scholarly journals Recommendations from long-term care reports, commissions, and inquiries in Canada

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 87
Author(s):  
Eric K. C. Wong ◽  
Trina Thorne ◽  
Carole Estabrooks ◽  
Sharon E. Straus
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
National Level ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Direct Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Governmental Agencies

Background: Multiple long-term care (LTC) reports have issued similar recommendations for improvement across Canadian LTC homes. Our primary objective was to identify the most common recommendations made over the past 10 years. Our secondary objective was to estimate the total cost of studying LTC issues repeatedly from 1998 to 2020. Methods: The qualitative and cost analyses were conducted in Canada from July to October 2020. Using a list of reports, inquiries and commissions from The Royal Society of Canada Working Group on Long-Term Care, we coded recurrent recommendations in LTC reports. We contacted the sponsoring organizations for a cost estimate, including direct and indirect costs. All costs were adjusted to 2020 Canadian dollar values. Results: Of the 80 Canadian LTC reports spanning the years of 1998 to 2020, 24 (30%) were based on a national level and 56 (70%) were focused on provinces or municipalities. Report length ranged from 4 to 1491 pages and the median number of contributors was 14 (interquartile range, IQR, 5–26) per report. The most common recommendation was to increase funding to LTC to improve staffing, direct care and capacity (67% of reports). A median of 8 (IQR 3.25–18) recommendations were made per report. The total cost for all 80 reports was estimated to be $23,626,442.78. Conclusions: Problems in Canadian LTC homes and their solutions have been known for decades. Despite this, governments and non-governmental agencies continue to produce more reports at a monetary and societal cost to Canadians.

scholarly journals Recommendations from long-term care reports, commissions, and inquiries in Canada

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 87
Author(s):  
Eric K. C. Wong ◽  
Trina Thorne ◽  
Carole Estabrooks ◽  
Sharon E. Straus
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
National Level ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Direct Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Governmental Agencies

Background: Multiple long-term care (LTC) reports have issued similar recommendations for improvement across Canadian LTC homes. Our primary objective was to identify the most common recommendations made over the past 10 years. Our secondary objective was to estimate the total cost of studying LTC issues repeatedly from 1998 to 2020. Methods: The qualitative and cost analyses were conducted in Canada from July to October 2020. Using a list of reports, inquiries and commissions from The Royal Society of Canada Working Group on Long-Term Care, we coded recurrent recommendations in LTC reports. We contacted the sponsoring organizations for a cost estimate, including direct and indirect costs. All costs were adjusted to 2020 Canadian dollar values. Results: Of the 80 Canadian LTC reports spanning the years of 1998 to 2020, 24 (30%) were based on a national level and 56 (70%) were focused on provinces or municipalities. Report length ranged from 4 to 1491 pages and the median number of contributors was 14 (interquartile range, IQR, 5–26) per report. The most common recommendation was to increase funding to LTC to improve staffing, direct care and capacity (67% of reports). A median of 8 (IQR 3.25–18) recommendations were made per report. The total cost for all 80 reports was estimated to be $23,626,442.78. Conclusions: Problems in Canadian LTC homes and their solutions have been known for decades. Despite this, governments and non-governmental agencies continue to produce more reports at a monetary and societal cost to Canadians.

scholarly journals Recommendations from long-term care reports, commissions, and inquiries in Canada

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 87
Author(s):  
Eric K. C. Wong ◽  
Trina Thorne ◽  
Carole Estabrooks ◽  
Sharon E. Straus
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
National Level ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Direct Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Governmental Agencies

Background: Multiple long-term care (LTC) reports have issued similar recommendations for improvement across Canadian LTC homes. Our primary objective was to identify the most common recommendations made over the past 10 years. Our secondary objective was to estimate the total cost of studying LTC issues repeatedly from 1998 to 2020. Methods: The qualitative and cost analyses were conducted in Canada from July to October 2020. Using a list of reports, inquiries and commissions from The Royal Society of Canada Working Group on Long-Term Care, we coded recurrent recommendations in LTC reports. We contacted the sponsoring organizations for a cost estimate, including direct and indirect costs. All costs were adjusted to 2020 Canadian dollar values. Results: Of the 80 Canadian LTC reports spanning the years of 1998 to 2020, 24 (30%) were based on a national level and 56 (70%) were focused on provinces or municipalities. Report length ranged from 4 to 1491 pages and the median number of contributors was 14 (interquartile range, IQR, 5–26) per report. The most common recommendation was to increase funding to LTC to improve staffing, direct care and capacity (67% of reports). A median of 8 (IQR 3.25–18) recommendations were made per report. The total cost for all 80 reports was estimated to be $23,626,442.78. Conclusions: Problems in Canadian LTC homes and their solutions have been known for decades. Despite this, governments and non-governmental agencies continue to produce more reports at a monetary and societal cost to Canadians.

scholarly journals Recommendations from long-term care reports, commissions, and inquiries in Canada

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric KC Wong ◽  
Trina Thorne ◽  
Carole Estabrooks ◽  
Sharon E Straus
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
National Level ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Direct Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
The Past

AbstractBackgroundMultiple long-term care (LTC) reports over the last 30 years issued similar recommendations for improvement across Canadian LTC homes. Our primary objective was to identify the most common recommendations made over the past 10 years. Our secondary objective was to estimate the total cost of studying LTC issues repeatedly over the past 30 years.MethodsThe qualitative and cost analyses were conducted in Canada from July to October 2020. Using a list of reports, inquiries and commission from The Royal Society of Canada Working Group on Long-Term Care, we coded recurrent recommendations in LTC reports. We contacted the sponsoring organizations for a cost estimate, including direct and indirect costs. All costs were adjusted to 2020 Canadian dollar values.ResultsOf the 80 Canadian LTC reports spanning the years of 1998 to 2020, twenty-four (30%) were based on a national level and 56 (70%) were focused on provinces or municipalities. Report length ranged from 4 to 1491 pages and the median number of contributors was 14 (interquartile range, IQR, 5–26) per report. The most common recommendation was to increase funding to LTC to improve staffing, direct care and capacity (67% of reports). A median of 8 (IQR 3.25– 18) recommendations were made per report. The total cost for all 80 reports was estimated to be $23,626,442.78.InterpretationProblems in Canadian LTC homes and their solutions have been known for decades. Despite this, governments and non-governmental agencies continue to produce more reports at a monetary and societal cost to Canadians.

scholarly journals The Development and Testing of KNACC: Knowledgeable Nursing Assistants as Creative Caregivers

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 675-675
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Eaton ◽  
Kristin Cloyes ◽  
Brooke Paulsen ◽  
Connie Madden ◽  
Lee Ellington
Keyword(s):  
Focus Groups ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Nursing Assistants ◽  
Direct Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Memory Care

Abstract Nursing assistants (NAs) provide 80% of direct care in long-term care settings, yet are seldom viewed as skilled professionals. Empowering NAs is linked to improved resident outcomes. In this study, we collaborate with NAs to adapt and test the feasibility and acceptability of arts-based creative caregiving techniques (CCG) for use in long-term care. We held a series of focus groups (n=14) to adapt, refine, and enhance usability. We then evaluated implementation in two waves of testing (n=8). Those working in memory care units were more likely to use all techniques, while those working in rehabilitation were more hesitant to implement. Participants reported using CCG to distract upset residents. Family members were excited about implementation, and NAs not participating wanted to learn CCG. Nursing assistants have the potential to become experts in creative caregiving but may require in-depth training to improve use.

scholarly journals Evaluating the integration of palliative care in national health systems: an indicator rating process with EAPC task force members to measure advanced palliative care development

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalia Arias-Casais ◽  
Eduardo Garralda ◽  
Miguel Antonio Sánchez-Cárdenas ◽  
John Y. Rhee ◽  
Carlos Centeno
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Task Force ◽  
National Level ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Rating Process

Abstract Background Palliative care (PC) development cannot only be assessed from a specialized provision perspective. Recently, PC integration into other health systems has been identified as a component of specialized development. Yet, there is a lack of indicators to assess PC integration for pediatrics, long-term care facilities, primary care, volunteering and cardiology. Aim To identify and design indicators capable of exploring national-level integration of PC into the areas mentioned above. Methods A process composed of a desk literature review, consultation and semi-structured interviews with EAPC task force members and a rating process was performed to create a list of indicators for the assessment of PC integration into pediatrics, long-term care facilities, primary care, cardiology, and volunteering. The new indicators were mapped onto the four domains of the WHO Public Health Strategy. Results The literature review identified experts with whom 11 semi-structured interviews were conducted. A total of 34 new indicators were identified for national-level monitoring of palliative care integration. Ten were for pediatrics, five for primary care, six for long-term care facilities, seven for volunteering, and six for cardiology. All indicators mapped onto the WHO domains of policy and education while only pediatrics had an indicator that mapped onto the domain of services. No indicators mapped onto the domain of use of medicines. Conclusion Meaningful contributions are being made in Europe towards the integration of PC into the explored fields. These efforts should be assessed in future regional mapping studies using indicators to deliver a more complete picture of PC development.

scholarly journals Calculating the True Costs of Food Service in Long-Term Care: Development of a Costing Methodology

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 88-88
Author(s):  
Mikaela Wheeler ◽  
Karen Abbey ◽  
Sandra Capra
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
Systems Approach ◽  
Food Service ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Oral Nutrition ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Real Cost ◽  
Future System ◽  
Care Development

Abstract As population’s age and the need for long term care (LTC) increases, so too does the focus on the costs to provide that care. Providing food, oral nutrition supplements and meals, can be a considerable expense to a home. The objective of this research was to develop a valid foodservice costing tool (FCT), to calculate the real cost of providing foods and meals in LTC. Current costing methodologies are not specific to LTC and do not account for all costs of a foodservice, including staff, procurement and nutrition supplements. An initial tool was developed using the systems approach in conjunction with literature and professional knowledge. This was piloted in real world contexts, using volunteer LTC homes. Four iterations of the tool were completed to assess its feasibility in calculating costs and useability. Managers were interviewed after completing the tool to gather an understanding of how the tool was interpreted and to refine completion. Following feedback, the resulting tool consists of nine sections, measuring both costs incurred in meal production and service as well as analysis of staff workloads. Preliminary results show consistency between homes within Australia, indicating that the true cost is much higher than that reported in the literature to date. The development of a comprehensive, usable tool which captures the total cost of foodservice allows homes to accurately report and understand costs from a systems level. This information can be used to demonstrate cost effectiveness of a foodservice and the potential to justify and plan future system changes.

scholarly journals #MoreThanAVisitor: Families as “Essential” Care Partners During COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Candace L Kemp
Keyword(s):  
Family Involvement ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Direct Care ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Public Health Response ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Partners

Abstract The public health response to the current Coronavirus pandemic in long-term care communities, including assisted living, encompasses prohibiting visitors. This ban, which includes family members, has been criticized for being unfair, unhealthy, and unsafe. Against this backdrop, I examine the roles family play in residents’ daily lives and care routines. I argue that classifying family as “visitors” rather than essential care partners overlooks their critical contributions and stems from taken-for-granted assumption about gender, families, and care work, and I demonstrate why families are more than visitors. Policies that ban family visits also reflect a narrow understanding of health that focuses on mitigating infection risk, but neglects overall health and well-being. This policy further stems from a limited comprehension of care relations. Research shows that banning family visits has negative consequences for residents, but also families themselves, and direct care workers. I argue that identifying ways to better understand and support family involvement is essential and demonstrate the utility of the Convoys of Care model for guiding the reconceptualization of family in long-term care research, policy, and practice during and beyond the pandemic.

scholarly journals Is Long-Term Care Person Centred? A Case Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarina Young
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
Direct Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Study Approach ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Direct Care Providers ◽  
Government Legislation

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.

scholarly journals It Is Time to Resolve the Direct Care Workforce Crisis in Long-Term Care

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kezia Scales
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Direct Care ◽  
Direct Care Workers ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Home Health Aides ◽  
Emerging Trends ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Direct Care Workforce

Abstract Nearly 4.6 million direct care workers—including personal care aides, home health aides, and nursing assistants—provide daily support to older adults and people with disabilities across a range of settings in the United States, predominantly in long-term care (LTC). Even as the population grows older and drives up demand for LTC, the sector continues its decades-long struggle to fill direct care positions and stabilize this essential workforce. Recent events and emerging trends have converged, however, to produce new opportunities to address this longstanding workforce crisis, including the unprecedented attention generated by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the systemic shifts to managed care and value-based payment in LTC. This Forum article outlines the pressing direct care workforce challenges in LTC before describing these potential levers of change, emphasizing the importance of not just expanding the workforce but also maximizing direct care workers’ contributions to the delivery of high-quality services for a growing and evolving population of LTC consumers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document