Needs assessment in long-term care: expression of national principles for priority setting in service allocation.

BACKGROUND: Long-term care services for older adults are characterised by increasing needs and scarce resources. Political strategies have led to the reorganisation of long-term care services, with an increased focus on "ageing in place" and efficient use of resources. There is currently limited research on the processes by which resource allocation decisions are made by service allocators of long-term care services for older adults. The aim of this study is to explore how three political principles for priority setting in long-term care, resource, severity and benefit, are expressed in service allocation to older adults. METHODS: This qualitative study uses data from semi-structured individual interviews, focus groups and observations of service allocators who assess needs and assign long-term care services to older adults in Norway. The data were supplemented with individual decision letters from the allocation office, granting or denying long-term care services. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The allocators drew on all three principles for priority setting when assessing older adults' long-term care needs and allocating services. We found that the three principles pushed in different directions in the allocation process. We identified six themes related to service allocators' expression of the principles: (1) lowest effective level of care as a criterion for service allocation (resource), (2) blanket allocation of low-cost care services (resource), (3) severity of medical and rehabilitation needs (severity), (4) severity of care needs (severity), (5) benefit of generous service allocation (benefit) and (6) benefit of avoiding services (benefit). CONCLUSIONS: The expressions of the three political principles for priority setting in long-term care allocation are in accordance with broader political trends and discourses regarding "ageing in place", active ageing, an investment ideology, and prioritising those who are "worse off". Increasing attention to the rehabilitation potential of older adults and expectations that they will take care of themselves increase the risk of not meeting frail older adults' care needs. Additionally, difficulties in defining the severity of older adults' complex needs lead to debates regarding "worse off" versus potentiality in future long-term care services allocation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Quality of Municipal Long-Term Care in Different Models of Care: A Cross-Sectional Study From Norway.

The quality of care remains a critical concern for health systems around the globe, especially in an era of unprecedented financial challenges and rising demands. Previous research indicates large variation in several indicators of quality in the long-term care setting, highlighting the need for further investigation into the factors contributing to such disparities. As different ways of delivering long-term care services likely affect quality of care, the objectives of our study is to investigate (1) variation in structure, process and outcome quality between municipalities, and (2) to what extent variation in quality is associated with municipal models of care and structural characteristics. The study had a cross-sectional approach and we utilized data on the municipal level from 3 sources: (1) a survey for models of care (2) Statistics Norway for municipal structural characteristics and (3) the National Health Care Quality Indicator System. Descriptive statistics showed that the Norwegian long-term care sector performs better (measured as percentage or probability) on structure (85.53) and outcome (84.86) quality than process (37.85) quality. Hierarchical linear regressions indicated that municipal structural characteristics and model of care had very limited effect on the quality of long-term care. A deeper understanding of variation in service quality may be found at the micro level in healthcare workers' day-to-day practice.

Modes and models of care delivery in municipal long-term care services: a cross-sectional study from Norway.

BACKGROUND: Numerous forces drive the evolution and need for transformation of long-term care services. Decision-makers across the globe are searching for models to redesign long-term care to become more responsive to changing health and care needs. Yet, knowledge of different care models unfolding in the long-term care service landscape is limited. The objective of this article is twofold: 1) to identify and characterise models of care in Norwegian municipal long-term care services based on four different modes of service delivery: Specialised municipal services, Assistive technology, Planning and coordination, and Health Promotion and Activity, and 2) to analyse whether the identified care models vary with regard to municipal characteristics, more specifically 'population size' and 'income'. METHODS: We adopted a cross-sectional approach and used data from a web-based survey conducted in 2019 to identify and characterize models of care in Norwegian long-term care services, based on four modes of service delivery. The questionnaire was developed through a comprehensive review of national healthcare policy documents and previous research and amended in collaboration with a user panel. A set of questions from the questionnaire were used to create four modes of service delivery. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to cluster the municipalities based on the mean scores of the modes to identify care models. RESULTS: In total, 277 municipalities (response rate 66%) completed the survey. The four modes made it possible to identify four care models that differ on the level of Specialised municipal services, Assistive technology, Planning and coordination, and Health Promotion and Activity. Additionally, the models differed regarding municipal population size (p < 0.001) and income (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: We put forward a theoretical description of the variety of ways long-term care services are provided, offering a way of simplifying complex information which can assist care providers and policymakers in analysing and monitoring their own service provision and making informed decisions. This is important to the development of services for current and future care needs.