scholarly journals Personal Care Aides in residential care and adult day centers: differences in training, benefits, and roles

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 855-855
Author(s):  
Manisha Sengupta ◽  
Farida Ejaz

Abstract Personal care aides (PCAs), along with other direct care workers, provide the hands-on care, including help with activities of daily living for individuals receiving care in residential care communities (RCC) and adult day services centers (ADSC). Recruitment and retention of such workers is a challenge as low pay, inadequate training, unsatisfactory roles and lack of benefits contribute to turnover. Using data from the 2018 National Study of Long-Term Care Providers, the only nationally representative data about PCAs in RCCs and ADSCs, this study will assess differences in training hours, benefits, and work roles among PCAs in these settings. About 76% of RCCs and 66% of ADSCs employed aides. On average, PCAs received 32 hours and 51 hours of initial training in ADSCs and RCCs, respectively. Results from bivariate analyses (accounting for complex survey design), showed that benefits received by PCAs varied by sector. A higher percentage of PCAs in ADSCs than in RCCs received health insurance for employees (60% vs. 46%), and pension (51% vs. 40%). About 51% of ADSCs and 46% of RCCs reported that PCAs rarely or sometimes attended care plan meetings. Further, 11% of RCCs and 15% of ADSCs reported that aides rarely or sometimes worked with the same care recipient. This overview of PCA activities, training and benefits may provide insights into approaches to improve the retention of PCAs and subsequently the quality of care provided across sectors.

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S505-S506
Author(s):  
Manisha Sengupta ◽  
Christine Caffrey

Abstract Assisted living and similar residential care communities (RCCs) are an important source of care for older adults, many of whom have dementia or depression. In 2016, 42% of residents in RCCs were diagnosed with dementia and 31% were diagnosed with depression. About two-thirds of RCCs (63%) provided social work and mental health services and 37% provided neither service. Using the 2016 National Study of Long-Term Care Providers, this study includes bivariate and ANOVA modeling to (1.) examine the variation in dementia and depression between RCCs that provide social work and mental health services and those that do not, and (2.) assess if there is an interaction between provision of services and RCC bed size in their association with dementia and depression. Bivariate results show that the prevalence of dementia does not vary by service provision, but the prevalence of depression does. The percent of residents with depression varied from 34% in RCCs that provided both social work and mental health services to 31% in RCCs that provided only one service to 28% in RCCs that provided neither service. The prevalence of dementia was around 4 in 10 residents, regardless of service provision. Fitting a two-way ANOVA model for dementia indicated that the effect was 4 percentage points higher for RCCs that provided services than those that did not, but only among small RCCs. Findings from this study can inform strategies to care for the needs of residents with dementia and depression across the various sizes of RCCs.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 90-91
Author(s):  
Christine Caffrey ◽  
Jessica Lendon

Abstract This study describes the relationships between the number of selected chronic conditions among residents and the number and provision methods of services provided by residential care communities (RCCs). Estimates are from the 2016 wave of the National Study of Long-Term Care Providers conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics. Chronic conditions were measured by whether the RCC reported having at least one resident with any of the most common chronic conditions: dementia, diabetes, depression, or heart disease. Services included were mental health, social work, therapeutic, dietary, and skilled nursing. Each service type was categorized by provision method (provided by employees, arrangement or referral only, or not provided). Among RCCs, 63% had all four conditions among residents, 23% had three, 12% had one to two, and 1% had none. About 66% of RCCs provided all five services, 16% provided four, 15% provided 1-3, and 3% provided none. Of the 63% of RCCs that had all four conditions among residents, 69% provided all five services, 29% provided 1-4, and 2% provided none. In these RCCs, a greater percentage provided dietary (69%) and skilled nursing services (33%) with employees compared to the other methods; a greater percentage provided therapeutic (85%) and mental health services (83%) solely through arrangement or referral compared to the other methods. This study found that, in 2016, RCCs with multiple selected conditions among their residents tended to provide a greater number of services for managing chronic conditions. How these RCCs provide services varied based on service type.


2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (10_suppl) ◽  
pp. 124S-144S
Author(s):  
Anne Ordway ◽  
Kurt L. Johnson ◽  
Laura Kneale ◽  
Dagmar Amtmann ◽  
George Demiris

Objective: Our objective was to understand the perceived impact of Washington State’s upgraded training and certification requirements of long-term care workers providing personal care services from the perspectives of consumers and home care aides. Methods: We applied conventional qualitative content analysis to semi-structured interviews with 17 consumers and 10 certified home care aides. Results: We found that consumers in this study put a high premium on directing many aspects of their personal care services. We also found that while home care aides supported what consumers desired for their own care, some were unsure how to reconcile providing individualized services with the State’s standardized, competency-based training and certification program. Discussion: State-based efforts, such as the one in Washington State, serve as an important starting point for building a broader effort toward the identification of competencies and associated training standards for the home care workforce.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarina Young

In Ontario long-term care (LTC) settings, person-centred care (PCC) is promoted by government legislation, accreditation organizations and professional practice guidelines aiming to integrate this approach. However, there is currently no standardized approach to providing PCC in LTC. The purpose of this study was to examine public policies on PCC in Ontario and explore how they are interpreted and translated into practice in LTC. A qualitative case study approach was used to examine the perspectives of key stakeholders at one LTC facility in Ontario. Focus groups were conducted with residents, family members, direct care providers and managers. Through content analysis, findings were organized into four categories showcasing both overlapping and differential understandings of PCC in practice: 1) conceptualization, 2) barriers, 3) facilitators, and 4) evaluation. Identified tensions between policy and the delivery of PCC highlight systemic issues that must be addressed to enable equitable person-centred LTC rooted in resident-identified priorities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document