Search

Background Developing age-friendly communities is a significant global policy issue. The WHO (2007) age-friendly cities and communities initiative has had a significant influence on the development of Ireland's Age-Friendly Programme. With research on such programmes still at an early stage, this paper critically examines the utilisation of the WHO age-friendly planning framework in an Irish context. It explores older adults' experience of living in two towns in an 'age-friendly' county and, in parallel, examines stakeholders' perspectives on the development of the county's age-friendly programme. This multi-perspectival approach facilitates an assessment of how the age-friendly county programme addresses older residents' needs, and illustrates how the WHO conceptual and planning framework has worked in an Irish context. Methods The paper reports on a study which employed a mixed-method, qualitative case-study research design, using a constructivist grounded theory approach to explore the lived experience of older adults, and a case-study framework for the stakeholder perspective. Results The research identifies salient social and cultural dimensions of the day-to-day lived experience of older people which, although they impact on the age-friendliness of the places in which they live, are neglected in the WHO framework. It also identifies a unique combination of economic, political, cultural, and organisational factors which have impacted on age-friendly programme development in Ireland. Conclusion In critically analysing use of the WHO age-friendly model, the paper suggests ways in which the model can be modified to better accommodate the diverse experience of older adults not only in Ireland, but also in other geographic and cultural contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The continuing evolution of adult safeguarding legislation, policy and practice in relation to the abuse of vulnerable adults reflects a growing awareness of the nature and extent of such abuse in Ireland. The Adult Safeguarding Bill, 2017 represents a progressive step in safeguarding older people and vulnerable adults. The intention of the Bill is to put in place additional protections for adults, in particular, for those who may be unable to protect themselves, such as older people or those lacking capacity. Part 3 provides for mandatory reporting by specified/named persons/professionals. This paper sets out to critically analyse the concept of mandatory reporting within adult safeguarding using international comparators as case studies. Methods A rapid realist review of adult safeguarding reporting typologies and systems in five key jurisdictions: Australia, Canada, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland, were explored to answer the question: ' what works, for whom and in what circumstances ?' [1] Results Jurisdictions differ as to who the mandated reporters are, the scope and powers of mandatory reporting, and the types of abuse subject to reporting. Of significance is that the debate on mandatory reporting has increasingly focused on institutional settings, rather than more broadly across services. Key concepts identified are those of protection, empowerment and proportionality. Adult safeguarding legislation must therefore ensure that interventionist and compulsory measures to protect do not excessively restrict the rights of the individual. Conclusion Mandatory reporting may offer professionals increased powers to prevent and reduce the abuse of adults and older people, but this could also change the dynamic of relationships within families, and between families and professionals. Ultimately, the success of any legal approach will rest with professional judgment in balancing autonomy with protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Home-care robots have been developed as one of the assistive technologies, and benefits and challenges of their use have been debated in many countries. Research teams in Japan, Finland and Ireland carried out a questionnaire to explore perceptions of potential users (older people, family caregivers, and health and social care professionals (HSCPs)) towards the use of home-care robots. As part of a larger tri-country comparative study, this paper reports preliminary findings from the data collected from the online survey of HSCPs in Ireland. Methods Questionnaire was developed iteratively among the research teams in three countries. Questions related to the use of advocates in deciding whether to use home-care robots, desirable functions in such robots, and perceptions of privacy protection. Based on networks of professional and advocacy groups, HSCPs were contacted and 123 respondents took part in the questionnaire, and 46 fully completed the questionnaire. Results Out of 46 respondents (44 female, 1 male and 1 did not wish to specify), 80% answered that they are open to the use of home-care robots. Safety monitoring and alert functions were considered to be most desirable in home-care robots. 76% of the respondents placed importance on the guarantee of entitlement to receiving human care, irrespective of the use of home-care robots. 30% answered that they have a negative impression of robots, to some extent. The overall majority (N=39, 85%) felt strongly that a decision as to whether to use home-care robots should be made by the user, and that the access to data collected in any form by robots requires extra care. Conclusion While there was generally a positive perception of the use of home-care robots among Irish HSCPs, cautious attitudes were evident in the areas of decision-making and privacy. This study was funded by the Pfizer Health Research Foundation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]