Public health service board members' understanding of care quality in residential aged care services.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jo-Anne Rayner, Deirdre Fetherstonhaugh, Linda McAuliffe
{"title":"Public health service board members' understanding of care quality in residential aged care services.","authors":"Jo-Anne Rayner,&nbsp;Deirdre Fetherstonhaugh,&nbsp;Linda McAuliffe","doi":"10.1071/AH23009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective The objective of this study was to explore how health service boards understand care quality for older people living in public sector residential aged care services. Methods Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with board members from six Victorian public health services responsible for the governance of 15 residential aged care services comprising over 850 beds. Transcripts were thematically analysed. Results Eleven board members were interviewed. While committed to their governance and monitoring role, analysis suggests board members have a limited understanding of the residential aged care environment. They rarely visit and the information they receive about residential aged care is primarily clinical data (quality indicators) as well as sub-committee and staff reports. In addition to quality indicator data and reports, accreditation and complaints are used to measure care quality. Conclusion Board members vary in their understanding of care quality in residential aged care settings. The exclusive focus on clinical indicators and accreditation as measures of quality reinforces this understanding. Visiting residential aged care services would provide understanding of the care environment and context for the information they receive. The provision of other metrics, such as consumer advocacy reports and residents' and families' experiences of care, would further assist board members to monitor care quality in these settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":55425,"journal":{"name":"Australian Health Review","volume":"47 4","pages":"427-432"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Health Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH23009","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to explore how health service boards understand care quality for older people living in public sector residential aged care services. Methods Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with board members from six Victorian public health services responsible for the governance of 15 residential aged care services comprising over 850 beds. Transcripts were thematically analysed. Results Eleven board members were interviewed. While committed to their governance and monitoring role, analysis suggests board members have a limited understanding of the residential aged care environment. They rarely visit and the information they receive about residential aged care is primarily clinical data (quality indicators) as well as sub-committee and staff reports. In addition to quality indicator data and reports, accreditation and complaints are used to measure care quality. Conclusion Board members vary in their understanding of care quality in residential aged care settings. The exclusive focus on clinical indicators and accreditation as measures of quality reinforces this understanding. Visiting residential aged care services would provide understanding of the care environment and context for the information they receive. The provision of other metrics, such as consumer advocacy reports and residents' and families' experiences of care, would further assist board members to monitor care quality in these settings.

公共卫生服务委员会委员对安老院舍服务的护理质素的认识。
目的本研究的目的是探讨卫生服务委员会如何了解居住在公共部门住宿老年护理服务的老年人的护理质量。方法采用半结构式访谈,访谈对象为6个维多利亚州公共卫生服务机构的董事会成员,这些机构负责管理15个住宅老年护理服务机构,包括850多个床位。对转录本进行主题分析。结果对11名董事会成员进行了访谈。分析显示,尽管董事会成员致力于发挥治理和监督作用,但他们对养老院环境的了解有限。他们很少上门,收到的有关院舍长者护理的资料主要是临床资料(质素指标),以及小组委员会和工作人员的报告。除了质量指标数据和报告外,还使用认证和投诉来衡量护理质量。委员会成员对居家养老机构护理质量的理解各不相同。专注于临床指标和认证作为质量措施加强了这种理解。探访安老院舍服务,可让长者了解安老院舍的环境及背景。提供其他指标,如消费者权益报告和居民和家庭的护理经验,将进一步帮助委员会成员监测这些环境中的护理质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Australian Health Review
Australian Health Review 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
134
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Health Review is an international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes contributions on all aspects of health policy, management and governance; healthcare delivery systems; workforce; health financing; and other matters of interest to those working in health care. In addition to analyses and commentary, the journal publishes original research from practitioners – managers and clinicians – and reports of breakthrough projects that demonstrate better ways of delivering care. Australian Health Review explores major national and international health issues and questions, enabling health professionals to keep their fingers on the pulse of the nation’s health decisions and to know what the most influential commentators and decision makers are thinking. Australian Health Review is a valuable resource for managers, policy makers and clinical staff in health organisations, including government departments, hospitals, community centres and aged-care facilities, as well as anyone with an interest in the health industry. Australian Health Review is published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信