Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-14T17:23:43.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Regulating quality of long-term care – what have we learned?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2014

Tiziana Leone
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Anna Maresso
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Vincent Mor
Affiliation:
Brown University
Vincent Mor
Affiliation:
Brown University, Rhode Island
Tiziana Leone
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Anna Maresso
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In this chapter we summarize key findings from the fourteen case studies, following the themes set out in Chapter 1. In particular, we aim to highlight features of the regulatory functions operating in each country, namely what type of long-term care regulatory system is in place (e.g., data-oriented or professionally oriented), its level of centralization or decentralization and, most importantly, whether any information on quality is collected and, if so, how it is used in efforts to assure and improve long-term care quality.

Long-term care regulatory approaches

The variation in approach to long-term care quality regulation characterized in the chapters of this book makes it very challenging to develop a coherent yet concise system to classify the different approaches that countries have adopted. We have attempted to classify the countries by broad regulatory approach (Table 16.1) based on the general characteristics that they share. We understand that the classifications may not be a ‘snug’ fit for each of the different systems we’ve proposed. However, the classification scheme offers a reasonably close account of the streams of regulations and quality assurance processes found in the countries represented in this book. One of the most striking things to emerge from our comparative work is that the Austrian, German, Japanese and Swiss approaches to specifying the educational levels, training and even staff certification requirements for their long-term care workforces underpins the regulatory framework operating in these countries. From our perspective, these governments cede the main responsibility for upholding standards to professional and/or provider organizations. Government sees itself as a partner in assuring quality. >This approach is quite distinct from that of the more empirical, inspection-based approaches in place in Australia, England, the Netherlands and Spain, which focus much more on government authorities monitoring providers’ compliance with statutorily defined regulations. It is even more different from the inspection-oriented systems in countries that have added a data-intensive quality measurement and public reporting approach, as is in place in Canada, Finland, New Zealand and the US. With their relatively newer long-term care systems, we’ve classified South Korea and China as having ‘developing’ regulatory approaches. Time will tell whether they will more naturally fall into any of the other three broad categories that we have created to classify the different approaches countries have adopted.

Type
Chapter
Information
Regulating Long-Term Care Quality
An International Comparison
, pp. 447 - 476
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

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.)

References

Brodsky, J., Habib, J. and Mizrahi, I. (2000). Long-Term Care in Five Developed Countries. A Review. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Colombo, F., Llena-Nozal, A., Mercier, J. and Tjadens, F. (2011). Help wanted? Providing and paying for long-term care. OECD Health Policy Studies. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at: .
Smith, P. C., Mossialos, E., Leatherman, S. and Papanicolas, I. (eds.) (2009). Performance Measurement for Health System Improvement: Experiences, Challenges and Prospects. Cambridge University Press.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×