Where’s the evidence? a systematic review of economic analyses of residential aged care infrastructure

Abstract

BackgroundResidential care infrastructure, in terms of the characteristics of the organisation (such as proprietary status, size, and location) and the physical environment, have been found to directly influence resident outcomes. This review aimed to summarise the existing literature of economic evaluations of residential care infrastructure.MethodsA systematic review of English language articles using AgeLine, CINAHL, Econlit, Informit (databases in Health; Business and Law; Social Sciences), Medline, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science with retrieval up to 14 December 2015. The search strategy combined terms relating to nursing homes, economics, and older people. Full economic evaluations, partial economic evaluations, and randomised trials reporting more limited economic information, such as estimates of resource use or costs of interventions were included. Data was extracted using predefined data fields and synthesized in a narrative summary to address the stated review objective.ResultsFourteen studies containing an economic component were identified. None of the identified studies attempted to systematically link costs and outcomes in the form of a cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, or cost-utility analysis. There was a wide variation in approaches taken for valuing the outcomes associated with differential residential care infrastructures: 8 studies utilized various clinical outcomes as proxies for the quality of care provided, and 2 focused on resident outcomes including agitation, quality of life, and the quality of care interactions. Only 2 studies included residents living with dementia.ConclusionsRobust economic evidence is needed to inform aged care facility design. Future research should focus on identifying appropriate and meaningful outcome measures that can be used at a service planning level, as well as the broader health benefits and cost-saving potential of different organisational and environmental characteristics in residential care.Trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number CRD42015015977.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2165-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Developing dimensions for a new preference-based quality of life instrument for older people receiving aged care services in the community

“…In Australia, the aged care sector is currently the subject of a Royal Commission that is placing an international spotlight on the shortfalls of the system and which is likely to highlight the need for significant policy reform to drive improvements in quality and efficiency when it issues its final recommendations at the end of this year [4]. A suite of recent systematic reviews have identified the paucity of economic evaluation evidence internationally, [5][6][7][8] yet economic evaluation forms a much needed component for policy reform to drive quality improvements and ensure that resources allocated across the aged care sector are targeted to services and programmes which maximise the quality of life (QoL) of older people [6,7,9].…”

Clustered domestic residential aged care in Australia: fewer hospitalisations and better quality of life

“…This is the first study to examine the costs, resident quality of life, and numbers of hospitalisations associated with a clustered domestic model of care in Australia 19 , 20 . We found that a clustered domestic model of care is associated with better quality of life for residents, as well as fewer hospitalisations and emergency department presentations.…”

Insights into the system of care of the elderly with mental disorders from the perspective of informal caregivers in Lithuania

“…Despite ongoing discussions in the scientific literature about the economic and financial variables involved in the health and social care provision of the elderly, scarce data is available to support specific conclusions about cost-effectiveness, though results are promising for cost containment, disease prevention, and health of population [9, 29–31]. A systematic review of respite for caregivers demonstrated that daycare is as costly as the usual care, but caregivers were satisfied and reported a positive effect on their mental or physical health [30].…”

“…A systematic review of respite for caregivers demonstrated that daycare is as costly as the usual care, but caregivers were satisfied and reported a positive effect on their mental or physical health [30]. A novel approach has been suggested where the focus would be centred on the added value of care rather than cost saving [29], however, a more profound and accurate scientific analysis of cost-effectiveness, cost–benefit or cost-utility is needed [31].…”