2020 Community-Based Care Resident and Community Characteristics Report On Assisted Living, Residential Care, and Memory Care Communities

This report summarizes findings from the 6th annual study of Oregon community-based care settings, including assisted living and residential care facilities, and memory care communities. This study was conducted during fall 2019 and winter 2020

2020 Adult Foster Home Resident and Community Characteristics Report on Adult Foster Homes

This report is the sixth in a series prepared by the Institute on Aging at Portland State University for Oregon’s Department of Human Services (ODHS) and examines a sample of Adult Foster Homes (AFHs) throughout the state. This study has four objectives: 1. Describe AFH characteristics, including staffing types, policies and monthly charges and fees. 2. Describe current residents’ health-related needs, service use and demographic characteristics. 3. Compare current results with prior Oregon surveys to identify changes and current trends. 4. Describe characteristics that might affect access, quality, or cost. Oregon has licensed adult foster homes (AFHs) as a type of community-based care (CBC) since 1986. The operators and staff of these small homes provide supportive services, personal care and supervision for up to five older adults and adults with physical disabilities. Most AFHs are modified single-family residences located in residential neighborhoods. The majority of owners live in their AFH and provide care for the residents

2022 Community-Based Care: Resident and Community Characteristics Report on Assisted Living, Residential Care, and Memory Care Communities

This report summarizes findings from the 8th annual study of Oregon community-based care settings, including assisted living and residential care facilities, and memory care communities. This study was conducted during fall 2021 and winter 2022

Validating the Resident VIEW in Long-Term Care Settings: Final Report to Oregon Department of Human Services, Aging & People with Disabilities Division

In 2015, Portland State University Institute on Aging (PSU/IOA) received a grant from the Quality Care Fund to develop the Resident VIEW (Voicing Importance, Experience, and Well-being), a measure of person-centered care (PCC) from the perspective of residents. Structured open-ended interviews were conducted with residents living in nursing homes (NH), assisted living (AL/RC), and adult foster homes (AFH) settings to learn more about their everyday concerns, values, and preferences. Each interview focused on one of eight domains of PCC. These domains had been identified from the literature and in prior research. Personhood, or as described by residents as being “treated as a person,” is central. Then come five areas that directly affect the quality of daily life of residents: opportunities for residents to engage in meaningful activity, relationships with staff, personalized care, staff knowing the person, and autonomy and choice. The organizational and physical environments provide the immediate context in which residents live and people work. This framework recognizes the importance of the physical space and the culture of the organization. This initial project resulted in 63 items, or close-ended statements, across the eight domains. These were tested with a small sample of residents in each type of setting (NH, AL/RC, AFH). This feasibility project indicated that a large-scale validation study was feasible. The Resident VIEW is unique in that residents are asked about both the importance of an item as well as whether they experience the practice reflected by the item. Understanding both what residents view as important as well as what they experience allows for more individualized planning and assessment of PCC services. As an example, an item from the physical environment domain asks: “how important is it that your room is arranged and decorated the way that you want it?” and “Is your room arranged and decorated the way that you want it?” In a person-centered environment, we would expect consistency between responses to these questions. In 2017, PSU/IOA received funding through the Civil Money Penalties Fund to test the validity of the Resident VIEW in Nursing Homes. In 2018, the team was awarded funds from the Oregon Quality Care Fund to replicate the validity of the Resident VIEW in AL/RC and AFC settings. This report describes both validation projects, including the methods used to develop the samples and collect data, the analyses conducted with resident data, results, and the final Resident VIEW measure. In addition to validating the Resident VIEW, a goal of the research was to reduce the length of the final measure by identifying the best items. A short form of the Resident VIEW is necessary to make it practical for use in quality improvement efforts and in research, and, importantly, to be less burdensome for residents and organizations to administer

Direct Care Staff Experiences in Oregon Assisted Living, Residential Care and Memory Care Communities, 2022

Resident care assistants (e.g., direct care workers, caregivers, personal care aides) provide the majority of services to assisted living, residential care and memory care-endorsed (ALF/RCF) residents. They faced significant burdens during the COVID-19 pandemic, which amplified existing challenges in some ALF/RCF communities, yet little is known about their work experiences. This qualitative study collected data through focus group and individual interviews with 21 resident care assistants and 12 external colleagues who have experience hiring, training or managing resident care assistants and other ALF/RCF staff, including registered nurse consultants, staffing agency operators, state policy staff, ALF/RCF community operations managers, and advocates. The Institute on Aging study team identified nine primary themes based on the 32 interviews. Supporting the resilience and stability of the direct care workforce is a significant public policy concern in Oregon and nationally. Solutions exist at the individual, interpersonal, organizational, community and policy levels. A multi-level systems approach (e.g., social-ecological approach) is needed to address the challenges and build on the strengths identified in this study