# Analysis of Different Perspectives of Community-Based Long-Term Day-Care Centers

## TL;DR

This study evaluates the performance of community-based day-care centers in Taiwan and finds ways to improve their service quality and management.

## Contribution

The study identifies correlations between different evaluation perspectives and suggests improvements for better performance in day-care centers.

## Key findings

- Management effectiveness is strongly correlated with care quality, safety, and individual rights protection.
- Professional care quality moderately correlates with safety and individual rights.
- Self-evaluation scores differ significantly from evaluation committee scores.

## Abstract

This study involved the secondary data analysis of empirical results obtained from the 2023–2024 on-site evaluation of 26 community-based long-term day-care centers (referred to as day-care centers) in Taiwan to determine the status of performance. Although the on-site evaluation results used in this study were all qualified (an evaluation score ≥70 points), a score range of 73.625–96.625 points were widely observed. The evaluation was carried out from the following perspectives: management effectiveness, professional care quality, safe environment, and the protection of individual rights. The results showed that management effectiveness was positively correlated with professional care quality, safe environment, and the protection of individual rights (r = 0.498~0.596); professional care quality was moderately correlated with safe environment and the protection of individual rights (r = 0.482~0.495); and safe environment and the protection of individual rights had the lowest correlation (r = 0.296). A paired-samples t-test showed that the average difference between each pair (institutional self-evaluation and evaluation committee score) in the consensus benchmark was significant. These findings suggest that the overall service quality and management efficiency of day-care centers can be improved by strengthening internal self-assessment training, improving consensus benchmark definitions, and upgrading management processes so that the evaluation results reflect the actual implementation status.