1997Age and AgeingRequires access

Low-Care Cases in Long-Term Care Settings: Variation among Nations

N. Ikegami, John N. Morris, Brant E. Fries

Open publisher page 33 citations

Abstract

METHOD: residents of long-term care settings without major activity of daily living (ADL) deficits are often referred to as 'low-care cases' and are deemed inappropriately placed in an institution. We compare the prevalence and characteristics of this population in Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Sweden and the USA, using the Resident Assessment Instrument Minimum Data Set. RESULTS: among the six nations, the percentage of low-care cases ranged from 27 to 52% using a broad definition of no physical assistance required in late-loss ADLs (bed mobility, toileting, transfer and eating). With a more narrow definition which additionally excludes those falling into the Resource Utilization Groups, version III categories of rehabilitation, clinically complex, impaired cognition and behaviour problems, the percentages seen range from 9 to 35%. Finally, 2-14% meet the most restrictive definition, which further excluded residents requiring any supervision in late-loss ADLs, with any deficits in early-loss ADLs (dressing or grooming) or needing medical and psychiatric supervision. CONCLUSION: although long-term care settings differ, making comparison by country difficult, the use of the same standard assessment form makes it possible to compare the many reasons for institutionalization.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

METHOD: residents of long-term care settings without major activity of daily living (ADL) deficits are often referred to as 'low-care cases' and are deemed inappropriately placed in an institution. We compare the prevalence and characteristics of this population in Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Sweden and the USA, using the Resident Assessment Instrument Minimum Data Set. RESULTS: among the six nations, the percentage of low-care cases ranged from 27 to 52% using a broad definition of no physical assistance required in late-loss ADLs (bed mobility, toileting, transfer and eating). With a more narrow definition which additionally excludes those falling into the Resource Utilization Groups, version III categories of rehabilitation, clinically complex, impaired cognition and behaviour problems, the percentages seen range from 9 to 35%. Finally, 2-14% meet the most restrictive definition, which further excluded residents requiring any supervision in late-loss ADLs, with any deficits in early-loss ADLs (dressing or grooming) or needing medical and psychiatric supervision. CONCLUSION: although long-term care settings differ, making comparison by country difficult, the use of the same standard assessment form makes it possible to compare the many reasons for institutionalization.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 33 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

METHOD: residents of long-term care settings without major activity of daily living (ADL) deficits are often referred to as 'low-care cases' and are deemed inappropriately placed in an institution. We compare the prevalence and characteristics of this population in Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Sweden and the USA, using the Resident Assessment Instrument Minimum Data Set. RESULTS: among the six nations, the percentage of low-care cases ranged from 27 to 52% using a broad definition of no physical assistance required in late-loss ADLs (bed mobility, toileting, transfer and eating). With a more narrow definition which additionally excludes those falling into the Resource Utilization Groups, version III categories of rehabilitation, clinically complex, impaired cognition and behaviour problems, the percentages seen range from 9 to 35%. Finally, 2-14% meet the most restrictive definition, which further excluded residents requiring any supervision in late-loss ADLs, with any deficits in early-loss ADLs (dressing or grooming) or needing medical and psychiatric supervision. CONCLUSION: although long-term care settings differ, making comparison by country difficult, the use of the same standard assessment form makes it possible to compare the many reasons for institutionalization.

Key concepts: Toileting, Minimum Data Set, Medicine, Long-term care, Activities of daily living, Institutionalisation, Gerontology, Population

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Low-Care Cases in Long-Term Care Settings: Variation among Nations — Research Paper | ScholarLens