Dienst van SURF
© 2025 SURF
"The World of the [open] innovator" described the background of the revolution we are in in innovation and what the consequences are for innovation, changing towards design driven open innovation. We reframed innovation to meet new needs and values of companies and organizations in our work field. We do not take this light-hearted. We know the field of innovation and used our experience and conversation with stakeholders to come up with the insight of The [open] Innovator. What strengthened us were reactions from companies and organization we asked to cocreate or participate. There seemed to be an instant recognition and appeal to our vision and approach. But we also realize that we are in the stage of prototyping and we need you, as our lead users to be critical, yet to trust us. You, being an [open] innovator, will do great wonders, because you will be taught to deal with this uncertainty and dig in new, unknown situations or problems. You will learn the tools for research, for communication, for visualization. You will become a cooperative, open-minded problem solver. You will be able - with all the skills and tools we will provide you - to make the difference. But we need you to reflect upon your progress and needs; help us to get an insight in to your uncertainties, values and unmet needs, to enable us to improve our thinking and teaching. However, innovation can only be learned by doing! Start cracking, start experimenting, start having fun. Welcome to the future, that has just started.
There is a shortage of housing and people with a lower income suffer most from this. Vacant buildings are transformed to provide quick housing for them, but it is not sure whether this provides a comfortable home, both from an indoor climate and a meaning making perspective. Existing material about completed transformation projects and six case studies was used to explore possible opportunities to improve the match of user and building. It appeared that buildings are only transformed when they are left vacant for a while and a new function shifts the investment balance. Also, higher quality housing was only provided when it was not meant to be temporary or meant to be sold instead of rented. Current regulations and standards are not met and appear not adequate to function for temporary transformation projects, and matching users and buildings including the meaning of home is an opportunity worth exploring to provide a comfortable home for everyone.
Background: During hospitalization patients frequently have a low level of physical activity, which is an important risk factor for functional decline. Function Focused Care (FFC) is an evidencebased intervention developed in the United States to prevent functional decline in older patients. Within FFC, nurses help older patients optimally participate in functional and physical activity during all care interactions. FFC was adapted to the Dutch Hospital setting, which led to Function Focused Care in Hospital (FFCiH). FFCiH consists of four components: (1) ‘Environmental and policy assessment’; (2) ‘Education’; (3) ‘Goal setting with the patient’ and (4) ‘Ongoing motivation and mentoring’. The feasibility of FFCiH in the Dutch hospital setting needs to be assessed. Objective: Introduce FFCiH into Dutch hospital wards, to assess the feasibility of FFCiH in terms of description of the intervention, implementation, mechanisms of impact, and context. Design: Mixed method design Setting(s): A Neurological and a Geriatric ward in a Dutch Hospital. Participants: 56 Nurses and nursing students working on these wards. Methods: The implementation process was described and the delivery was studied in terms of dose, fidelity, adaptions, and reach. The mechanisms of impact were studied by the perceived facilitators and barriers to the intervention. Qualitative data were collected via focus group interviews, observations, and field notes. Quantitative data were collected via evaluation forms and attendance/participation lists. Results: A detailed description of FFCiH in terms of what, how, when, and by whom was given. 54 Nurses (96.4%) on both wards attended at least 1 session of the education or participated in bedside teaching. The nurses assessed the content of the education sessions with a mean of 7.5 (SD 0.78) on a 0–10 scale. The patient files showed that different short and long-term goals were set. Several facilitators and barriers were identified, which led to additions to the intervention. An important facilitator was that nurses experienced FFCiH as an approach that fits with the principles underpinning their current working philosophy. The experienced barriers mainly concern the implementation elements of the FFCiH-components ‘Education’ and ‘Ongoing motivation and mentoring’. Optimizing the team involvement, improving nursing leadership during the implementation, and enhancing the involvement of patients and their family were activities added to FFCiH to improve future implementation. Conclusions: FFCiH is feasible for the Dutch hospital setting. Strong emphasis on team involvement, nursing leadership, and the involvement of patients and their families is recommended to optimize future implementation of FFCiH in Dutch hospitals.