Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-g4pgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-17T19:32:56.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Information and choice of residential care provider for older people: a comparative study in England, the Netherlands and Spain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

LISA TRIGG ,
STEPHANIE KUMPUNEN ,
JACQUETTA HOLDER ,
HANS MAARSE ,
MERITXELL SOLÉ JUVÉS  and
JOAN GIL
LISA TRIGG*
Affiliation:
Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK.
STEPHANIE KUMPUNEN
Affiliation:
Nuffield Trust, London, UK.
HANS MAARSE
Affiliation:
Department of Health Services Research, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands.
MERITXELL SOLÉ JUVÉS
Affiliation:
Department of Economic Theory, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Barcelona, Spain.
JOAN GIL
Affiliation:
Department of Economic Theory, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Barcelona, Spain.
*
Address for correspondence: Lisa Trigg, Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK E-mail: l.j.trigg@lse.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study compared how older people use quality information to choose residential care providers in England, the Netherlands and Spain (Catalonia). The availability of information varies between each country, from detailed inspection and survey information in the Netherlands, through to a lack of publicly available information in Catalonia. We used semi-structured interviews and group workshops with older people, families and professionals to compare experiences of the decision-making process and quality information, and also to explore what quality information might be used in the future. We found that most aspects of the decision-making experience and preferences for future indicators were similar across the three countries. The use of quality information was minimal across all three, even in England and the Netherlands where information was widely available. Differences arose mainly from factors with the supply of care. Older people were most interested in the subjective experiences of other residents and relatives, rather than ‘hard’ objective indicators of aspects such as clinical care. We find that the amount of publicly available quality information does not in itself influence the decisions or the decision-making processes of older people and their carers. To improve the quality of decisions, more effort needs to be taken to increase awareness and to communicate quality in more accessible ways, including significant support from professionals and better design of quality information.

Keywords

quality informationdecision-makingolder peopleresidential carechoice

Information

Type
Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 38 , Issue 6 , June 2018 , pp. 1121 - 1147
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alders, P., Costa-Font, J., De Klerk, M. and Frank, R. 2015. What is the impact of policy differences on nursing home utilization? The cases of Germany and the Netherlands. Health Policy, 119, 6, 814–20.Google Scholar
Ariño Blasco, S., Solé, M., Rubert, R., Sanjuan, J. M. and Gil, J. 2014. The regulatory structure of Spanish long-term care: the case of Catalonia's service structures and quality assurance systems. In Mor, V., Leone, T. and Maresso, A. (eds), The Challenges in Regulating Long-term Care Quality: An International Comparison. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 240–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Directors of Adult Social Services 2014. ADASS Budget Survey Report 2014: Final. Available online at http://www.adass.org.uk/uploadedFiles/adass_content/policy_networks/resources/Key_documents/ADASS%20Budget%20Survey%20Report%202014%20Final.pdf [Accessed 10 October 2015].Google Scholar
Baxter, K. and Glendinning, C. 2013. The role of emotions in the process of making choices about welfare services: the experiences of disabled people in England. Social Policy and Society, 12, 3, 439–450.Google Scholar
Baxter, K., Rabiee, P. and Glendinning, C. 2013. Managed personal budgets for older people: what are English local authorities doing to facilitate personalized and flexible care? Public Money and Management, 33, 6, 399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bebbington, A., Darton, R. and Netten, A. 2001. Care Homes for Older People. Volume 2: Admissions, Needs and Outcomes. Personal Social Services Research Unit, Canterbury, UK.Google Scholar
Boyd, M., Bowman, C., Broad, J. B. and Connolly, M. J. 2012. International comparison of long-term care resident dependency across four countries (1998–2009): a descriptive study. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 31, 4, 233–40.Google Scholar
Castle, N. G. 2003. Searching for and selecting a nursing facility. Medical Care Research and Review, 60, 2, 223–47.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. 2006. Consumers, clients or citizens? Politics, policy and practice in the reform of social care. European Societies, 8, 3, 423–42.Google Scholar
Comas-Herrera, A., Pickard, L., Wittenberg, R., Malley, J. and King, D. 2010. The Long-term Care System for the Elderly in England. ENEPRI Research Report 74, European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes. Available online at http://www.ancien-longtermcare.eu/sites/default/files/ENEPRI%20_ANCIEN_%20RRNo%2074England.pdf [Accessed 1 September 2014].Google Scholar
Comas-Herrera, A. and Wittenberg, R. 2003. Long-term Care Expenditure in an Ageing Society. Report to the European Commission, Employment and Social Affairs DG. Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=2876&langId=en [Accessed 4 September 2014].Google Scholar
Costa-Font, J. and Patxot, C. 2005. The design of the long-term care system in Spain: policy and financial constraints. Social Policy and Society, 4, 1, 11–20.Google Scholar
Darby, M. R. and Karni, E. 1973. Free competition and optimal amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16, 1, 67–88.Google Scholar
Davies, S. and Nolan, M. 2003. ‘Making the best of things’: relatives’ experiences of decisions about care-home entry. Ageing & Society, 23, 4, 429–50.Google Scholar
Department of Health 2005. Independence, Well-being and Choice: Our Vision of the Future of Social Care for Adults in England. The Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Department of Health 2010. A Vision for Adult Social Care: Capable Communities and Active Citizens. The Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Eika, K. H. 2009. The challenge of obtaining quality care: limited consumer sovereignty in human services. Feminist Economics, 15, 1, 113–37.Google Scholar
Ettelt, S., Wittenberg, R., Williams, L., Perkins, M., Lombard, D., Damant, J. and Mays, N. 2015. Evaluation of Direct Payments in Residential Care Trailblazers. Interim Report. Policy Innovation Research Unit. Available online at http://www.piru.ac.uk/assets/files/DPs%20in%20Residential%20Care%20Trailblazers%20-%20Interim%20Report.pdf [Accessed 10 December 2015].Google Scholar
Fasolo, B., Reutskaja, E., Dixon, A. and Boyce, T. 2010. Helping patients choose: how to improve the design of comparative scorecards of hospital quality. Patient Education and Counseling, 78, 3, 344–9.Google Scholar
Fernández-Carro, C. 2014. Ageing at home, co-residence or institutionalisation? Preferred care and residential arrangements of older adults in Spain. Ageing & Society, 36, 3, 586–612.Google Scholar
Glendinning, C., Challis, D., Fernandez, J., Jacobs, S., Jones, K., Knapp, M., Manthorpe, J., Moran, N., Netten, A. and Stevens, M. 2008. Evaluation of the Individual Budgets Pilot Programme. Final Report. Social Policy Research Unit, University of York. Available online at http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/pdf/IBSEN.pdf [Accessed 21 September 2014].Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, M. F., Jiménez-Martín, S., Sánchez, R. V. and Vilaplana, C. 2010. The Spanish Long-term Care System. ENEPRI Research Report 88, European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes. Available online at http://www.ancien-longtermcare.eu/sites/default/files/ENEPRI%20_ANCIEN_%20RR%20No%2088%20Spain.pdf [Accessed 1 September 2014].Google Scholar
HM Government 2014. Care Act 2014, Chapter 23. The Stationery Office, London. Available online at www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/23/enacted [Accessed 1 September 2015].Google Scholar
Holder, J. M. and Jolley, D. 2012. Forced relocation between nursing homes: residents’ health outcomes and potential moderators. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 22, 4, 301–19.Google Scholar
Instituto Nacional de Estadística 2013. Censos de Población y Viviendas 2011. Poblacion resdiente en establecimientos colectivos. Available online at http://www.ine.es/prensa/np777.pdf [Accessed 4 September 2014].Google Scholar
Johnson, J., Rolph, S. and Smith, R. 2010. Residential Care Transformed: Revisiting ‘the Last Refuge’. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketelaar, N. A., Faber, M. J., Flottorp, S., Rygh, L. H., Deane, K. H. and Eccles, M. P. 2011. Public release of performance data in changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, professionals or organisations. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 11. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004538.pub2].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumpunen, S., Trigg, L. and Rodrigues, R. 2014. Public Reporting in Health and Long-term Care to Facilitate Provider Choice. Policy Summary 13, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, World Health Organization. Available online at http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/263540/Public-reporting-in-health-and-long-term-care-to-facilitate-provider-choice-Eng.pdf?ua=1 [Accessed 1 October 2014].Google Scholar
Laing and Buisson 2013. Care of Elderly People. UK Market Survey 2012–13. Twenty-third edition, Laing and Buisson, London.Google Scholar
Leyland, A. F., Scott, J. and Dawson, P. 2016. Involuntary relocation and safe transfer of care home residents: a model of risks and opportunities in residents’ experiences. Ageing & Society, 36, 2, 376–99.Google Scholar
Lundh, U., Sandberg, J. and Nolan, M. 2000. ‘I don't have any other choice’: spouses’ experiences of placing a partner in a care home for older people in Sweden. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32, 5, 1178–86.Google Scholar
Lundsgaard, J. 2005. Consumer Direction and Choice in Long-term Care for Older Persons, Including Payments for Informal Care: How Can it Help Improve Care Outcomes, Employment and Fiscal Sustainability? Available online at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/62/34897775.pdf [Accessed 10 February 2011].Google Scholar
Maarse, J. A. M. and Jeurissen, P. P. 2016. The policy and politics of the 2015 long-term care reform in the Netherlands. Health Policy, 120, 3, 241–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maarse, J. A., Ruwaard, D. and Spreeuwenberg, C. 2013. The governance of quality management in Dutch health care: new developments and strategic challenges. Quality Management in Health Care, 22, 3, 236–47.Google Scholar
Malley, J. and Fernández, J. 2010. Measuring quality in social care services: theory and practice. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 81, 4, 559–82.Google Scholar
Manthorpe, J. and Samsi, K. 2016. Care homes and the Mental Capacity Act 2005: changes in understanding and practice over time. Dementia, 15, 4, 858–71.Google Scholar
Miller, C., Bunnin, A. and Rayner, V. 2013. Older People Who Self Fund Their Social Care: A Guide for Health and Wellbeing Boards and Commissioners. OPM, London. Available online at http://www.opm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Older-people-who-self-fund-their-care-report.pdf [Accessed 13 September 2013].Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. 1956. The magical number 7, plus or minus 2 – some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 2, 81–97.Google Scholar
Mot, E., Aouragh, A. L. I., De Groot, M. and Mannaerts, H. 2010. The Long-term Care System for the Elderly in the Netherlands. ENEPRI Research Report 90, European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes. Available online at http://www.ancien-longtermcare.eu/sites/default/files/LTCSYSteminThe%20Netehrlands_RR90.pdf [Accessed 10 July 2011]Google Scholar
Nederlandse Zorgautoriteit 2012. Markscan extramurale zorg. Nederlandse Zorgautoriteit, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Netten, A., Darton, R., Curtis, L. and Britain, G. 2001. Self-funded Admissions to Care Homes. Research Report 159, Department of Work and Pensions, Leeds, UK.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/European Commission 2013. A Good Life in Old Age? Monitoring and Improving Quality in Long-term Care. OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
Passingham, A., Holloway, J. and Bottery, S. 2013. Care Home Top-up Fees: The Secret Subsidy. Independent Age, London. Available online at http://www.independentage.org/media/567693/Care-Concerns-2013-Prerelease.pdf [Accessed 1 January 2014].Google Scholar
Patxot, C., Rentería, E., Scandurra, R. and Souto, G. 2012. Annual National Report 2012. Pensions, Health Care and Long-term Care. Spain. Available online at http://www.socialprotection.eu/files_db/1227/asisp_ANR12_SPAIN.pdf [Accessed 23 August 2014].Google Scholar
Rabiee, P., Baxter, K. and Glendinning, C. 2015. Supporting choice: Support planning, older people and managed personal budgets. Journal of Social Work, 16, 4, 453–69.Google Scholar
Reed, J., Payton, V. R. and Bond, S. 1998. Settling in and moving on: transience and older people in care homes. Social Policy and Administration, 32, 2, 151–65.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J. and Spencer, L. (eds) 2002. Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, R. and Glendinning, C. 2015. Choice, competition and care – developments in English social care and the impacts on providers and older users of home care services. Social Policy and Administration, 49, 5, 649–64.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, R., Trigg, L., Schmidt, A. and Leichsenring, K. 2014. The public gets what the public wants: experiences of public reporting in long-term care in Europe. Health Policy, 116, 1, 84–94.Google Scholar
Samsi, K., Manthorpe, J. and Rapaport, P. 2011. ‘As people get to know it more’: experiences and expectations of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 amongst local information, advice and advocacy services. Social Policy and Society, 10, 1, 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seybert, H. 2012. Internet Use in Households and by Individuals in 2012. Luxembourg. Available online at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-12-050/EN/KS-SF-12-050-EN.PDF [Accessed 16 July 2014].Google Scholar
Shekelle, P. G., Lim, Y.-W., Mattke, S. and Damberg, C. 2008. Does Public Release of Performance Results Improve Quality of Care? A Systematic Review. Quest for Quality and Improved Performance, The Health Foundation, London.Google Scholar
Shugarman, L. and Brown, J. 2006. Nursing Home Selection: How Do Consumers Choose? Volume I: Findings from Focus Groups of Consumers and Information Intermediaries. Rand Corporation. Available online at http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/2007/RAND_WR457.1.pdf [Accessed 13 June 2011].Google Scholar
Taskforce Beheersing Zorguitgaven, 2012. Naar een beter betaalbare zorg. Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport, Den Haag.Google Scholar