As residential long‐term care (LTC) shifts toward ageing‐in‐place and healthy ageing, new models are emerging to support people with complex care needs in leading meaningful, socially connected lives. One such model is a residential LTC community—a type of care setting that integrates formal services with informal, community‐based support to foster inclusion, reciprocity and participation. While the concept has gained theoretical interest, its practical application remains underexplored. This study addresses that gap by asking: How do residential LTC communities take shape in practice? A qualitative multiple‐case study was conducted across five residential LTC communities in the Netherlands. In total, 47 stakeholders—including residents, care professionals, municipal staff and housing representatives—were interviewed. The initiatives varied in their developmental stage and founding actors but shared a community‐orientated approach. Analysis was guided by the vital community pyramid, a model that conceptualises development across four interconnected levels. The findings reveal that these communities are both planned and emergent–meaning not all elements can be fully designed or managed. Residential LTC communities are more likely to develop when meaningfully embedded within broader society. While foundational aspects like daily interactions are visible, higher‐level elements like resilience are more abstract and harder to observe or achieve. This study offers insight into how the idea of a residential LTC community is translated into real‐world practice. The findings offer guidance for organisations aiming to create or enhance such communities and contribute to broader discussions in social gerontology. By empirically grounding the concept, the study highlights the need for future research to focus on the lived experiences and evolving needs of residents who inhabit these communities.
Merx et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: