What matters most to people in retirement villages and their transition to residential aged care

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:As older people age and become frail, their decline in independence and concomitant changing care needs may force them to move from retirement village to a residential aged care (RAC) facility. The purpose of this study was to identify factors that contribute to subjective wellbeing among older people living in retirement villages in Aotearoa New Zealand and to compare results with the data from the residents of the care home facilities co-located with the retirement villages. METHOD:This study is mainly quantitative in nature to examine what factors contributed to subjective wellbeing among older people living in retirement villages. Descriptive and regression analyses were used with data collected in 2016 from residents of two retirement villages (N = 163) from one aged residential care provider in Aotearoa New Zealand and they were then compared with already-published data on RAC residents. In addition, four village residents participated in semi-structured interviews. RESULTS:Results showed that retirement village residents reported being generally satisfied with their living environment and their overall wellbeing is positively influenced by their social and psychological milieu. CONCLUSIONS:This research provides insights on what matters most to retirement village residents' subjective wellbeing, which includes a dignified environment enhancing positive mental health, relationship building and reducing loneliness and isolation. Results were also compared with feedback from care home residents co-located in the same estate to provide an indicative picture for comparison against other studies to inform and expand choices for older people to consider when relocating in late-life.

Health profile of residents of retirement villages in Auckland, New Zealand: findings from a cross-sectional survey with health assessment

“…The information that does exist about residents is predominantly from three sources: the industry’s own annual reports, 1 10–13 the Retirement Commissioner’s one-off survey, 6 a few qualitative studies 14 15 and occasional surveys of one/few villages. 16 Neither the national census nor national health datasets can report demographic or health characteristics of those living in RV. Unlike long-term care facilities, RV are not seen as part of the health system and there is no involvement of health authorities in their operations except where residents receive home-based supports in the same way as they might if living independently.…”

An interRAI‐derived frailty index is associated with prior hospitalisations in older adults residing in retirement villages

“…Additionally, some RVs have nursing home/private hospital facilities on‐site, although in NZ there is no preferential access to these amenities should they require it in the future. Some with increased frailty see RVs as an alternative to long‐term care (LTC) 7 . Our research group is undertaking a larger study of the health and functional needs and trajectories of older adults residing in RVs.…”

Study protocol: older people in retirement villages. A survey and randomised trial of a multi-disciplinary invention designed to avoid adverse outcomes

“…In addition, social connection and participation are considered an aspect of RV living that flourishes [19]. A recent NZ study involving 163 RV residents in two RVs found that a "dignified" environment improved mental wellbeing, provided an environment that built relationships and reduced loneliness and isolation [11]. However, some international studies have shown that family contact reduces for village residents compared to community dwelling older people.…”

“…Internationally, RVs have been shown to impact positively on residents' wellbeing, with higher quality of life compared to those living in family homes or in LTC [9,10]. NZ research has shown that RV residents are more educated, have more financial resources and better wellbeing, but have significantly greater functional dependency compared with those in private dwellings [11]. It is clear that only those with substantial financial resources can afford the significant personal investment required initially (NZ$250,000-NZ$1 M+) and the (usually) ongoing monthly service fees, [8] resulting in inequity in access.…”