Harrison Stephanie L, Dyer Suzanne M, Milte Rachel, Liu Enwu, Gnanamanickam Emmanuel S, Crotty Maria
Rehabilitation, Aged and Extended Care, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
NHMRC Cognitive Decline Partnership Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Australas J Ageing. 2019 Sep;38 Suppl 2:68-74. doi: 10.1111/ajag.12674.
A clustered domestic model of residential aged care has been associated with better consumer-rated quality of care. Our objective was to examine differences in staffing structures between clustered domestic and standard models.
A cross-sectional study involving 541 individuals living in 17 Australian not-for-profit residential aged care homes.
Four of the homes offered dementia-specific clustered domestic models of care with higher personal care attendant (PCA) hours-per-resident-per-day (mean [SD] 2.43 [0.29] vs. 1.74 [0.46], P < 0.001), slightly higher direct care hours-per-resident-per-day (2.66 [0.35] vs. 2.58 [0.44], P = 0.006), higher staff training costs ($1492 [258] vs. $989 [928], P < 0.001) and lower registered/enrolled nurse hours-per-resident-per-day (0.23 [0.10] vs. 0.85 [0.17], P < 0.001) compared to standard models.
An Australian clustered domestic model of care had higher PCA hours, more staff training and more direct care time compared to standard models. Further research to determine optimal staffing structures within alternative models of care is warranted.
家庭式集中居住的老年护理模式与消费者评价的更高护理质量相关。我们的目的是研究家庭式集中居住模式和标准模式在人员配备结构上的差异。
一项横断面研究，涉及居住在澳大利亚17家非营利性老年护理院的541人。
其中四家养老院提供针对痴呆症患者的家庭式集中居住护理模式，其每位居民每天的个人护理助理（PCA）工作时长更高（均值[标准差]为2.43[0.29]小时，而标准模式为1.74[0.46]小时，P<0.001），每位居民每天的直接护理时长略高（2.66[0.35]小时对2.58[0.44]小时，P = 0.006），员工培训成本更高（1492[258]美元对989[928]美元，P<0.001），且每位居民每天的注册/登记护士工作时长更低（0.23[0.10]小时对0.85[0.17]小时，P<0.001）。
与标准模式相比，澳大利亚的家庭式集中居住护理模式有更高的PCA工作时长、更多的员工培训和更多的直接护理时间。有必要进行进一步研究以确定替代护理模式中的最佳人员配备结构。
