Projects per year
structural, process and outcome indicators, this paper compares how quality is understood and regulated in six countries occupying different categories according to Esping Andersen’s (1990) typology: Canada, England, and the United States (liberal welfare regimes); Germany (conservative welfare regime); Norway, and Sweden (social democratic welfare regimes). In general, our review finds that countries with higher rates of International quality concerns regarding long-term residential care, home to many of the most vulnerable among us, prompted our examination of the audit and inspection processes in six different countries. Drawing on Donabedian’s (Evaluation & Health Professions, 6(3), 363–375, 1983) categorization of quality criteria into privatization (mostly the liberal welfare regimes) have more standardized, complex and deterrence-based regulatory approaches.We identify that even countries with the lowest rates of for profit ownership and more compliance-based regulatory approaches (Norway and Sweden) are witnessing an increased involvement of for-profit agencies in managing care in this sector. Our analysis suggests there is widespread concern about the incursion of market forces and logic into this sector, and about the persistent failure to regulate structural quality indicators,
- Long-term residential care
- Quality indicators
FingerprintDive into the research topics of 'Mapping Nursing Home Inspections & Audits in Six Countries'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
- 2 Finished