Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:44:41.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Service providers' perceptions of working in residential aged care: a qualitative cross-sectional analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

MICHELLE K. BENNETT ,
ELIZABETH C. WARD ,
NERINA A. SCARINCI  and
MONIQUE C. WAITE
MICHELLE K. BENNETT*
Affiliation:
School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
ELIZABETH C. WARD
Affiliation:
School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Centre for Functioning and Health Research, Brisbane Queensland Health, Australia.
NERINA A. SCARINCI
Affiliation:
School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
MONIQUE C. WAITE
Affiliation:
School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Centre for Functioning and Health Research, Brisbane Queensland Health, Australia.
*
Address for correspondence: Michelle K. Bennett, PO Box 51 Holland Park, Brisbane, Queensland 4121. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A number of professional disciplines employed internally and externally provide services in Residential Aged Care Facilities (RACFs). Literature has long highlighted numerous workplace issues in RACFs, yet little progress has been made in addressing these. As such there has been a call for greater understanding of shared issues among service providers. The aim of the current study is to explore and compare the perceptions of a cross-section of service providers regarding the challenges and motivators to working in RACFs. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 61 participants including: care managers, nurses, assistants in nursing, care, domestic and support staff, and speech pathologists. Analysis revealed few issues unique to any one service discipline, with four key themes identified: (a) working in RACFs is both personally rewarding and personally challenging; (b) relationships and philosophies of care directly impact service provision, staff morale and resident quality of life; (c) a perceived lack of service-specific education and professional support impacts service provision; and (d) service provision in RACFs should be seen as a specialist area. These data confirm there are key personal and professional issues common across providers. Providers must work collaboratively to address these issues and advocate for greater recognition of RACFs as a specialist service area. Acknowledging, accepting and communicating shared perceptions will reduce ongoing issues and enhance multi-disciplinary care.

Keywords

ageinglong-term carecommunicationrelationship developmentmulti-disciplinary care
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 35 , Issue 9 , October 2015 , pp. 1989 - 2010
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

Australian Government Productivity Commission 2011. Caring for Older Australians. Report Number 53, Final Inquiry Report, Australian Government Productivity Commission, Canberra.Google Scholar
Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine 2011. The geriatricians’ perspective on medical services to Residential Aged Care Facilities (RCFs) in Australia. Position Statement Numbers 9 and 10, Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine, Sydney.Google Scholar
Ball, M. M., Whittington, F. J., Perkins, M. M., Patterson, V. L., Hollingsworth, C., King, S. V. and Combs, B. L. 2000. Quality of life in assisted living facilities: viewpoints of residents. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 19, 3, 304–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bard, T. R., Lowenstein, N. A. and Satin, D. G. 2000. Health management of older adults and disciplinary working relationships. In Satin, D. G. (ed.), Health Management for Older Adults: Developing and Interdisciplinary Approach. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 3–17.Google Scholar
Blackford, J., Strickland, E. and Morris, B. 2007. Advance care planning in residential aged care facilities. Contemporary Nurse, 27, 1, 141–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, S. L., Goodman, C., Bunn, F., Victor, C., Dickinson, A., Gage, H., Martin, W. and Froggatt, K. 2011. A systematic review of integrated working between care homes and health care services. BMC Health Services Research, 11, 1, 320–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dwyer, D. 2011. Experiences of residential nurses as managers and leaders in residential aged care facilities: a systematic review. International Journal of Evidence-based Healthcare, 9, 4, 388–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edvardsson, D., Fetherstonhaugh, D. and Nay, R. 2010. Promoting a continuation of self and normality: person-centred care as described by people with dementia, their family members, and aged care staff. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19, 17–18, 2611–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin-Johansson, C. 1996. How caregivers can affect quality of life in the nursing home. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 11, 4, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halcomb, E. J., Shepherd, B. M. and Griffiths, R. 2009. Perceptions of multidisciplinary case conferencing in residential aged care facilities. Australian Health Review, 33, 4, 566–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heumann, L. F., Boldy, D. P. and McCall, M. E. 2001. Opportunities and impediments in housing, health, and support service delivery. In Heumann, L. F., McCall, M. E. and Boldy, D. B. (eds), Empowering Frail Elderly People: Opportunities and Impediments in Housing, Health and Support Deliver. Praeger, Westport, Connecticut, 155–74.Google Scholar
Hoffart, N. 1991. A member check procedure to enhance rigor in naturalistic research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 13, 4, 522–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogan, W. P. 2004. Review of Pricing Arrangements in Residential Aged Care: Summary of the Report. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
Jeong, S. Y.-S. and Keatinage, D. 2004. Innovative leadership and management in a nursing home. Journal of Nursing Management, 12, 6, 445–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaasalainen, S., Williams, J., Hadjistavropoulos, T., Thorpe, L., Whiting, S., Neville, S. and Tremeer, J. 2010. Creating bridges between researchers and long-term care homes to promote quality of life for residents. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 12, 1689–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruegar, R. A. and Casey, M. A. 2000. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Third edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
Madriz, E. 2000. Focus groups in feminist research. In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Second edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, 835–50.Google Scholar
Maxwell, J. A. 1992. Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 3, 279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormack, B., Karlsson, B., Dewing, J. and Lerdal, A. 2010. Exploring person-centredness: a qualitative meta-synthesis of four studies. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 24, 3, 620–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGilton, K., Irwin-Robinson, H., Boscart, V. and Spanjevic, L. 2006. Communication enhancement: nurse and patient satisfaction outcomes in a complex continuing care facility. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54, 1, 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, S. K., Simmons, W. P., Penn, K. and Furlough, M. 2003. Determinants of satisfaction and turnover among nursing assistants. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 29, 3, 51–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Third edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
Perry, L., Bellchambers, H., Howie, A., Moxey, A., Parkinsons, L. and Capra, S. 2011. Examination of the utility of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services Framework for implementation of evidence based practice in residential aged care settings. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67, 10, 2139–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pope, C., Ziebland, S. and Mays, N. 2000. Analysing qualitative data. British Medical Journal, 320, 8, 114–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rabiee, F. 2004. Focus group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63, 4, 655–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, J., Cook, G., Childs, S. and McCormack, B. 2005. A literature review to explore integrated care for older people. International Journal of Integrated Care, 5, 1, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritchie, J. and Spencer, L. 1994. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In Bryman, A. and Burgess, R. G. (eds), Analyzing Qualitative Data. Routledge, London, 173–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandelowski, M. 1995. Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health, 18, 2, 179–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandelowski, M. 2000. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing and Health, 23, 4, 334–40.3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Speech Pathology Association of Australia Ltd. (n.d.). Find a speech pathologist. Accessed March 2, 2011 at http://www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=616&Itemid=77.Google Scholar
Trinka, T. J. K. and Clark, P. G. 2009. Healthcare Teamwork: Interdisciplinary Practice and Teaching. Auburn House, Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
World Health Organization 2002. Active ageing: a policy framework. A contribution to the Second United Nations World Assembly on Ageing, April, Madrid.Google Scholar
Worrall, L., Hickson, L. and Dodd, B. 1993. Screening for communication impairment in nursing homes and hostels. Australian Journal of Human Communication Disorders, 21, 1, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar