Despite all improvement initiatives such as the national action plan [De-]Regulate Healthcare by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport in 2018 to create more time for care within the Netherlands, the administrative burden for care workers is still increasing. Managers of healthcare institutes struggle with efficiently implementing government legislations in day-to-day operations. They indicate that the time spent on administrative tasks demanded by municipalities and national authorities is too much. In addition, they also indicate that there is a lack of consistency and uniformity when it comes to the way care workers handle administrative tasks. This way of working causes additional, and often ad hoc, work in the run-up to an audit. It seems that before laws and regulations are effectively implemented, new laws or regulations again demand attention. This looks like a vicious circle, but research to confirm this is not found yet. Therefore, the following research question is formulated: "What is the impact of laws and regulations on the administrative burden with regard to the primary and supportive processes of Dutch long-term care?" An explanatory multiple case study was conducted to answer the research question. Three case studies were carried out during September 2019 to January 2020. Based on these studies, we have concluded that between 29% and 62% of the total perceived administrative burden by long-term care professionals can be related to legislation.
MULTIFILE
In this project we take a look at the laws and regulations surrounding data collection using sensors in assistive technology and the literature on concerns of people about this technology. We also look into the Smart Teddy device and how it operates. An analysis required by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [5] will reveal the risks in terms of privacy and security in this project and how to mitigate them. https://nl.linkedin.com/in/haniers
MULTIFILE
The article engages with the recent studies on multilevel regulation. The starting point for the argument is that contemporary multilevel regulation—as most other studies of (postnational) rulemaking—is limited in its analysis. The limitation concerns its monocentric approach that, in turn, deepens the social illegitimacy of contemporary multilevel regulation. The monocentric approach means that the study of multilevel regulation originates in the discussions on the foundation of modern States instead of returning to the origins of rules before the nation State was even created, which is where the actual social capital underlying (contemporary) rules can be found, or so I wish to argue. My aim in this article is to reframe the debate. I argue that we have an enormous reservoir of history, practices, and ideas ready to help us think through contemporary (social) legitimacy problems in multilevel regulation: namely all those practices which preceded the capture of law by the modern State system, such as historical alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practices.
A huge amount of data are being generated, collected, analysed and distributed in a fast pace in our daily life. This data growth requires efficient techniques for analysing and processing high volumes of data, for which preserving privacy effectively is a crucial challenge and even a key necessity, considering the recently coming into effect privacy laws (e.g., the EU General Data Protection Regulation-GDPR). Companies and organisations in their real-world applications need scalable and usable privacy preserving techniques to support them in protecting personal data. This research focuses on efficient and usable privacy preserving techniques in data processing. The research will be conducted in different directions: - Exploring state of the art techniques. - Designing and applying experiments on existing tool-sets. - Evaluating the results of the experiments based on the real-life case studies. - Improving the techniques and/or the tool to meet the requirements of the companies. The proposal will provide results for: - Education: like offering courses, lectures, students projects, solutions for privacy preservation challenges within the educational institutes. - Companies: like providing tool evaluation insights based on case studies and giving proposals for enhancing current challenges. - Research centre (i.e., Creating 010): like expanding its expertise on privacy protection technologies and publishing technical reports and papers. This research will be sustained by pursuing following up projects actively.
