Home and Community Care Sector Accountability

Gray, Carolyn Steele; Berta, Whitney; Deber, Raisa; Lum, Janet

doi:10.12927/hcpol.2014.23918

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results were published in a special issue of Healthcare Policy in 2014 Berta, Laporte and Wodchis 2014;Bytautas et al 2014;Deber 2014aDeber , 2014bDenis 2014;Gamble, Bourne and Deber 2014;Kirsch 2014;Kraetschmer et al 2014;Kromm et al 2014;Mitchell, Nicklin and MacDonald 2014;Mukhi, Barnsley and Deber 2014;Peckham 2014;Schwartz et al 2014;Steele Gray et al 2014a;Wyers, Gamble and Deber 2014;Zelisko et al 2014). Other related studies focused on home and community care (Steele Gray et al 2017;Steele Gray et al 2014b) and public health (Schwartz and Deber 2016).…”

Section: Brief Description Of the Health Policy Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and Implementing Best Practices in Accountability

Deber

Rackow

2017

HRO-ORS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Brief Description Of the Health Policy Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and Implementing Best Practices in Accountability

Deber

Rackow

2017

HRO-ORS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…CCACs also commission certain home care professional services (see Steele Gray et al 2014), and have some responsibility for helping to manage admissions to publicly subsidized LTCH placements. Accordingly, some of the operational aspects of accountability, historically the purview of MOHLTC, were delegated to the LHINs.…”

Section: Accountability Dynamism In Ontario' S Long-term Care Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches to Accountability in Long-Term Care

Berta

Laporte

Wodchis

2014

hcpol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the array of approaches to accountability in Ontario long-term care (LTC) homes. A focus group involving key informants from the LTC industry, including both for-profit and not-for-profit nursing home owners/operators, was used to identify stakeholders involved in formulating and implementing LTC accountability approaches and the relevant regulations, policies and initiatives relating to accountability in the LTC sector. These documents were then systematically reviewed. We found that the dominant mechanisms have been financial incentives and oversight, regulations and information; professionalism has played a minor role. More recently, measurement for accountability in LTC has grown to encompass an array of fiscal, clinical and public accountability measurement mechanisms. The goals of improved quality and accountability are likely more achievable using these historical regulatory approaches, but the recent rapid increase in data and measurability could also enable judicious application of market-based approaches. RESEARCH PAPERHEALTHCARE POLICY Vol. 10 Special Issue, 2014 [133] Approaches to Accountability in Long-Term Care Résumé Cet article porte sur l' organisation des démarches de l' obligation de rendre compte dans les résidences de soins de longue durée (SLD) en Ontario. Un groupe de discussion formé d'informateurs clés du secteur -des propriétaires ou gestionnaires de centres d'hébergement et de soins à but lucratif ou non -a été réuni pour déterminer qui sont les intervenants impliqués dans la définition et la mise en oeuvre des démarches d' obligation de rendre compte ainsi que de la réglementation, des politiques et des initiatives connexes dans le secteur des SLD. Ces documents ont été examinés systématiquement. Nous avons observé que les principaux mécanismes sont les mesures incitatives ainsi que le contrôle financier, la réglemen-tation et l'information; le professionnalisme y a joué un rôle secondaire. Plus récemment, l' évaluation de l' obligation de rendre compte dans les SLD s' est accrue pour inclure une gamme de mécanismes de mesures concernant l' obligation fiscale, clinique et publique. Il serait plus facile d' atteindre les objectifs d' amélioration de la qualité et d' obligation de rendre compte en utilisant ces démarches de réglementation traditionnelles, mais l' accroissement rapide des données et de la mesurabilité pourrait permettre une application judicieuse de démarches propres aux marchés commerciaux.

show abstract

“…The substudies examined in this Special Issue encompass a variety of subsectors, including hospitals (Kraetschmer et al 2014;Kromm et al 2014), cancer (Bytautas et al 2014), community services (Steele Gray et al 2014), laboratories , public health (Schwartz et al 2014), primary healthcare (Mukhi et al 2014), long-term care Wyers et al 2014) and professional regulation Zelisko et al 2014), and brief commentaries looking at international comparisons (Kirsch 2014;Peckham 2014) and the role of accreditation (Mitchell et al 2014). These substudies represent different combinations of governance/ownership and services, and should assist in clarifying the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches to accountability.…”

Section: Substudies and Decision-making Partnersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thinking About Accountability

Radin¹

2002

The Accountable Juggler: The Art of Leadership in a Federal Agency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accountability is a key component of healthcare reforms, in Canada and internationally, but there is increasing recognition that one size does not fit all. A more nuanced understanding begins with clarifying what is meant by accountability, including specifying for what, by whom, to whom and how.These papers arise from a Partnership for Health System Improvement (PHSI), funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), on approaches to accountability that examined accountability across multiple healthcare subsectors in Ontario. The partnership features collaboration among an interdisciplinary team, working with senior policy makers, to clarify what is known about best practices to achieve accountability under various circumstances. This paper presents our conceptual framework. It examines potential approaches (policy instruments) and postulates that their outcomes may vary by subsector depending upon (a) the policy goals being pursued, (b) governance/ownership structures and relationships and (c) the types of goods and services being delivered, and their production characteristics (e.g., contestability, measurability and complexity).

show abstract

Home and Community Care Sector Accountability

Cited by 10 publications

References 10 publications

Understanding and Implementing Best Practices in Accountability

Understanding and Implementing Best Practices in Accountability

Approaches to Accountability in Long-Term Care

Thinking About Accountability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About