Background: Aged Care Assessment Teams are the assessment component of the Australian aged care system. Their purpose is to undertake needs-based assessments to determine an older person's eligibility for, and access to Commonwealth-funded aged care services. There are no measures that tell us if the aged care assessment service is of high quality from the perspective of the person being assessed. Quality measures have been developed and introduced in Australian residential aged care facilities. These however, have not considered the perspectives of those living in this setting. Quality measures for home care services have also been recommended. This research aims to address the gap in person-centred quality measures by asking current and future service users of aged care assessment services to vote on the importance of 24 person-centred quality indicators (PC-QIs), that were developed in a previous study using a modified Delphi method approach supported by engagement with a consumer led Advisory Board.
Methods: This mixed methods study used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to reach consensus on a final set of PC-QIs. Twenty-five community-dwelling older people in Brisbane, Australia, voted on the importance of 24 PC-QIs using a five-point Likert scale. A consensus statement for PC-QI elimination was determined prior to participants voting. Voting was undertaken with participants individually either face-to-face or via telephone, in their homes. To capture any narrative provided by participants regarding each PC-QI, participant voting sessions were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim. Quantitative data from participant votes for each PC-QI were calculated and statistically described by median, interquartile range, consensus met, percentile, percentile rank, rank order, median and standard deviation. PC-QIs were then assessed against the consensus statement for elimination and rank ordered according to importance to participants. Content analysis of qualitative data from audio transcriptions was conducted to determine the presence of certain words supporting participant votes for each PC-QI.
Results: No PC-QIs were eliminated during voting. Variation existed among participants' ratings of importance for each PC-QI. Final quality domains, their respective title, quality indicator descriptor and supporting qualitative data are presented. Five PC-QIs had a median of five, no votes recorded below four, an interquartile range of zero, and a rank order score of one, two and four, out of a possible ten, indicating they were of highest importance to participants.
Conclusion: Participants reached consensus on 24 evidence-based PC-QIs that represent measures of quality of aged care assessment services from the perspectives of current and future service users.
Keywords: Aged care assessment services; Older people; Person-centred quality indicators; Policy; Quality measures.
In Australia, people 65 years or over, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 50 years or over, can apply to access aged care services funded by the Australian government (Australian Government, Department of Health and Aged Care. 2021-2022 Report on the Operation of the Aged Care Act 1997, 2022). Services the government funds include supporting older people to live at home, residential aged care if the person can’t live at home, and short-term rehabilitation (Australian Government, Department of Health and Aged Care. 2021-2022 Report on the Operation of the Aged Care Act 1997, 2022). To access these services, a person needs to fill out an application form and undergo an aged care assessment. Another person can help complete the application. The purpose of the aged care assessment is to assess the person’s needs to determine what aged care services they are eligible to access. There are no measures that tell us if the aged care assessment service is of high quality from the perspective of the person being assessed. Twenty-four measures of quality were developed in a previous study with support from a consumer Advisory Board (Smith S, Travers C, Roberts N, Martin‐Khan M. Health Expect, 2024). This study asked 25 older people living in Brisbane, the importance of the 24 measures, to decide if any should be eliminated. People were asked to vote using a number scale where number one meant it ‘wasn’t important’, and five meant it was ‘extremely important.’ A consensus statement was agreed to decide if a measure would be eliminated. All measures were voted as being important with no measure eliminated. Quality Measures voted as being important included receiving assessments from knowledgeable health care staff, who treated them with dignity and respect, adopted a person-centred approach, established a collaborative relationship, and communicated clearly.
© 2024. The Author(s).