Retention and attrition of certified care assistants in the long-term care industry from the Taipei area: An interview survey

Background/objectivesThe question, “do certified care assistants (CCAs), after finishing their training, devote themselves to the long-term care industry in accordance with the original expectations?”, is still unknown. Few studies have focused on CCAs who have left the long-term care industry. The purposes of this study were to identify the employment status of CCAs over the January 2000–July 2002 time period who had undergone a training program sometime in 1999 and to explore the factors affecting whether the CCAs stay or leave the long-term care industry in the Taipei area. Understanding retention and attrition of CCAs is important for developing the strategies of managing manpower in this industry.Design/setting/participantsA descriptive survey design was conducted to telephone interview 826 CCAs who had trained during the 1999 certification training program in Taipei area. Three hundred and thirteen participants (an interview-completed rate of 38%) provided usable data.MethodsA structured interview schedule was developed by authors for interview. Descriptive statistics and χ2 test were adopted to report the subjects’ characteristics and factors that influenced his/her intention to stay or leave this industry.ResultsOne hundred and sixty-eight respondents (53.7%) had still stayed in this industry, while 145 respondents (46.3%) had left already. Major reasons for staying were personal interest in caring elderly, good financial benefits from the facility, and supportive leadership. In contrast, low wages, heavy workloads, long working hours, a high level of stress, and poor financial benefits were factors contributing to careers leaving this industry.ConclusionsMany factors affected whether CCAs stayed or left, including personal factors, work-related factors, the welfare system, the managerial system, the leadership style and the work environment. However, the sequence of these factors and their importance were different between two groups. This study has significant implications for managing the manpower of the long-term care industry.