Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-pkshj Total loading time: 0.677 Render date: 2021-11-29T16:00:54.475Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Observations on Institutional Long-Term Care in Ontario: 1996–2002*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2010

Whitney Berta*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Audrey Laporte
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Vivian Valdmanis
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
Requests for offprints should be sent to: / Les demandes de tirés-à-part doivent être addressées à : Whitney Berta, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Health Services Organization and Management, Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, McMurrich Building, 2nd Floor, 12 Queen's Park Crescent, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8. (whit.berta@utoronto.ca)

Abstract

We provide descriptive statistics for data collected via the Residential Care Facilities Survey (RCFS), from long-term care (LTC) facilities operating in Ontario between 1996 and 2002. The LTC sector in Ontario is dominated by large, proprietary for-profit facilities. The proportion of residents receiving extended care has increased from 53 per cent in 1996 to over 61 per cent in 2002. Government-owned facilities are significantly larger than both for-profit proprietary facilities and lay non-profit facilities. Religious and lay non-profit facilities provide care to more residents 85 years of age and older than do for-profit and government-owned facilities, while government-owned facilities provide care to a greater proportion of higher needs residents. Government-owned facilities have higher nursing intensity levels and higher direct care staffing levels than other ownership types, while for-profit facilities have significantly lower levels than other facility types. Non-profit operators have higher ratios of administrative to care staff than proprietary and government-owned facilities.

Résumé

Nous fournissons des statistiques descriptives sur les données recueillies par l'entremise de l'Enquête sur les établissements de soins pour bénéficiaires internes menée auprès d'établissements de soins de longue durée (SLD) exploités en Ontario entre 1996 et 2002. En Ontario, le secteur des SLD est dominé par d'importants établissements privés à but lucratif. Le pourcentage de pensionnaires recevant des soins de longue durée a augmenté, passant de 53% en 1996 à plus de 61% en 2002. Les établissements de soins exploités par le secteur public sont beaucoup plus grands que les établissements privés à but lucratif et les établissements laïques sans but lucratif. Les établissements religieux et laïques sans but lucratif prennent en charge davantage de pensionnaires de 85 ans et plus que ne le font les établissements privés à but lucratif et les établissements publics ; ces derniers prodiguent des soins à un plus grand nombre de pensionnaires ayant des besoins aigus. Les niveaux d'intensité des soins infirmiers et le pourcentage de personnel affecté aux soins directs sont plus élevés dans les établissements publics que dans les autres types d'établissements et les établissements à but lucratif ont des niveaux très inférieurs aux autres. Les établissements sans but lucratif ont des ratios personnel administratif/personnel soignant £ supérieurs à ceux des établissements privés et publics.

Type
Other Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2005

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.)

Footnotes

*

This paper is part of a project funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). We extend our thanks to members of our project Advisory Committee, including Mr. Richard Trudeau, Mr. John Lohrenz, Ms. Krista Robinson, and Dr. Mary Beth Montcalm, for their insights and discussions that have contributed to this work. Our special thanks to Dr. Raisa Deber for her comments on an early draft of the paper, and to M-THAC for providing start-up funding for developing the research proposal ultimately funded by the SSHRC. We thank Ms. Ellen Schraa for her research assistance. The project has received approval from the University of Toronto Research Ethics Committee.

References

Banaszak-Holl, J., Berta, W., Baum, J.A.C., & Mitchell, W. (2004). Comparing service and quality among chain and independent nursing homes during the 1990s. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Banaszak-Holl, J., Zinn, J.S., & Mor, V. (1996). The impact of market and organizational characteristics on nursing care facility service innovation: A resource dependency perspective. Health Services Research, 31(1), 97117.Google ScholarPubMed
Baum, J.A.C. (1996). Organizational ecology. In Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C., & Nord, W. (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 77114). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Baum, J.A.C. (1999). The rise of chain nursing homes in Canada, 1971–1996. Social Forces, 78, 543584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binstock, R.H., & Spector, W.D. (1997). Five priority areas for research on long-term care. Health Services Research, 32(5), 715730.Google ScholarPubMed
Canadian Healthcare Association (1996). Guide to Canadian Healthcare Facilities, Vol. 4. Ottawa: CHA Press.Google Scholar
Canadian Healthcare Association (2001). Guide to Canadian Healthcare Facilities, Vol. 9. Ottawa: CHA Press.Google Scholar
Canadian Healthcare Association (2003). Facility-based long-term care: A pan-Canadian reference. Retrieved December 16, 2004, from http://www.cha.ca/documents/PT%200rganization%20Governance%200f%20FLTC.pdfGoogle Scholar
Canadian Institutes for Health Information (2002). Long Term Residential Care in National Health Expenditures. Retrieved December 16, 2004, from http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/downloads/spend_nhexenhance_longterm2002.pdfGoogle Scholar
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2000). Appropriateness of minimum nurse staffing ratios in nursing homes phase II final report. Retrieved December 16, 2004, from http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicaid/reports/rp1201home.asp.Google Scholar
Cohen, J.W., & Dubay, L.C. (1990). The effects of reimbursement method and ownership on nursing home costs, case mix and staffing. Inquiry, 27, 183200.Google ScholarPubMed
Daft, R.L. (2004). Organization theory and design (8th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.Google Scholar
Deber, R., & Williams, A.P. Country portrait: Canada. Paper presented at the Four Country Conference on Aging and Health Policy. Toronto, Ontario. Canada. 2001.Google Scholar
Gray, B.H. (1991). The profit motive and patient care. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harrington, C., Woolhandler, S., Mullan, J., Carrillo, H., & Himmelstein, D.U. (2001). Does investor ownership of nursing homes compromise the quality of care? American Journal of Public Health, 91(9), 14521455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Health Services Restructuring Commission (1997). A discussion paper: Rebuilding Ontario's health system; Interim planning guidelines and implementation strategies. Toronto, Ontario. Canada.Google Scholar
Hébert, R. (May 2002). Research on aging: Providing evidence for rescuing the Canadian health care system. Submission to the Romanow Commission.Google Scholar
Hicks, V., Fortin, G., & Button, I. (2002). Long term residential care in national health expenditures: Feasibility study. Ottawa, Ontario. Canadian Institute for Health Information.Google Scholar
Jackson, W. (2003). Methods: Doing social research. Toronto: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Lemke, S., & Moos, R.H. (1989). Ownership and quality of care in residential facilities for the elderly. The Gerontologist, 29, 209215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lohrenz, J. (2003). The case mix classification system and funding of nursing and personal care services in Ontario long term care facilities. Toronto: Health Services Restructuring Commission.Google Scholar
Long Term Care Facility Funding Review Committee (2000). Report: Recommendations to improve long-term care facility funding in Ontario. Toronto. Ontario Long Term Care Association (OLTCA).Google Scholar
Lorinc, J. (September 1, 2003). Old. The Globe and Mail's Report on Business, 20(3), 7580.Google Scholar
McKelvey, B. (1982). Organizational systematics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (2002). Seniors' Care: Comparing Residential Care Options. Retrieved December 16, 2004, from http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/program/ltc/16_options.htmlGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, W., Venkatraman, A., Banaszak-Holl, J., Baum, J.A.C., & Berta, W. (November 2003). The commercialization of nursing home care: Does for-profit efficiency mean lower quality or do comparisons provide the best of both worlds? Paper presented at the 2003 Strategic Management Society Conference, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Mueller, C.H. (1999). Cautions about nurse staffing standards for nursing homes. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, May 6. 25(5), 6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors (2003). Fair funding: OANHSS LTC issues document. Retrieved date from http://www.oanhss.org/staticcontent/staticpages/frameset.html. August 16, 2004.Google Scholar
Ontario Long Term Care Association (November 2002). Funding submission by Ontario Long Term Care Association to Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Business Planning Allocation Process 2003–2004. Toronto. Ontario Long Term Care Association (OLTCA).Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Price Waterhouse Coopers (2001). Report of a study to review levels of service and responses to need in a sample of Ontario long term care facilities and selected comparators. Prepared for the Canada Long Term Care Association and the Canada Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors. Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
Robinson, J.C. (2001). Organizational economics and health care markets. Health Services Research, 36(1&2), 177189.Google ScholarPubMed
Romanow, R. (2002). Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. Building on values: The future of health care in Canada—final report. December 1, 2002. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/romanow/index1.html.Google Scholar
Rosko, M.D., Chilingerian, J.A., Zinn, J.S., & Aaronson, W.E. (1995). The effects of ownership, operating environment, and strategic choices on nursing home efficiency. Medical Care, 33, 10011021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, Monique (2004). Commitment to care: A plan for long-term care in Ontario. Toronto: Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada (2004). Residential care facilities. Retrieved December 16, 2004, from http://www.statcan.ca/english/sdds/3210.htmGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2002, June 7). Letter to N. Mehra. Retrieved December 16, 2004, from OLTCA Web site: http://www.oltca.com/en/newspub/reports.htmlGoogle Scholar
Weisbrod, B.A., & Schlesinger, M. (1986). Public, private, nonprofit ownership and the response to asymmetric information: The case of nursing homes. In Rose-Ackerman, S. (Ed.), The economics of nonprofit institutions: Studies in structure and policy (pp. 133151). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zinn, J.S., Aaronson, W.E., & Rosko, M.D. (1993). Variations in the outcomes of care provided in Pennsylvania nursing homes. Medical Care, 31(6), 475487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Observations on Institutional Long-Term Care in Ontario: 1996–2002*
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Observations on Institutional Long-Term Care in Ontario: 1996–2002*
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Observations on Institutional Long-Term Care in Ontario: 1996–2002*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *