Abstract
BackgroundAn ageing population in the EU leads to a higher need of long-term institutional care at the end of life. At the same time, healthcare costs rise while resources remain limited. Consequently, an urgency to extend our knowledge on factors affecting efficiency of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) arises. This study aims to investigate and explain variation in technical efficiency of end-of-life care within and between LTCFs of six EU countries: Belgium (Flanders), England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. In this study, technical efficiency reflects the LTCFs’ ability to obtain maximal quality of life (QoL) and quality of dying (QoD) for residents from a given set of resource inputs (personnel and capacity).MethodsCross-sectional data were collected by means of questionnaires on deceased residents identified by LTCFs over a three-month period. An output-oriented data-envelopment analysis (DEA) was performed, producing efficiency scores, incorporating personnel and capacity as input and QoL and QoD as output. Scenario analysis was conducted. Regression analysis was performed on explanatory (country, LTCF type, ownership, availability of palliative care and opioids) and case mix (disease severity) variables.Results133 LTCFs of only one type (onsite nurses and offsite GPs) were considered in order to reduce heterogeneity. Variation in LTCF efficiency was found across as well as within countries. This variation was not explained by country, ownership, availability of palliative care or opioids. However, in the ‘hands-on care at the bedside’ scenario, i.e. only taking into account nursing and care assistants as input, Poland (p = 0.00) and Finland (p = 0.04) seemed to be most efficient.ConclusionsEfficiency of LTCFs differed extensively across as well as within countries, indicating room for considerable efficiency improvement. Our findings should be interpreted cautiously, as comprehensive comparative EU-wide research is challenging as it is influenced by many factors.
Highlights
Good-quality care is needed for the ageing populations in the European Union (EU).[1, 2] While many countries aim to enable people to continue living in their own home, need of care in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) is growing.[3]
This study aims to investigate and explain variation in technical efficiency of end-of-life care within and between LTCFs of six EU countries: Belgium (Flanders), England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland
Cross-sectional data were collected by means of questionnaires on deceased residents identified by LTCFs over a three-month period
Summary
Good-quality care is needed for the ageing populations in the European Union (EU).[1, 2] While many countries aim to enable people to continue living in their own home, need of care in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) is growing.[3]. Since a significant proportion of people live and eventually die in LTCFs, [5, 6], enabling people to live and die well grows in importance.[3] At the same time, long-term care delivery will continue driving up public spending,[7] as LTCFs in the EU are mostly funded out of public money.[7] Illustrating the cost issue: the proportion of long-term care costs in total healthcare expenditure currently are around 40% in the Netherlands and in Finland.[8] A recent FP7 European project (ANCIEN) has shown that a significant share of public expenditures is devoted to institutional care.[9] This trend is a major concern for most governments,[7] and the financing of EoL care in LTCFs will be up for discussion as these issues increasingly affect more people. This study aims to investigate and explain variation in technical efficiency of end-of-life care within and between LTCFs of six EU countries: Belgium (Flanders), England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. Technical efficiency reflects the LTCFs’ ability to obtain maximal quality of life (QoL) and quality of dying (QoD) for residents from a given set of resource inputs (personnel and capacity)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
