1-4 of 4 Results

  • Keywords: residential care/assisted living x
Clear all

Article

Nasreen A. Sadeq and Victor Molinari

The need for facilities that provide residential aged care is expected to increase significantly in the near future as the global population ages at an unprecedented rate. Many older adults will need to be placed in a residential care setting, such as an assisted living facility (ALF) or nursing home, when their caregivers can no longer effectively manage serious medical or psychiatric conditions at home. Although the types of residential care settings worldwide vary considerably, long-term care residents (LTC) and staff benefit from environmental and cultural changes in LTC settings. Unlike traditional medical models of LTC, culture change advocates for a shift toward holistic, person-centered care that takes place in homelike environments and accounts for the psychosocial needs of residents. Carving out a role for family members and training professional caregivers to address behavioral problems and quality-of-life issues remain a challenge. In LTC settings, preliminary research indicates that implementing person-centered changes addressing resident and caregiver needs may lead to better health outcomes, as well as increased satisfaction among patients, families, and staff. With the burgeoning world population of older adults, it is incumbent that they be provided with optimal humane culturally sensitive care.

Article

Robin Bonifas

This article presents information about group settings that provide residential long-term care for older adults, focusing on nursing homes and residential care/assisted living communities. It provides an overview of both settings and describes their scope of services, funding, and clientele. The section “Issues in Residential Long-Term Care” addresses issues of special relevance to social workers: dementia and other psychosocial care needs; quality of life and quality of care; access to and disparities in care; end-of-life care; family involvement; and abuse and neglect. The article ends with a section on the role of the social worker in residential long-term care.

Article

Steven P. Segal

The deinstitutionalization policy sought to replace institutional care for populations in need of care and control with prosocial community-based alternatives. U.S. institutional populations, however, have increased since the policy’s inception by 205%. As implemented, with the assistance of advocacy and cost-cutting factions, it has succeeded only in enabling the divestiture of state responsibility for target groups. It sought to prevent unnecessary admission and retention in institutions. As implemented, deinstitutionalization initiated a process that involved a societal shift in the type of institutions and institutional alternatives used to house its target groups, often referred to as transinstitutionalization. For many in need of institutional placements, it has succeeded in preventing all admissions, while it has expanded admissions for others. In seeking to develop community alternatives for housing, treating, and habilitating or rehabilitating its target groups, it has succeeded in establishing a variety of alternative living arrangements and showcase/model programs illustrating what can be done, yet it has failed to deliver on investments in such programs to serve the majority of its target groups. It has resulted in the abandonment of substantial numbers to homelessness. Deinstitutionalization policy has motivated political, economic, legal, and social change in the care and control of six populations—older adults, children, people with mental illness, people with developmental disabilities, people under correctional system supervision, and, more recently, individuals without a home. A truer implementation of deinstitutionalization’s initial aspirations requires reconsideration of these changes.

Article

The deinstitutionalization policy sought to replace institutional care for populations in need of care and control with prosocial community-based alternatives. U.S. institutional populations, however, have increased since the policy’s inception by 205%. As implemented, with the assistance of advocacy and cost-cutting factions, it has succeeded only in enabling the divestiture of state responsibility for target groups. It sought to prevent unnecessary admission and retention in institutions. As implemented, deinstitutionalization initiated a process that involved a societal shift in the type of institutions and institutional alternatives used to house its target groups, often referred to as trans-institutionalization. For many in need of institutional placements, it has succeeded in preventing all admissions, expanding admissions for others. In seeking to develop community alternatives for housing, treating, and habilitating or rehabilitating its target groups, it has succeeded in establishing a variety of alternative living arrangements and showcase and model programs illustrating what can be done; yet, it has failed to deliver on investments in such programs to serve the majority of its target groups. It has resulted in the abandonment of substantial numbers to homelessness. It has been documented, from political, economic, legal, and social perspectives, how this policy has affected the care and control of populations such as older adults, children, people with mental illness or developmental disabilities, people under correctional-system supervision, and, more recently, individuals without a home. Suggestions for a truer implementation of deinstitutionalization’s initial aspirations are available.