Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Apr 26;24(1):530.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-10889-1.

Needs assessment in long-term care: expression of national principles for priority setting in service allocation

Ann Katrin Blø Pedersen  1 , Marianne Sundlisæter Skinner  2 , Maren Sogstad  3
Affiliations

Needs assessment in long-term care: expression of national principles for priority setting in service allocation

Ann Katrin Blø Pedersen et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Long-term care services for older adults are characterised by increasing needs and scarce resources. Political strategies have led to the reorganisation of long-term care services, with an increased focus on "ageing in place" and efficient use of resources. There is currently limited research on the processes by which resource allocation decisions are made by service allocators of long-term care services for older adults. The aim of this study is to explore how three political principles for priority setting in long-term care, resource, severity and benefit, are expressed in service allocation to older adults.

Methods: This qualitative study uses data from semi-structured individual interviews, focus groups and observations of service allocators who assess needs and assign long-term care services to older adults in Norway. The data were supplemented with individual decision letters from the allocation office, granting or denying long-term care services. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results: The allocators drew on all three principles for priority setting when assessing older adults' long-term care needs and allocating services. We found that the three principles pushed in different directions in the allocation process. We identified six themes related to service allocators' expression of the principles: (1) lowest effective level of care as a criterion for service allocation (resource), (2) blanket allocation of low-cost care services (resource), (3) severity of medical and rehabilitation needs (severity), (4) severity of care needs (severity), (5) benefit of generous service allocation (benefit) and (6) benefit of avoiding services (benefit).

Conclusions: The expressions of the three political principles for priority setting in long-term care allocation are in accordance with broader political trends and discourses regarding "ageing in place", active ageing, an investment ideology, and prioritising those who are "worse off". Increasing attention to the rehabilitation potential of older adults and expectations that they will take care of themselves increase the risk of not meeting frail older adults' care needs. Additionally, difficulties in defining the severity of older adults' complex needs lead to debates regarding "worse off" versus potentiality in future long-term care services allocation.

Trial registration: Not applicable.

Keywords: Allocation; Health policy; Needs assessment; Older adults; Priority setting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Norwegian levels of long-term care services
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The influence of the three principles of priority setting on service allocation
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Døhl Ø, Garåsen H, Kalseth J, Magnussen J. Factors associated with the amount of public home care received by elderly and intellectually disabled individuals in a large Norwegian municipality. Health Soc Care Community. 2016;24(3):297–308. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12209. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dahl HM. Struggles in (Elderly) Care: A Feminist View. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2017.
    1. World Health Organization. Quality of care. Switzerland: World Health Organization; n.d. https://www.who.int/health-topics/quality-of-care#tab=tab_1. Accessed 8 Dec 2022.
    1. Parry-Jones B, Soulsby J. Needs-led assessment: the challenges and the reality. Health Soc Care Community. 2001;9(6):414–28. doi: 10.1046/j.0966-0410.2001.00316.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Skaar R, Brodtkorb K, Skisland AVS, Slettebø Å. Organisering av helsetjenester til eldre i kommunen - noen etiske utfordringer. Nord Sygeplejeforskning. 2014;4(4):267–79. doi: 10.18261/ISSN1892-2686-2014-04-03. - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources