上海市中心城区长期护理保险服务质量调查

  目的  评估长期护理保险服务对象的需求和满意度, 了解长期护理保险服务推广后是否达到预期。  方法  研究对象来自上海市中心3个社区，每个社区于2021年1—12月从通过评估失能程度为2~6级且享受相应的长期护理保险待遇的居民中，各抽取80名居民。调查内容分为2个部分，(1)个人基本情况；(2)长期护理服务质量评价:基于SERVPERF(Service Performance)模型，构建移情性、可靠性、响应性、保证性、感知性5个评价维度，每个维度对应设计3~5个评价指标，共20个指标对长期护理服务质量进行评价。  结果  240名服务对象中, 男性78名(32.50%)，女性162名(67.50%)；其中90.42%(217/240)为70岁及以上的老人；已婚122人(50.83%)、丧偶106人(44.17%)；服务的地点主要为社区居家；健康状况和自理能力以一般(49.58%)和不健康(33.75%)、自理有困难(42.08%)和基本自理(34.17%)为主；需求2~3级护理占58.75%。本次调查的长期护理服务质量的整体评价总分为4.408分，处在比较好和非常好的范围内。5个维度的得分从高到低依次是:响应性、可靠性、感知性、保证性和移情性。  结论  服务对象对长期护理服务质量的整体评价是满意的，但不能满足不同等级服务对象的护理需求。 

Investigation of the quality of long-term care insurance service in the central city of Shanghai

  Objective  To evaluate clients' needs and satisfaction with long-term care insurance, and understand whether or not the desired target is achieved after the long-term care insurance service promotion.  Methods  The research subject came from three communities located in the centre of Shanghai from January to December 2021, and a total of 80 residents who were involved in the corresponding long-term care insurance were randomly selected from each community. The outcomes rank from levels 2 to 6 by evaluating their disabilities. The survey involves two parts: (1) personal information; (2) quality evaluation from long-term care services: based on SERVPERF (Service Performance) model, five dimensions of empathy, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and perception were constructed, and each dimension was designed with 3-5 evaluation indicators, and a total of 20 indicators were used to evaluate the quality of long-term care services.  Results  A total of 240 people were involved, including 78 males (50.83%) and 162 females (67.50%); among them, 90.42% (217/240) were 70 years old or above; 122 were married (50.83%) and 106 were widows (44.17%); the service location was mainly community home; health situations and self-care ability were mainly including general (49.58%), unhealthy (33.75%), with disability (42.08%) and ability with self-care (34.17%); 58.75% of them were required for level 2-3 care. The overall evaluation score of long-term care service quality in this survey was 4.408, which was in a relatively good and very good range. The five aspects ranked from top to the bottom were responsiveness, reliability, perception, assurance and empathy.  Conclusion  The overall evaluation outcome stays positive. However, it cannot satisfy the needs of different disability levels of the elderly.