IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i4p2361-d752627.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Should Be Considered When Evaluating the Quality of Home Care? A Survey of Expert Opinions on the Evaluation of the Quality of Home Care in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Seungwon Jeong

    (Department of Community Welfare, Niimi University, Niimi 718-8585, Japan
    Department of Social Science, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Obu 474-8511, Japan)

  • Yusuke Inoue

    (Faculty of Health and Welfare Science, Okayama Prefectural University, Soja 719-1197, Japan)

  • Yasuyuki Arai

    (Iki-iki Clinic Yuki, Yuki 307-0001, Japan)

  • Hideki Ohta

    (Medical Clinics of ASMss Group, Oyama 323-0014, Japan)

  • Takao Suzuki

    (Department of Social Science, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Obu 474-8511, Japan
    Institute for Gerontology, J. F. Oberlin University, Tokyo 194-0294, Japan)

Abstract

Intending to obtain scientific evidence to use in developing indicators for evaluating the quality of home care, we surveyed doctors, nurses, and other home care professionals to determine the points they consider to be essential in evaluating home care. We investigated all 901 clinics registered to the National Association of Medical Institutions Supporting Home Care and a random sample of 600 Visiting Nurse Service stations registered to the National Association for Visiting Nurse Service in Japan. A total of 539 questionnaire responses were received (response rate: 35.9%). In this study, a factor analysis revealed four factors to be considered when evaluating the quality of home care: (1) patients’ and family members’ level of satisfaction, (2) home care process, (3) structure of home care, and (4) medical outcomes. The factor of the satisfaction of patients and family members identified in the present study was not considered in previous studies for evaluating the quality of care in Japan. Satisfaction is the point of difference in goals between hospital-based care and home care, and it requires different measurement indicators. Home care professionals expect to help relieve the physical and psychological burden felt by the patient and their family. Thus, on the evaluation indicators of quality of home care, their perspectives from the present study are valuable.

Suggested Citation

  • Seungwon Jeong & Yusuke Inoue & Yasuyuki Arai & Hideki Ohta & Takao Suzuki, 2022. "What Should Be Considered When Evaluating the Quality of Home Care? A Survey of Expert Opinions on the Evaluation of the Quality of Home Care in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-9, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:4:p:2361-:d:752627
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/4/2361/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/4/2361/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julien Forder & Juliette Malley & Ann‐Marie Towers & Ann Netten, 2014. "Using Cost‐Effectiveness Estimates From Survey Data To Guide Commissioning: An Application To Home Care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(8), pages 979-992, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Julien Forder & Florin Vadean & Stacey Rand & Juliette Malley, 2018. "The impact of long‐term care on quality of life," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 43-58, March.
    2. Trukeschitz, Birgit & Hajji, Assma & Kieninger, Judith & Malley, Juliette & Linnosmaa, Issmo & Forder, Julien, 2021. "Investigating factors influencing quality-of-life effects of home care services in Austria, England, and Finland: a comparative analysis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 106222, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Wei Yang & Julien Forder & Olena Nizalova, 2017. "Measuring the productivity of residential long-term care in England: methods for quality adjustment and regional comparison," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(5), pages 635-647, June.
    4. Francesco Longo & Karl Claxton & Stephen Martin & James Lomas, 2023. "More long‐term care for better healthcare and vice versa: investigating the mortality effects of interactions between these public sectors," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 189-216, June.
    5. Francesco Longo & Karl Claxton & James Lomas & Stephen Martin, 2021. "Does public long‐term care expenditure improve care‐related quality of life of service users in England?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(10), pages 2561-2581, September.
    6. Francesco Longo & Karl Claxton & James Lomas & Stephen Martin, 2020. "Does public long-term care expenditure improve care-related quality of life in England?," Working Papers 172cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    7. Joanna Coast & Philip Kinghorn & Paul Mitchell, 2015. "The Development of Capability Measures in Health Economics: Opportunities, Challenges and Progress," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 119-126, April.
    8. Helen Weatherly & Rita Faria & Bernard Van den Berg & Mark Sculpher & Peter O’Neill & Kay Nolan & Julie Glanville & Jaana Isojarvi & Erin Baragula & Mary Edwards, 2017. "Scoping review on social care economic evaluation methods," Working Papers 150cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    9. Bernard Bensaid & Solen Croiset & Robert J. Gary-Bobo, 2022. "Economies of Density, Team Synergies and Unobserved Heterogeneity: A Study of Home Care Services," CESifo Working Paper Series 9864, CESifo.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:4:p:2361-:d:752627. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.