Public health service board members' understanding of care quality in residential aged care services.

Objective: The objective of this study was to explore how health service boards understand care quality for older people living in public sector residential aged care services. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with board members from six Victorian public health services responsible for the governance of 15 residential aged care services comprising over 850 beds. Transcripts were thematically analysed. Results: Eleven board members were interviewed. While committed to their governance and monitoring role, analysis suggests board members have a limited understanding of the residential aged care environment. They rarely visit and the information they receive about residential aged care is primarily clinical data (quality indicators) as well as sub-committee and staff reports. In addition to quality indicator data and reports, accreditation and complaints are used to measure care quality. Conclusion: Board members vary in their understanding of care quality in residential aged care settings. The exclusive focus on clinical indicators and accreditation as measures of quality reinforces this understanding. Visiting residential aged care services would provide understanding of the care environment and context for the information they receive. The provision of other metrics, such as consumer advocacy reports and residents' and families' experiences of care, would further assist board members to monitor care quality in these settings. What is known about the topic? Recent high-profile reports into serious failings in Australian public sector residential aged care services (PSRACS) raise concerns about the capability of health service boards to ensure residents receive quality care. What does this paper add? Findings provide a description of the focused and limited information that board members in six public health services receive about PSRACS. What are the implications for practitioners? To assist boards to monitor the care quality in PSRACS, we recommend boards visit PSRACS to see first-hand the care environment and to listen to the views of staff, residents and families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]