Alternative staffing structures in a clustered domestic model of residential aged care in Australia

Objective A clustered domestic model of residential aged care has been associated with better consumer‐rated quality of care. Our objective was to examine differences in staffing structures between clustered domestic and standard models. Methods A cross‐sectional study involving 541 individuals living in 17 Australian not‐for‐profit residential aged care homes. Results Four of the homes offered dementia‐specific clustered domestic models of care with higher personal care attendant (PCA) hours‐per‐resident‐per‐day (mean [SD] 2.43 [0.29] vs. 1.74 [0.46], P < 0.001), slightly higher direct care hours‐per‐resident‐per‐day (2.66 [0.35] vs. 2.58 [0.44], P = 0.006), higher staff training costs ($1492 [258] vs. $989 [928], P < 0.001) and lower registered/enrolled nurse hours‐per‐resident‐per‐day (0.23 [0.10] vs. 0.85 [0.17], P < 0.001) compared to standard models. Conclusions An Australian clustered domestic model of care had higher PCA hours, more staff training and more direct care time compared to standard models. Further research to determine optimal staffing structures within alternative models of care is warranted. Impact A dementia‐specific clustered domestic model of care within aged care facilities, which has previously been associated with better consumer‐rated quality of care has higher staff training costs and higher direct care hours. Further research on alternative staffing structures in alternative models of residential aged care should be undertaken.