Observational studyAge and ageing2025
Resident funding and care home quality: a retrospective observational analysis of the impact of the two-tier care system in England.
Observational study in Age and ageing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdult social care in England operates in a two-tier system of self-funded and state-funded residents. It is unclear, however, whether resident funding source impacts care home quality.
methodsWe conducted a nationwide retrospective observational analysis of care homes in England (n = 28 239 Provider Information Return entries for 14 444 care homes, representing ~367 653 residents), 2021-23, to examine the relationship between resident funding (self- or state-funded) and care home quality (inspection ratings by the industry regulator). We linked data from the Care Quality Commission's Provider Information Return to inspection ratings, area deprivation, and care home and resident characteristics. We modelled a series of logistic regressions, incorporating interaction terms to investigate the interrelationships between ownership (for-profit, third sector, public) and area deprivation.
findingsCare homes with more self-funded residents were more likely to have better inspection ratings [odds ratio for each percentage of self-funded residents: 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.008-1.012, P < .001]. The effect of self-funded residents on care quality was largest amongst for-profit homes and not statistically significant for third sector and public homes. For homes without self-funders, third sector and public providers were 14.0 (95% CI: 10.1-17.8, P < .001) and 6.9 (95% CI: 4.1-9.7, P < .001) percentage points more likely to be rated higher than for-profit homes.
conclusionsThe quality of for-profit care homes is strongly influenced by the proportion of self-funded residents, whilst third and public sector homes provide consistent care regardless of resident funding source. This strongly impacts care equity for residents nationwide, as the concentration of self-funders is largely determined by area wealth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.