Not completed research and not a general public report.
Review version 0.98Research line · Part 1
The process gap
Measuring where care and support pathways stall between organisations.
A method-development and feasibility proposal. It describes how Caretrap intends to reconstruct and test a stalled pathway, not what research has already proven.
CARETRAP · RESEARCH LINE 01The
process gapMeasuring where pathways stall between organisationsDutch review version 0.98 · July 2026
process gapMeasuring where pathways stall between organisationsDutch review version 0.98 · July 2026
The instruments exist at design level and have not been validated.
Only to test whether reconstruction can be safe and reproducible.
Until independent roles and external legal/privacy review are in place.
This is not a research result.
The proposal does not present proven prevalence, causality, a solution, costs or savings. It describes a problem, a measurement framework in development and the protocol for its first test.
Problem and proposal
Organisations measure their own work. The pathway as a whole can disappear from view.
The open question is not only how long somebody waits at one provider, but where a cross-domain journey stalls and what the full pathway requires in contacts, actions and elapsed time.
Process gap
Stagnation where ownership of the complete pathway is missing, unclear, not actionable or not actually fulfilled.
System footprint
The reconstructable combination of organisations, contacts, actions and elapsed time within one defined pathway.
Events and evidence status
An event-level timeline, G1–G6 source classification, separation of fact and interpretation and independent double coding.
Five testable questions
The method must be capable of failing.
The study is not designed to confirm the concept. If reconstruction or classification is not reliable, the method must be revised or stopped.
- ReconstructionCan a stalled pathway across organisational boundaries be reconstructed reproducibly?
- Distinguishing causesCan ownership variants be distinguished reliably from capacity shortage, clinical delay and administrative causes?
- System footprintCan the proposed core measure be coded with acceptable inter-rater reliability?
- BurdenIs the measurement burden for participant and researchers proportionate?
- Proposed patternsDo the six provisional care-trap patterns appear in real cases, and in what form?
First method test
One case can support methodological conclusions only.
It cannot establish frequency, cost, harm or effect. The first test asks only whether the method can be used responsibly and transparently.
Independent interview
The first candidate is also the founder, making an external interviewer a blocking condition.
Double coding
An independent second coder assesses the same events and classifications.
Methodological supervision
A senior researcher safeguards design, analysis decisions and independence.
External legal and privacy review
Legal basis, sensitive data, third-party data, retention and assessment requirements are reviewed externally.
Negative findings are publishable findings.
If pathways cannot be reconstructed, capacity explains nearly all stagnation, the constructs are not reliable or the burden is disproportionate, that outcome will be made visible.
No new desk and no coordinator proposal yet.
The measurement phase does not introduce a role. Interventions, including a potential pathway owner with authority, are considered only later if evidence warrants it.
Contribution sought
The first case cannot start until independence is real.
Caretrap is looking for rigorous challenge and the people needed to make a responsible method test possible.
Methodological supervisor
A senior researcher from a university, university medical centre or applied research institution.
Interviewer and second coder
Two independent external roles with no interest in the outcome.
Legal and privacy review
A privacy lawyer or data protection professional for the open no-go questions.
Funding for phases 1 and 2
For the method test and subsequent reliability study, with no effect claim in advance.
Dutch review version 0.98
Finding the weak point is a contribution.
The full Dutch review version is not presented as a broad public report. Researchers, methodologists, privacy professionals and potential partners are invited to contact us.