Quality and safety indicators for home care recipients in Australia: development and cross-sectional analyses

Gillian Elizabeth Caughey, Catherine E. Lang, Sarah Catherine Elizabeth Bray, Janet K. Sluggett, Craig Whitehead, Renuka Visvanathan, Keith Evans, Megan Corlis, Victoria Cornell, Anna L. Barker, Steve Wesselingh, Maria C. Inacio

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

41 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives: To develop and examine the prevalence of quality and safety indicators to monitor care of older Australians receiving home care packages (HCPs), a government-funded aged care programme to support individuals to live at home independently.

Design: Cross-sectional.

Setting: Home care recipients, Australia.

Participants: 90 650 older individuals (aged ≥65 years old and ≥50 years old for people of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent) who received a HCP between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2016 nationally were included.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: The Registry of Senior Australians developed 15 quality and safety indicators: antipsychotic use, high sedative load, chronic opioid use, antimicrobial use, premature mortality, home medicines reviews, chronic disease management plan, wait-time for HCP, falls, fractures, medication-related adverse events, weight loss/malnutrition, delirium/dementia-related hospitalisations, emergency department (ED) presentations and pressure injuries. Risk adjusted prevalence (%, 95% CI) and geographical area (statistical level 3) variation during 2016 were examined.

Results: In 2016, a total of 102 590 HCP episodes were included for 90 650 individuals, with 66.9% (n=68 598) level 1–2 HCP episodes (ie, for basic care needs) and 33.1% (n=33 992) level 3–4 HCP (ie, higher care needs). The most prevalent indicators included: antibiotic use (52.4%, 95% CI 52.0 to 52.7), chronic disease management plans (38.1%, 95% CI 37.8 to 38.4), high sedative load (29.1%, 95% CI 28.8 to 29.4) and ED presentations (26.4%, 95% CI 25.9 to 26.9). HCP median wait time was 134 days (IQR 41–406). Geographical variation was highest in chronic disease management plans and ED presentations (20.7% of areas outside expected range).

Conclusion: A comprehensive outcome monitoring system to monitor the quality and safety of care and variation for HCP recipients was developed. It provides a pragmatic, efficient and low burden tool to support evidence-based quality and safety improvement initiatives for the aged care sector.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere063152
Number of pages11
JournalBMJ Open
Volume12
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2022

Keywords

  • Aged care
  • Home care packages
  • Quality of care
  • Safety
  • Wellbeing

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Quality and safety indicators for home care recipients in Australia: development and cross-sectional analyses'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this