BACKGROUND Limited evidence exists on how to assess long-term care system performance. This study aims to report on the process and results of developing a performance assessment framework to evaluate the long-term care system financed by the public long-term care insurance in South Korea. METHODS The framework was developed through a six-step approach, including setting the goals and scope of performance assessment in the given policy context, reviewing existing performance frameworks, developing a framework with a wide range of potential indicators, refining the framework through a series of Delphi surveys and expert meetings, examining the feasibility of generated indicators through a pilot test, receiving the comments of stakeholders, and finalising the performance framework. RESULTS The finalised framework has 4 domains - coverage, quality of care, quality of life and system sustainability - and 28 indicators, including 10 core indicators to monitor long-term care system performance. Usability and feasibility along with policy relevance were important criteria in selecting these indicators. The proposed framework can be used to assess the performance of the long-term care system in Korea, and the framework and its methodological approach can be benchmarks for other countries developing their own framework. CONCLUSIONS It is critical to reconcile and prioritise various stakeholders' views and information needs as well as to balance methodological rigor with practical usefulness and feasibility in the development and implementation of a long-term care performance monitoring system.

中文翻译：

---

制定韩国公共长期护理系统绩效评估框架：方法和政策教训。


背景 关于如何评估长期护理系统绩效的证据有限。本研究旨在报告制定绩效评估框架的过程和结果，以评估韩国公共长期护理保险资助的长期护理系统。方法 该框架通过六步法制定，包括在给定政策背景下设定绩效评估的目标和范围、审查现有绩效框架、制定具有广泛潜在指标的框架、通过一系列改进框架来完善框架。德尔福进行调查和专家会议，通过试点检验生成指标的可行性，听取利益相关者的意见，最终确定绩效框架。结果 最终框架有 4 个领域——覆盖范围、护理质量、生活质量和系统可持续性——以及 28 个指标，其中包括 10 个监测长期护理系统绩效的核心指标。可用性和可行性以及政策相关性是选择这些指标的重要标准。拟议的框架可用于评估韩国长期护理体系的绩效，并且该框架及其方法可以成为其他国家制定自己的框架的基准。结论 在长期护理绩效监测系统的开发和实施中，协调和优先考虑不同利益相关者的观点和信息需求以及平衡方法的严谨性与实际有用性和可行性至关重要。