Experiences
People describe where they become stuck, what preceded it and what happens while they wait or are passed between organisations.
Our impact model
From one experience to change that lasts.
Caretrap | Stichting Zorgfuik does not collect stories merely to fill an archive. We use signals to test patterns, expose causes and develop solutions that organise ownership, coordination and protection more effectively.
No magic arrow
A publication does not change a system by itself. Impact begins when insights are used, organisations accept responsibility and a solution demonstrably works better in practice.
The core pathway
Six steps, with evidence between each one.
Every transition requires a different form of evidence. We do not jump automatically from “people report something” to “this policy must change”.
Signals
Recurring elements are coded: handovers, waiting, mandate, information loss, exclusion or missing ownership.
Patterns
Signals are compared with processes, policy, public sources and expertise to test what may be structural.
Publications
We describe findings, uncertainty, consequences and possible solutions in an accessible format.
Application
Partners, professionals or policymakers use the findings in design, decisions, pilots or service improvement.
Change
Less passing people around, earlier ownership, better handovers and demonstrably less harm while waiting.
Theory of change
What we invest, do, produce and seek to change.
This model prevents activity from being mistaken for impact. A busy calendar is not a result.
What is needed
- Experiences and signals
- Research and process expertise
- Governance and independent oversight
- Secure digital infrastructure
- Funding and partners
What we do
- Structure experiences
- Test patterns
- Analyse processes and chains
- Publish and explain
- Design solutions and pilots
What becomes visible
- Reports and articles
- Videos and public information
- Problem and process maps
- Recommendations and design principles
- Concrete pilot proposals
What then changes
- More recognition and language for the problem
- Better decision-making
- Clearer ownership
- More cross-boundary cooperation
- Solutions are tested
What we work towards
- Fewer people trapped between systems
- Less harm while waiting
- Ownership with genuine mandate
- Better protection during handovers
- Systems people do not have to manage themselves
Measurement without marketing fog
How we distinguish progress from impact.
We begin simply, but not casually. Every indicator must support a decision or show where further research is needed.
| Level | Example indicators | What this does not yet prove |
|---|---|---|
| Reach | Visitors, video views, downloads, petition signatures and shared experiences. | That policy or service delivery has actually changed. |
| Signal quality | Completeness, recurring categories, spread across domains and usefulness for analysis. | That every signal represents the entire population. |
| Knowledge production | Publications, source quality, methodological transparency, external feedback and corrections. | That a report is automatically applied. |
| Use | Conversations with organisations, references to publications, partnerships and adopted recommendations. | That application already produces better outcomes for people. |
| Practice change | Earlier ownership, less loss at handovers, shorter unmanaged waiting and better escalation. | That improvement is universal or lasting without follow-up measurement. |
Boundaries
What we do and deliberately do not claim.
Credibility also depends on limits. The foundation is not a support service, and individual experiences are not used to assign blame without verification.
What we do
- Look for patterns in recurring experiences.
- Analyse processes, handovers and responsibilities.
- State uncertainty and limitations explicitly.
- Make possible solutions concrete and testable.
- Report progress, funding and results openly.
What we do not do
- Take over or manage individual cases.
- Present one experience as a proven structural fact.
- Publicly assign blame based on individual reports.
- Claim impact merely because there is reach or media coverage.
- Call a pilot successful without predefined criteria.
First testable research directionMethod proposal First method test Interventions later
The process gap begins with measurement, not a new role.
Review version 0.98 describes a method for reconstructing one stalled pathway across organisational boundaries. Possible interventions only come into view once the method works and real cases have been examined.
Working definitions, event timeline, evidence status and distinctions between process gap, capacity shortage and clinically justified delay.
Review 0.98Can one pathway be reconstructed safely, transparently and reproducibly?
No-go until safeguards existA process owner or another solution is considered only when measured data provides a reason.
No proposal yetThis model must withstand practice.
We are looking for critical partners who will test assumptions, identify gaps and help develop practical pilots. Not an agreement club, but organised challenge.