A comparative analysis of regulatory models in the assisted living sector in Canada and impacts on integrated care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: In Canada, the increasing prevalence of assisted living allows older adults continued independence while offering a shared community and options for help with services like meal preparation, housekeeping, personal and medical care. However, concerns about care quality arises in provinces with a largely for-profit, private pay assisted living model. Regulation of the assisted living sector across Canada is fragmented with regulatory models varying by province. This has created a context of mixed enforcement of assisted living legislation and standards of care. This project compares the different regulatory approaches undertaken by two large Canadian provinces, British Columbia and Ontario. Our aim is to understand why different regulatory models were adopted and how each model influences care planning and care integration for residents receiving care both within their assisted living facility and from the broader health care system. Approach/Methods: This project began with a content analysis of assisted living legislation, regulation, and associated policies in Ontario and British Columbia (n=8) to determine similarities and differences among the two regulatory models. We then used semi-structured interviews (n=12) of policy makers who were involved in, or had knowledge of, the development of the two regulatory methods guided by the ideas, interests, and institutions framework. Our aim was to understand how and why each model was selected and the implications for care integration with a focus on care planning and interprofessional collaboration. Interview data was analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis and our interpretation of the contributions of the regulatory approaches in facilitating the integration of care was guided by the OECD Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation. As next steps, our research team will host a deliberative dialogue with key stakeholders to draft policy options to inform future regulatory work in the assisted living sector across Canada. Results: Key themes in our findings so far suggest that despite some overlap in service provision and target population, the two regulatory models studied conceptualised “care” differently leading to different groups of services being subject to regulation. Regulations in British Columbia emphasized resident independence and framed assisted living as a form of supportive housing with little “care” provided. In contrast, Ontario’s regulations focused on the more medicalized care provided in assisted living homes with a particular focus on the care provided by regulated healthcare professionals and an absence of discussion on how care by personal support workers should be monitored. International Learnings: Poor clarity and a lack of consistency in regulating assisted living makes it difficult to understand how care provided in this growing sector fits within the broader health care continuum. The findings from this study provide a better understanding of what types of services and care providers can be regulated most effectively to achieve the aim of ensuring care quality and integration, the effectiveness of regulation as an enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance in a highly privatized sector, and the impact of regulation on care planning and the integration of care across care providers both inside and outside the assisted living sector.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,015 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».