, … like

AGE, HIM, …



Addendum : list of events during the final period where HSH was being disseminated

EVENT Web link Date Place MATERIA

LS

Topic

ENGAGED project –

Steering Committee

Meeting

N.A. 04.02.2013 Brussels Brochures Active& Healthy

Ageing

NET EUCEN

workshop, User-

centricity in the

education and

inclusiveness domains

http://www.net-

eucen.org/scenarios.

php

06.02.2013 Brussels Brochures User Involvement

TechnolAGE final

conference

http://www.technola

ge.org/

14.02.2013 Brussels Brochures Business and

financing models for

ICT for ageing well

Kick-off Meeting:

Social Innovations in

Active and Healthy

Ageing

N.A. 21.02.2013 Brussels Brochures King Badouin

Foundation’s led

project on Social

Innovation

AgeingWell newsletter

n.2

http://www.ict-

ageingwell.net/

25.02.2013 EU Newsletter ICT network for

AHA

AGE Health Expert

Group

N.A. 18.04.2013 Brussels Oral

presentation

Health

AGE Annual

Conference on age-

friendly environments

http://www.age-

platform.eu/fr/domai

nes-daction-

politique/solidarite-

entre-les-

generations/dernieres

-nouvelles/1626-age-

annual-thematic-

conference-toward-

an-age-friendly-eu-

by-2020

17.05.2013 Brussels,

BE

leaflets and

stand

Seminar on « Seniors

entrepreneurs in

support of youth

employment »

http://www.age-

platform.eu/en/age-

policy-

work/employment-

and-active-

ageing/latest-news-

on-active-

ageing/1618-

invitation-to-

committee-of-

30.05.2013 Brussels leaflet employment, life-

long learning

http://www.net-eucen.org/scenarios.php



http://www.technolage.org/

http://www.technolage.org/

http://www.ict-ageingwell.net/


http://www.age-platform.eu/fr/domaines-daction-politique/solidarite-entre-les-generations/dernieres-nouvelles/1626-age-annual-thematic-conference-toward-an-age-friendly-eu-by-2020













regions-senior-

entrepreneurs-age-

joint-seminar-on-l-

seniors-

entrepreneurs-in-

support-of-youth-

employment-r-30-

may-2013

User Advisory Board

SmartCare

http://www.age-

platform.eu/age-

projects/health-and-

long-term-care/1648-

smartcare?showall=

&start=1

5.06.2013 Brussels Sharing

experiences

on these

projects

Integrated care

Dublin AHA Summit http://www.ahaconfe

rence2013.ie/

13-

14.06.2013

Dublin leaflets Active and healthy

ageing

GSMA Mobile

Meeting Series

Breakfast –

Personalised Health

N.A. 26.06.2013 Brussels Presentation

and leaflet

Health, eHealth

patient

empowerment

Digital Agenda for

Europe

http://www.cor.euro

pa.eu/en/news/events

/Documents/program

me_digital_agenda.p

df

20.07.2013 Brussels Leaflets ICT for inclusion

SPC Working group on

ageing

N.A. 25/06/2013 Brussels Leaflets Long-term care

Confrontation Europe,

eHealth Task Force

N.A. 09/07/2013 Brussels Leaflets eHealth

Atis4all meeting with

ETNA network

N.A. 17-

18/09/2013

Vilamou

ra,

Portugal

Leaflets Assistive

technologies

Peer review on Dignity

in care

http://ec.europa.eu/s

ocial/main.jsp?catId

=1024&langId=en&

newsId=1903&furth

erNews=yes

25-

27/09/2013

Stockhol

m

SC in the

peer review

presentation

/mentioned

all AGE

projects

Long-term care

AGE Universal

Accessibility and

Independent Living

Expert Group Meeting

N.A. 24/10/2013 Brussels Oral

presentation

on the

project

Accessibility

ENGAGED User

Empowerment Mutual

Learning Workshop

N.A. 23/10/2013 Eindhov

en

Leaflets User Involvement

AGE Manifesto N.A. 5/11/2013 Brussels Leaflets EP campaign

http://www.age-platform.eu/age-projects/health-and-long-term-care/1648-smartcare?showall=&start=1






http://www.ahaconference2013.ie/

http://www.ahaconference2013.ie/

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1024&langId=en&newsId=1903&furtherNews=yes







Launching event

WIDER Innovation

Fair

http://www.wider-

project.eu/registratio

n.html

20/11/2013 Barcelon

a

Leaflets and

oral

presentation

on

qualitative

study

Age-friendly

innovation

JADE project final

conference

http://www.jadeproje

ct.eu/jadecms/default

.aspx?pag=0.3.1&ne

wsID=39&lang=en

5/12/2013 Brussels Leaflets ICT in active and

healthy ageing

AGE Monthly

newsletter CoverAGE

http://www.age-

platform.eu/coverage

-en-en-gb-6

January,

February,

October and

November

2013 and

April 2014

issues about

qualitative

study

EU articles Ageing

Ageing Well newsletter http://www.ict-

ageingwell.net/

January

2014

EU Article

about

results of

qualitative

study

ICT network for

AHA

Carenet conference

http://www.carenetpr

oject.eu/category/pro

ject/events/?lang=en

26.02.2014 Brussels Presentation

about

qualitative

study

EU project on ICT

skills for

8th

European

eAccessibility Forum

www.inova.snv.jussi

eu.fr/evenements/col

loques/colloques/82_

index_en.html

31.03.2014 Paris Presentation

of user

involvement

methodolog

y (AB +

qualitative

study)

User involvement

http://www.wider-project.eu/registration.html



http://www.jadeproject.eu/jadecms/default.aspx?pag=0.3.1&newsID=39&lang=en




http://www.age-platform.eu/coverage-en-en-gb-6





http://www.carenetproject.eu/category/project/events/?lang=en



http://www.inova.snv.jussieu.fr/evenements/colloques/colloques/82_index_en.html


