Skip to main content

Table 4 Identified pains and (desired) gains for ‘who should evaluate’

From: The needs of key-stakeholders for evaluating client’s experienced quality of home care: a qualitative approach

Category

Pains

Gains

Who should evaluate

▪ Direct caregiver lacks role to formally evaluate (F,P)

▪ Experienced difficulties if evaluation was conducted by direct (influencing existing relationship on responses) vs indirect caregiver (difficulties interpreting responses client) (F,P)

▪ Missing perspective of informal caregiver (F,P)

▪ Difficulties identifying evaluator (I)

▪ Sufficient availability of caregivers to discuss care experiences (I)

▪ Client can decide if family is included (F)

Desired gains

Direct caregiver instead of district nurse (C,F)

Someone with care expertise but not a caregiver (I,P)

Evaluation to be conducted by direct caregiver so it is relevant to their own experience, they can learn directly and feel responsible for their own clients (F,P)

More colleagues should have evaluation discussions (F,P)

Overarching contact beyond direct care (I)

Same person (I)

  1. Mentioned by C Clients, I Informal caregivers, F formal caregivers, P managers/policy officers