Journal of Gerontological Nursing

Feature Article 

Nurse Managers’ Perceptions of Quality of Life of Older Adults Living in Long-Stay Care in Ireland: Is It Time for a Bill of Rights?

Kathy Murphy, PhD, MSc, BA (Hons.), RNT, RGN, Dip. Nurs.; Eamon O’Shea, PhD, MSc, MA; Adeline Cooney, MMedSc (Nurs.), BNS, RGN, RNT

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore nurse managers’ perceptions of quality of life of older adults living in residential care in Ireland and key policy issues. Residential care facilities ultimately determine residents’ quality of life. A qualitative descriptive design was used in all seven focus groups with 67 participants. Two themes were identified: Factors Influencing Quality of Life and Factors Influencing Policy. Managers highlighted that the physical environment, making it like home, involving the family, the social environment, meaningful recreational activities, and community connections were central to residents’ quality of life. It is argued that a Bill of Rights for older adults should be developed.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore nurse managers’ perceptions of quality of life of older adults living in residential care in Ireland and key policy issues. Residential care facilities ultimately determine residents’ quality of life. A qualitative descriptive design was used in all seven focus groups with 67 participants. Two themes were identified: Factors Influencing Quality of Life and Factors Influencing Policy. Managers highlighted that the physical environment, making it like home, involving the family, the social environment, meaningful recreational activities, and community connections were central to residents’ quality of life. It is argued that a Bill of Rights for older adults should be developed.

Dr. Murphy is Professor of Nursing, and Ms. Cooney is Senior Lecturer, School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, and Dr. O’Shea is Director of the Irish Centre for Social Gerontology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.

The authors thank the National Council on Ageing and Older People for funding this project; Agnes Sheil, Margaret Hodgins, Collette Kirwan, and Joan Kavanagh; and the staff in the long-stay units who participated in the focus groups.

Address correspondence to Kathy Murphy, PhD, MSc, BA (Hons.), RNT, RGN, Dip. Nurs., Professor of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Aras Moyola, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland; e-mail: kathy. murphy@nuigalway.ie.

The move to residential care is a substantial transition and period of upheaval for older, dependent adults. Long-stay care facilities can shape how people live, whom they see, and what they do (Kane, 2001), and they may ultimately play a role in residents’ quality of life in ensuring that care is person centered and holistic.

The term quality of life came into popular use in the 1950s and 1960s following World War II and the postwar economic boom (Bond & Corner, 2004; Farquhar, 1995b; Haas, 1999a; Meeberg, 1993; Smith, 2000; Zhan, 1992). Although measurement initially focused on objective indicators, such as material possessions, it was realized that these were inadequate to fully understand the concept. Therefore, subjective measures such as individuals’ sense of well-being, happiness, and satisfaction were taken into account (Farquhar, 1995b; Haas, 1999b; Smith, 2000).

Quality of life is a multidisciplinary term and has been examined and used in areas as diverse as economics, sociology, psychology, philosophy, medicine, nursing, social history, and geography (Bowling & Brazier, 1995; Farquhar, 1995a). Each discipline approaches the concept with different concerns, and this means that the term has various interpretations according to which perspective is taken (Anderson & Burckhardt, 1999; Farquhar, 1995b; Haas, 1999a). However, most conceptions share the common features of general feelings of well-being, feelings of positive social involvement, and opportunities to achieve personal potential.

Some authors have identified key domains of quality of life of older adults (Bowling et al., 2003; Kane et al., 2003; Murphy, O’Shea, Cooney, Sheil, & Hodgins, 2006; Tester, Hubbard, Downs, MacDonald, & Murphy, 2004). Tester et al. (2004) examined perceptions of quality of life among older adults with severe disabilities during and after their move to residential care. They found that the main domains of quality of life focused on four interconnected areas: sense of self, the care environment, relationships, and activities. Murphy et al. (2006) also found that these four core domains were important for quality of life of older adults living in long-stay residential care in Ireland.

Quality of life has been examined from the perspectives of older adults, staff in long-stay care units, and residents’ relatives. Although Kane (2003) recommended residents’ own reports should be the gold standard for evaluating quality of life, some researchers have reported that residents may be reluctant to criticize nursing home facilities or the staff on whom they are dependent (Bowling & Formby, 1992; Bowling, Formby, Grant, & Ebrahim, 1991; Clark & Bowling, 1990; Cohn & Sugar, 1991; Kane et al., 2003; Raphael, 1996). Therefore, it may be useful to obtain others’ (e.g., staff, family, researchers) perceptions of residents’ quality of life.

Murphy (2007) and Murphy et al. (2006) found that managers in Ireland were central to the quality of life of older adults, as they shaped the ethos of care within the facilities. The current study focused on quality of life of older adults from the perspectives of nurse managers of long-stay care facilities. In Ireland, long-stay care is provided in one of five kinds of facilities: community nursing units, geriatric hospitals, and welfare homes, which are publicly funded; and private nursing homes or voluntary homes, which are privately funded. Approximately 60% of care is provided within the private sector. The aim of this study was to explore managers’ perceptions of quality of life of older adults living in long-stay care and identify key policy issues.

Method

Design

A qualitative descriptive design was used to guide the focus group research. Ethical approval for the study was granted by the University Ethics Committee. Confidentiality was ensured by the removal of all identifying material.

Sample

A purposeful sampling strategy was used. Because long-stay care in Ireland is provided by the public, private, or voluntary sector, all long-stay facilities were categorized by sector and sorted into geographical areas (north, south, east, and west). Purposeful selection of facilities was then undertaken to ensure there was geographical diversity and sector representation.

Managers were defined as those who held posts designated as Director of Nursing or the equivalent. Lists of managers from the 568 long-stay facilities were created, and from these, a stratified sample of 210 managers was invited at random to one of seven focus groups, which were geographically dispersed across Ireland (Table 1). A total of 140 managers agreed to attend.

Attendance at Each Focus Group (N = 67)

Table 1: Attendance at Each Focus Group (N = 67)

Letters of explanation outlining the purpose of the study and the goals of the focus group were mailed to the managers who expressed interest in attending. This was followed by an invitation letter that confirmed the date, time, and venue of the focus group. In total, the seven focus groups were attended by 67 managers, representing the public, private, and voluntary sectors (Table 2). All sectors were represented, and geographical spread was achieved. All 67 managers who attended were RNs; 95% held posts as Directors of Nursing, and 5% were Assistant Directors.

Description of Focus Group Attendees

Table 2: Description of Focus Group Attendees

Focus Group Interviews

A semi-structured interview guide was used in all focus groups. The guide was developed from an analysis of the literature on quality of life issues for older adults and addressed four key areas related to long-stay care:

  • Quality of care.
  • Perceptions of quality of life.
  • Factors influencing quality of life.
  • Policy issues.

A consultative group of gerontological experts were asked to review the guide and comment on the extent to which it focused on quality of life issues. Some amendments were made to the interview guide following this review.

The questions were initially open but became more focused and structured toward the end of each section. The focus group interviews lasted 2 to 2 ½ hours. Two researchers attended each focus group. One researcher acted as moderator and gathered data on group processes, and the other acted as facilitator for the focus group.

Data Analysis

Focus group interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Analysis was guided by the work of Strauss and Corbin (1990). The first stage involved transcribing the interviews verbatim and assigning open codes. The next stage involved comparing and clustering similar codes together to form tentative categories. A coding guide was then formulated and used to reanalyze the data.

A process of continuous comparison enabled the collapse of category domains and the identification of overarching themes. Two researchers undertook this work; each coded all transcripts separately. Codes were compared, and consistency of themes verified. An analysis of the transcripts revealed two themes: Factors Influencing Quality Of Life and Factors Influencing Policy.

Findings

Factors Influencing Quality of Life

This theme focused on managers’ perceptions of key quality of life issues for older adults. Six categories were identified:

  • The physical environment.
  • Making it like home.
  • Involving the family.
  • The social environment.
  • Meaningful recreational activities.
  • Community connections.
Managers perceived that residents’ quality of life was particularly affected by the physical and social environments in which they lived.

Physical Environment. Participants believed the physical environment of a facility greatly affected residents’ quality of life. Participants described the negative effect of the structure of older facilities on residents’ independence, privacy, and dignity. They likened living in large open wards to living a private life in a public space. Consequently, most participants believed having single, rather than multiple, occupancy rooms was central to good quality of life. Participants considered that single rooms with en-suite facilities should be the norm in both public and private facilities. One participant said:

New buildings should [have] single rooms…. The criteria that are used to build nursing homes…should be exactly the same for the public. There should be no difference. (Public Facility, Focus Group 6)

However, participants acknowledged that some residents preferred to share and that although these individuals were in the minority, their preferences should not be forgotten. Therefore, the managers suggested that facilities in the future should have a mix of single and double rooms.

Participants working in older facilities indicated that large open wards and cramped space was the norm in these facilities. In some cases, the lack of day rooms meant residents had little option but to remain by their bed for the day. The reality for residents living in these facilities was that their world shrank to the space around their bed. One participant said:

Patients get up in the morning, and they’re sitting on their chair, which is beside their bed, and the next bed is literally a couple of inches from them. I would not like to think that I’d be spending the rest of my days sitting by one bed, hoisted onto a commode, and then put back in my chair, and then my tray in front of me, and that was my 12-inch box for the rest of my life. (Public Facility, Focus Group 4)

Participants also reported that poor building structure and lack of amenities could decrease older adults’ independence and ability to perform self-care activities. The proximity of toilets was highlighted as a particular issue. It was reported that when toilets and bathrooms were located some distance from the residents, the possibility that residents could access them without help decreased. A participant stated:

One patient, if he wants to go to the bathroom, has to walk 100 steps to the nearest bathroom. The chances are that he will become dependent on nursing intervention much more easily than, say, if he had an en-suite facility that he has to walk 4 steps to get to the toilet…. The environment [should enhance] their movement and maintenance of function. (Public Facility, Focus Group 1)

There was unanimous agreement across the focus groups that communal living, particularly when coupled with an institutionalized approach to care, negatively affected residents’ quality of life. One focus group participant said:

I would hate to think that when I’m 80 years of age that my future life would be in a 6-bedded ward with the toilet beside the bed, having to watch what the other 5 [residents] want and having to eat what’s put in front of me, request something, having to get up when I’m told to, and go back when I’m told to. (Public Facility, Focus Group 6)

Making It Like Home. All focus group participants believed that creating homelike environments was an important determinant of residents’ quality of life. All agreed that the goal of care should be making residents’ lives in the facility as similar as possible to how they would choose to live at home. One participant stated:

I suppose a home [away]-from-home environment [is important]. I mean if you ask any of the patients where they’d like to be, they all want to be at home, and I think [it is important] to keep it homely. (Private Facility, Focus Group 3)

Participants believed living at home brought with it responsibility for making decisions about what to do. Consequently, they equated being homelike with giving residents control and choice. They believed residents should be given choices about their daily activities, including the time they wanted to wake up and go back to bed and what they wanted to do during the day. They argued that residents should not be expected to fit into the routine; rather, the routine should be sufficiently flexible to allow choice. One manager said:

The philosophy should be about making their [residents’] pattern of life as close to as what they would experience at home. There’s this thing called “institutional efficiency”—like we’ve to try and get the patients into the routine as quickly…and I think it should be the opposite way. (Public Facility, Focus Group 6)

One participant cautioned that when choices were offered, they had to be feasible and possible to carry through:

I mean it’s very fine to say to people, “What is your choice?”, but if you don’t have either the money or the staffing to deliver that choice, it’s a form of cruelty to actually to offer it. (Public Facility, Focus Group 1)

All participants also suggested that care should be individualized, person centered, and family centered. They believed residents should be treated as individuals, not patients. One participant stated:

Being treated as individuals [is important for quality of life], that they don’t just become…they very quickly become a patient. And really, within the care settings, they’re not. They’re not patients. (Private Facility, Focus Group 3)

However, participants suggested that individualized care did not necessarily mean any routine. They believed that some degree of routine was important and necessary but that the goal should be to have as “few rules as possible.” Some participants believed that greater choice was possible but that staff attitudes, as much as staffing levels, inhibited residents’ choice. They suggested staff themselves were sometimes too immersed in the routine to see beyond it and indicated that choice was not a reality in some care settings because routine continued to dominate. One of the managers said:

We’re so task oriented. People have to go back to bed at a certain time because you’re going to have less people on in the afternoon or the evening time, and people [residents] don’t get the choice at all…. I don’t honestly think that it’s all about staffing. (Public Facility, Focus Group 3)

Participants highlighted that giving residents choices required a fundamental shift in thinking, as giving choices meant accepting residents have the right to say no. One participant stated:

I think the big quality of life issue is that they still have their rights, human rights that they had when they were living in their home, to say that, “No, I don’t want you to come in and give me a shower today, thank you very much,” and that should be respected, rather than fitting into our routine. (Public Facility, Focus Group 4)

Participants maintained that a key factor in residents feeling at home was whether they were involved in the decision to move into the facility. Participants’ comments suggested that the decision was sometimes a forced choice, with the older person being excluded from decision making. For example:

I feel that if the family, if it’s positive and healthy and the family become involved with us, it’s much easier—the whole set-up, whereas if the family have been urging or pressurizing [sic] the elderly person to come in, the rifts start immediately, the person feels threatened and then there’s guilt, from the family’s point of view, and we’re sort of nearly—all of their responsibilities is put on us—if the choice isn’t their own, then there’s hostility and then the little pebbles or water wave starts spreading out—the negativity. (Voluntary Facility, Focus Group 2)

Involving the Family. Participants believed it was important that families were included in decisions about ongoing care. They reported that staff sometimes excluded the families and suggested this was because some nurses who were trained some time ago may not be comfortable with family-centered approaches to care. One manager stated:

Well, you do see that, we do try to keep families at bay, instead of inviting them in. Let them make decisions. I mean they shouldn’t be asking for permission to take their relative out for the day. They should be coming in and saying, “We’re going to…is there anything specific that they need, that you think they’re able for?” We should be encouraging a lot more family participation. (Private Facility, Focus Group 1)

Participants believed that an important dimension of quality of life for older adults was close links with their families. They recommended that a family-centered approach to care should be adopted when possible, in which care was shared and jointly planned.

Social Environment. Participants considered it important for residents to have opportunities to participate in social activities. They highlighted the importance of planned provision, variety, and a choice about whether to participate. Participants also considered it important for residents to maintain contact with their communities and for people from the community to be involved in some of the facility activities. They believed it was particularly important for residents to be placed in a facility near their home if they were to retain links with their community.

Meaningful Recreational Activities. Participants suggested that recreational activities were an important indicator of the quality of the social environment. For example, one participant said:

And I think a lot of residents probably would find that [boredom is] a problem initially when they go into long-term care, and then they get so used to the fact that there is nothing happening, and they sit there all day. I think that needs to be addressed. (Public Facility, Focus Group 1)

Most participants viewed activities as having the potential to be therapeutic, as opposed to simply alleviating boredom, if used to motivate residents to remain interested and engaged with life. One manager stated:

Well, I think it’s very important [having activities], it keeps them very motivated—activity, and it keeps their mindset from becoming very…looking inwards. And they love activity, and they…it cheers them up a lot, I find. (Private Facility, Focus Group 5)

Participants believed the activities offered should reflect residents’ interests; otherwise, they could be perceived as “filling in time.” One participant from a private facility said in Focus Group 2 that “activities… should be led by the residents really, by their needs, or requirements.”

An “outsider” facilitating the activities was considered important by some participants because they believed this created interest and change. One comment that reflected this:

[Volunteers] enhance the quality of life of people, don’t they? They do the little things that no one [does].... They develop personal relationships with individuals, as opposed to just going around to everyone. (Public Facility, Focus Group 7)

However, participants reported it was difficult to meet everyone’s needs, particularly in the larger facilities. One of the managers said:

They all have their own personality, and they have different expectations, and you know, the one that will play a game of cards, the other one never played cards in their life and won’t do it. It’s difficult trying to cater for everybody. (Public Facility, Focus Group 1)

Despite recognizing the importance of activities, participants found financing activities and trips problematic because such activities often were not budgeted. One participant stated:

It’s very difficult to achieve in a residential setting, and you don’t have a budget for it either, which is a problem. (Private Facility, Focus Group 1)

Community Connections. Participants highlighted the importance of enabling residents to keep in touch with their communities. For example:

I would have said that being part of the community [is important for quality of life], feeling like they are part of the community, and not being removed from it, or isolated from it. (Public Facility, Focus Group 3)

Participants pointed out that if residents were to keep in touch with their communities, it was important that they were placed in a facility near their home. One participant stated:

I think having services located as close to home as possible is important [referring to making it easier for families to visit]. (Private Facility, Focus Group 6)

Integrating day care centers into long-stay facilities was viewed as increasing the potential for residents to retain their local links. As one of the managers said:

With the day care centre, it’s a wonderful facility for the residents of a long-stay unit, whether it be private or public, because when the people come in from the villages around to the day care unit, the residents look forward to them coming in because they’re coming from their home areas, and they bring in the news, they chat, they meet. It’s a lovely social outing for the day care, but also for the residents, who look forward to them coming in and meeting their friends. (Public Facility, Focus Group 1)

Participants also highlighted the importance of volunteers. They represented someone different, someone residents could chat with and become friends with. One participant said:

[Volunteers] enhance the quality of life of people, don’t they? They do the little things that no one [does].… They develop personal relationships with individuals, as opposed to just going around to everyone. (Voluntary Facility, Focus Group 2)

Factors Influencing Policy

Participants raised many policy issues that affected older adults in Ireland. Analysis of these data revealed four main categories: shaping future care provision, increasing the visibility of older adults, providing the resources required for care, and changing the approach to inspection.

Shaping Future Care Provision. Many participants believed a new national strategy for older adults was required. They were of the opinion that prior policies had not been fully operationalized and stressed the need for a national policy for older adults that had full government commitment and appropriate resources allocated for implementation. One participant stated:

Well I would say [we need] a national strategy. But not a slow one, not a glossy document! (Public Facility, Focus Group 1)

Participants also reported that the current options for frail older adults were too limited, in that community provision was limited. Their vision was one that gave older adults a range of care options. They expressed the need for services to be “joined up” and based within the local communities. According to one manager:

People want to stay in the community, and they should be facilitated, but it does come down to choice. Some people would like to go to a nursing home, or they’d like to go to their community residential setting, or they’d like to stay at home, or they’d like to live in an independent space with a bit more security. (Public Facility, Focus Group 3)

Participants also reported that many older adults currently had difficulty accessing a place in long-stay care. The managers suggested that some older adults were waiting long periods of time for a bed to become available in a public facility. They believed this problem was compounded by the fact that some older adults who had the resources to pay for private health care were not doing so and, therefore, beds in public facilities were unavailable to those who were in real need but did not have the resources to pay for them. One participant said:

There should be something legislatively that the health boards can make some claim on an estate—I never thought I’d see myself saying that, but I’ve actually got to believe it now. A nephew or niece that has never visited them [the resident] or never had an input into their care suddenly benefits hugely. I think the reality is in years to come, where people are living longer, pensions have to last longer, you haven’t the same amount of people working, there’s going to be some radical shift in how to fund it, and that’s one drawback. (Public Facility, Focus Group 6)

Participants suggested there should be a new way of determining the financial resources of older adults entering long-term care, which was applied across sectors and administered by social services. Many participants reported that after a resident was admitted to long-term care, services such as physiotherapy and occupational therapy, which had been available in acute care, were no longer available to them. In addition, managers of private nursing homes reported that some residents had difficulties accessing services because residents had to pay. Although some residents had the resources to pay, others did not. Participants suggested it was an unfair burden on the residents with fewer financial resources, as they would be entitled to these services free of charge if they had remained in the public sector. A policy stating the rights of older adults to the range of services was therefore required.

Increasing the Visibility of Older Adults. Participants also suggested there was a need to lobby politicians and Department of Health and Children officials to ensure services for older adults were given the same emphasis and recognition as services for other vulnerable groups, such as disabled individuals. Some participants believed the lack of emphasis on older adults arose from apathy and ageist attitudes. They suggested ageism was a major issue in society and in nursing, and that it had a significant effect on residents’ quality of life. One manager of a public facility said in Focus Group 1, “It is affected by the fact that ageism operates right through society and into our institutions!”

Participants suggested that a Bill of Rights for older adults be developed. They said there were also particular issues related to the ethics of care for older adults and the lack of inclusion of older adults in the decision making process. They were concerned that family members might try to protect an aging relative by limiting the risks they take. However, participants suggested that taking informed risks was part of living and that older adults should have the right to take calculated risks. Participants argued that any new policy related to older adults should ensure they had the right of self-determination.

Providing the Resources Required for Care. Participants raised two important issues related to resources: the need for resources to be channeled into older adult services and issues related to payment for care. Participants reported a lack of resources within their services to fund innovative initiatives or new approaches to care provision. They suggested that sufficient funding had not been allocated for older adult services over a number of years and that facilities and staffing had therefore suffered. They indicated a need for a new emphasis within health care policy and for allocation of the resources required to implement new approaches. They stated that communal living was no longer acceptable and that purpose-built units that give older adults a room of their own were important and should be part of policy.

Participants also discussed issues related to funding for long-stay care. Two problems were evident. First, that the maximum grant available per person was inadequate, and second, that grant levels varied across the country.

Changing the Approach to Inspection. All participants raised the issue of inspection of nursing homes as being of concern. Currently, only private nursing homes are inspected, and these inspections are performed by staff employed by the health services. The consensus from all focus groups was that there needs to be a change in inspection regulations. All participants suggested that both public and private facilities should be inspected. According to one manager:

I think the health board facilities should be inspected too and brought up to a certain standard. They’re not. It’s one rule for one, and even with regard to inspecting private nursing homes, resources are very scarce on the ground. (Public Facility, Focus Group 2)

Some participants also reported a need to change the focus of inspection. They were concerned that the current focus was more on the state of facilities, rather than on the quality of care. Although they agreed the standard of the facility was important, they believed the emphasis should be more on standards of care and suggested there should be national standards for quality of care that would be used to direct inspections. They also wanted the new inspectorate to be independent from the health service. This would require the development of a new independent body responsible for inspecting all nursing home facilities.

Discussion and Limitations

The findings of this study revealed that managers perceived the care environment and social dimensions of care as central to residents’ quality of life. Participants suggested that the physical environment could greatly constrain residents and affect their quality of life. Many other researchers have found the care environment was important to quality of care (Attree, 1996; Mattiasson & Andersson, 1997; Niedz, 1998; Redfern & Norman, 1999), and others have identified the living environment as a key domain of quality of life (Bowling et al., 2003; Edwards, Courtney, & O’Reilly, 2003; Farquhar, 1995a; Gabriel & Bowling, 2004).

In this study, the managers indicated that a single room should be the norm for long-stay accommodation, as this was essential to individuals’ privacy and personalization of their environment. Edwards et al. (2003) also found that residents wanted single-room accommodation. These managers also suggested that long-stay care environments should be homelike and that long-stay care must move from the present institutional focus. They also stressed that residents should be involved in decision making and should have choice and control. The need for long-stay care environments to be more homelike was also identified by Hudson (1991) and Murphy (2007). These researchers suggested that homelike environments were friendly, interpersonally safe, relaxed, and structured like a home.

Participants also identified social aspects of care as central to residents’ quality of life. Support for social needs as an element of quality care for older adults was also found in a number of studies (Edwards et al., 2003; Hudson, 1991; Mattiasson & Andersson, 1997; Raynes, 2000). Other studies also found that good social relationships are fundamental to quality of life for older adults (Age and Opportunity, 2003; Bowling et al., 2003; Davies, Laker, & Ellis, 1999; Gabriel & Bowling, 2004; Nolan, Davies, & Grant, 2001). Indeed, a fundamental aspect of quality of life in residential care is being able to develop new relationships and maintain existing ones (Murphy et al., 2006).

Participants in this study stressed the need for regulation and quality standards within long-stay care. Tolson, MacLaren, Kiely, and Lowndes (2005) found care standards received the highest awareness rating of all policies in long-stay care. Internationally, many countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, have moved to put into place mechanisms to guarantee better monitoring and assessment of quality in long-term care. In the United States, the Resident Assessment Instrument and Minimum Data Set were developed to identify and highlight quality indicators for nursing home residents, which include quality of life domains.

However, regulations and standards continue to be issues of contention (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2005) within and across countries because of the diversity of care provision and the lack of a systematic approach in some countries (World Health Organization, Ageing and Health Programme, & Milbank Memorial Fund, 2000). The findings of this research have been used to help shape the new long-stay care standards currently being developed in Ireland. These standards have a quality of life focus, and the group developing them has referenced this research work in the new standards document (Murphy et al., 2006).

The managers in these focus groups argued that it was time for a Bill of Rights for older adults that would guarantee care at an appropriate standard because older adults have the right to self-determination and their entitlements should be clear. Given the issues that need to be addressed in long-stay care, consideration should be given to putting into place a Bill of Rights for older adults, and further lobbying of the new Minister for Older People will help push this agenda.

The limitations of this study include its purposeful sampling strategy. It is acknowledged that this is a weaker form of sampling than randomized selection. The bias in sampling is compounded by gathering only the views of those who attended the focus group, rather than of those who were invited.

Conclusion and Implications for Practice

The managers in these focus groups highlighted many factors that affect the quality of life of older adults living in long-stay care, including the physical environment, making it like home, involving the family, the social environment, meaningful recreational activities, and community connections. Because managers have a key role in shaping the ethos of care within facilities, it is important that these factors are used to shape care in Ireland. The findings provide managers with a set of factors that matter for older adults’ quality of life. Managers also need to be involved in developing standards for long-stay care and new inspection processes. Older adults deserve the best care possible; therefore, standards must be addressed, and nurses should actively lobby for the development of a Bill of Rights for older adults.

References

  • Age and Opportunity. 2003. Home from home? The views of residents on social gain and quality of life: A study in three care centres for older people. Dublin, Ireland: Author.
  • Anderson, KL & Burckhardt, CS. 1999. Conceptualization and measurement of quality of life as an outcome variable for health care intervention and research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29, 298–306. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.00889.x [CrossRef]
  • Attree, M. 1996. Towards a conceptual model of “quality care.” International Journal of Nursing Studies, 33, 13–28. doi:10.1016/0020-7489(95)00049-6 [CrossRef]
  • Bond, J & Corner, L. 2004. Quality of life and older people London, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
  • Bowling, A & Brazier, J. 1995. Quality of life in social science and medicine. Social Science and Medicine, 41, 1337–1338. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(95)00148-Z [CrossRef]
  • Bowling, A & Formby, J. 1992. Hospital and nursing home care for the elderly in an inner city health district. Nursing Times, 8813, 51–54.
  • Bowling, A, Formby, J, Grant, K & Ebrahim, S. 1991. A randomized controlled trial of nursing home and long-stay geriatric ward care for elderly people. Age and Ageing, 20, 316–324. doi:10.1093/ageing/20.5.316 [CrossRef]
  • Bowling, A, Gabriel, Z, Dykes, LM, Evans, O, Fleissig, A & Banister, D et al. . 2003. Let’s ask them: A national survey of definitions of quality of life and its enhancement among people aged 65 and over. International Journal of Ageing and Human Development, 56, 269–306. doi:10.2190/BF8G-5J8L-YTRF-6404 [CrossRef]
  • Clark, P & Bowling, A. 1990. Quality of life in long-stay institutions for the elderly. An observational study of long-stay hospital and nursing home care. Social Science and Medicine, 30, 1201–1210. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(90)90260-Y [CrossRef]
  • Cohn, J & Sugar, JA. 1991. Determinants of quality of life in institutions: Perceptions of frail older residents, staff, and families. In Birren, JE, Lubber, JE, Rowe, JC & Deutchman, DE. (Eds.), The concept and measurement of quality of life in the frail elderly (pp. 28–49). Millbrae, CA: Academic Press.
  • Davies, S, Laker, S & Ellis, L. 1999. Dignity on the ward: Promoting excellence in care. In Good practice in acute hospital care for older people. London, United Kingdom: Help the Aged.
  • Edwards, H, Courtney, M & O’Reilly, M. 2003. Involving older people in research to examine quality of life in residential aged care. Quality in Ageing. Retrieved January 8, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4131/is_200312/ai_n9314057
  • Farquhar, M. 1995a. Definitions of quality of life: A taxonomy. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22, 502–508. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.22030502.x [CrossRef]
  • Farquhar, M. 1995b. Elderly people’s definitions of quality of life. Social Science and Medicine, 41, 1439–1446. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(95)00117-P [CrossRef]
  • Gabriel, Z & Bowling, A. 2004. Quality of life from the perspectives of older people. Ageing and Society, 24, 675–691. doi:10.1017/S0144686X03001582 [CrossRef]
  • Haas, BK. 1999a. A multidisciplinary concept analysis of quality of life. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 21, 728–742. doi:10.1177/01939459922044153 [CrossRef]
  • Haas, BK. 1999b. Clarification and integration of similar quality of life concepts. Image, 31, 215–220.
  • Hudson, KM. 1991. The meaning of quality care in the nursing home. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia.
  • Kane, RA. 2001. Long-term care and a good quality of life: Bringing them closer together. The Gerontologist, 41, 293–304.
  • Kane, RA. 2003. Definition, measurement, and correlates of quality of life in nursing homes: Toward a reasonable practice, research, and policy agenda. The Gerontologist, 45Special Issue 2, 28–36.
  • Kane, RA, Kling, KC, Bershadsky, B, Kane, RL, Giles, K & Degenholtz, HB et al. . 2003. Quality of life measures for nursing home residents. Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 58A, 240–248.
  • Mattiasson, AC & Andersson, L. 1997. Quality of nursing home care assessed by competent nursing home patients. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 1117–1124. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.1997.tb00803.x [CrossRef]
  • Meeberg, GA. 1993. Quality of life: A concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 32–38. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1993.18010032.x [CrossRef]
  • Murphy, K. 2007. A qualitative study exploring nurses’ perceptions of quality care for older people in long-term care settings in Ireland. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16, 873–884. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01633.x [CrossRef]
  • Murphy, K, O’Shea, E, Cooney, A, Sheil, A & Hodgins, M. 2006. Improving the quality of life of older people in residential care. Dublin, Ireland: National Council on Ageing and Older People.
  • Niedz, B. 1998. Correlates of hospitalized patients: Perceptions of service quality. Research in Nursing & Health, 21, 339–349. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199808)21:4<339::AID-NUR6>3.0.CO;2-G [CrossRef]
  • Nolan, MR, Davies, S & Grant, G. (Eds.). 2001. Working with older people and their families: Key issues in policy and practice. Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2005. Long-term care for older people. Paris, France: Author.
  • Raphael, D. 1996. Defining quality of life: Eleven debates concerning its measurement. In Renwick, R, Brown, I & Nagler, M. (Eds.), Quality of life in health promotion and rehabilitation: Conceptual approaches, issues, and applications (pp. 146–170). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Raynes, N. 2000. Quality care: The inside story. Elderly Care, 1110, 8–10.
  • Redfern, S & Norman, I. 1999. Quality of nursing care perceived by patients and their nurses. An application of the critical incident technique. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 8, 407–420. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2702.1999.0288a.x [CrossRef]
  • Smith, A. 2000. Researching quality of life of older people: Concepts, measures and findings (Keele University Centre for Social Gerontology Working Paper No. 7). Keele, United Kingdom: Keele University Centre for Social Gerontology.
  • Strauss, A & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Tester, S, Hubbard, G, Downs, M, MacDonald, C & Murphy, J. 2004. Frailty and institutional life. In Walker, A & Hennessy Hagan, C. (Eds.), Growing older: Quality of life in old age (pp. 209–224). Berkshire, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
  • Tolson, D, MacLaren, W, Kiely, K & Lowndes, A. 2005. Influence of policies on nursing practice in long-term care environments. Nursing and Health Care Management Policy, 50, 661–671.
  • World Health Organization, Ageing and Health Programme, & Milbank Memorial Fund. 2000. Towards an international consensus on policy for long-term care of the ageing. Retrieved January 8, 2008, from the Milbank Memorial Fund Web site: http://www.milbank.org/000712oms.pdf
  • Zhan, L. 1992. Quality of life: Conceptual and measurement issues. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 795–800. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb02000.x [CrossRef]

Attendance at Each Focus Group (N = 67)

Focus Group (Location) n
1 (Dublin) 10
2( Dublin) 15
3 (Galway) 9
4 (Galway) 11
5 (Dublin) 10
6 (Donegal) 3a
7 (Cork) 9

Description of Focus Group Attendees

Kind of Facility
Private Public Voluntary Total
Variable n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Potential participants 340 (60) 170 (30) 57 (10) 568 (100)
Participants who were invited to attenda 126 (60) 63 (20) 21 (10) 210 (100)
Participants who agreed to attend 82 (65) 49 (78) 9 (42) 140 (100)
Actual number of participants who attended 38 (57) 22 (32) 7 (10) 67 (100)

Quality of Life in Ireland

Murphy, K, O’Shea, E & Cooney, A. 2008. Nurse Managers’ Perceptions of Quality of Life of Older Adults Living in Long-Stay Care in Ireland: Is It Time for a Bill of Rights?Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 343, 47–55.

  1. Nurse managers believed that residential care environments should be homelike, involve families, provide meaningful activities, and have appropriate physical infrastructure to enhance residents’ quality of life.

  2. Nurse managers have a key role in shaping the ethos of care within residential care environments and advocating for the rights of residents.

  3. Managers in Ireland stressed the need for regulation and national standards; however, these continue to be issues of contention because of the diversity of care provision.

  4. The managers suggested it was time for a bill of rights for older people, which would guarantee care at an appropriate standard.

Authors

Dr. Murphy is Professor of Nursing, and Ms. Cooney is Senior Lecturer, School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, and Dr. O’Shea is Director of the Irish Centre for Social Gerontology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.

Address correspondence to Kathy Murphy, PhD, MSc, BA (Hons.), RNT, RGN, Dip. Nurs., Professor of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Aras Moyola, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland; e-mail: kathy. .murphy@nuigalway.ie

10.3928/00989134-20080301-06

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents