Bo trygt hjemme: Norway’s Strategy for Helping Older People Live Safely at Home

An older person can remain formally “at home” while becoming steadily less independent. The front steps may become difficult to manage, bus routes may no longer feel accessible, a spouse may quietly take on more personal care, and municipal workers may begin making several short visits each day. Nothing dramatic has happened, yet the conditions that once made the home sustainable have changed.

Norway’s Bo trygt hjemme reform is an attempt to intervene much earlier in that trajectory. Rather than treating ageing at home primarily as a question of expanding municipal home-care visits, the reform links housing, neighbourhoods, prevention, participation, workforce, technology, family support and health and care services. Within the wider Norway Ageing, Long-Term Care & Community Support Knowledge Hub, it represents one of the clearest examples of how Norway is trying to translate demographic ageing into structural reform rather than simply more of the same care.

The reform runs through the 2024–2028 period and is deliberately broad. Its ambition is that more older people should be able to live safely at home for longer, that the need for intensive health and care services should be delayed where realistically possible, and that personnel and other resources should be used more effectively. Its success therefore cannot be measured simply by fewer nursing-home admissions. The stronger test is whether people remain active, safe, connected and properly supported without family members or municipal staff absorbing unsustainable hidden workload.

Bo trygt hjemme is a societal reform, not a home-care programme

The Norwegian title can be understood broadly as “live safely at home”, but the policy intent reaches well beyond the front door. The reform is based on the premise that demographic ageing is a lasting structural change and that care services alone cannot absorb its consequences.

This is why responsibility extends across several sectors and national actors. Health and care remain central, but housing policy, local planning, transport, infrastructure, voluntary activity, working life and community development all affect whether people can continue living independently.

At national level, seven ministries and their agencies are involved in the wider reform structure. The Norwegian Directorate of Health has overall coordinating responsibility for the reform’s implementation towards municipalities and across participating agencies.

That cross-government architecture is important because many determinants of future care demand sit outside the health budget. A municipality may spend heavily on home services while continuing to approve housing development that leaves older residents isolated from shops, transport and community facilities. Another may invest in welfare technology but fail to address inaccessible housing. A third may have excellent clinical care but limited opportunities for older people to remain socially active.

Bo trygt hjemme tries to bring those issues into one ageing strategy.

This connects closely with wider thinking on health inequalities, prevention and early intervention. Prevention in later life is not confined to disease screening. It includes preserving function, preventing isolation, adapting environments and recognising changes before they become crises requiring intensive formal care.

The reform is organised around four connected areas

The reform’s national architecture identifies four principal areas of effort. They are deliberately broader than traditional health-service categories:

• living and age-friendly local communities that support activity, participation and intergenerational contact;
• housing adaptation and planning so that more people can live safely in suitable homes;
• competent and empowered employees who can use scarce workforce capacity effectively; and
• security for people using services alongside appropriate support and involvement for relatives.

These areas are interdependent.

A suitable home can reduce the amount of physical assistance someone needs. A capable workforce can identify deterioration earlier. A socially connected person may maintain activity and confidence for longer. A family carer who receives realistic support may be able to continue a valued role without reaching exhaustion.

The reverse is also true. Poor housing can increase dependency. Fragmented staffing can reduce confidence. Weak transport can produce isolation. Unsupported relatives can become a point of failure in an otherwise apparently stable home-care arrangement.

The reform therefore changes the unit of analysis. Instead of asking only, “What service should this person receive?”, it asks a broader question: “What conditions allow this person to continue living safely and meaningfully where they want to live?”

Age-friendly communities are part of the care infrastructure

One of the reform’s strongest ideas is that local communities themselves influence demand for care.

A neighbourhood in which an older person can walk safely, reach a shop, use public transport, participate in activities and meet other people supports a different form of ageing from one in which every everyday task requires assistance or a car journey.

This is not simply a wellbeing argument. It has operational consequences.

Reduced physical activity can accelerate loss of strength and balance. Social isolation can worsen mental wellbeing. Difficult transport can turn manageable healthcare appointments into missed care. Inaccessible public spaces may lead people to remain indoors long before their medical condition requires it.

Norway’s Program for an Age-Friendly Norway 2030 sits within the reform and includes areas such as meaningful meeting places, age-friendly transport, mobilisation of older people as community resources, partnership and planning for later life.

The emphasis on older people as contributors is particularly important. Ageing policy can easily portray older people solely as future recipients of services. In reality, many continue to volunteer, care for relatives, contribute to organisations, participate in cultural life and support their communities for decades after retirement.

This wider interpretation aligns with outcomes, independence and community inclusion. Living at home has limited value if remaining there means becoming disconnected from community life.

Scenario: the care problem is actually a neighbourhood problem

A 78-year-old man lives alone in a small Norwegian town. He has mild mobility limitations but no significant personal-care needs. Following the closure of a nearby shop and changes to the local bus timetable, he begins relying increasingly on his daughter for groceries and transport.

Over the following year, he goes out less, stops attending a weekly community activity and becomes less physically active. After a minor fall, the municipality receives a request for additional practical assistance.

A narrow response could simply allocate more municipal help. A wider Bo trygt hjemme approach asks why his independence reduced. Local planning data show that several older residents in the same area face similar transport and social-access problems.

The municipality works with community organisations and transport partners to improve access to activities and develops a more suitable local transport arrangement. The man receives short-term rehabilitation after his fall, while practical help remains proportionate to what he actually needs.

The outcome is not that formal services disappear. It is that municipal care does not become the default substitute for disappearing community infrastructure.

The scenario illustrates why ageing at home needs a whole-place perspective. Care demand can sometimes be produced or intensified by environmental conditions that no home-care team can solve through additional visits.

Housing is one of the reform’s central levers

Norway’s housing stock contains large numbers of homes that were not designed for people with reduced mobility. Steps, narrow bathrooms, difficult entrances, several floors and distance from services can all turn relatively modest impairment into substantial support need.

The reform therefore places housing adaptation and planning at its centre rather than treating housing as a separate social-policy issue.

The Eldreboligprogrammet, or Older People’s Housing Programme, forms part of Bo trygt hjemme. The Norwegian State Housing Bank has overall responsibility for implementation in collaboration with other actors. The programme aims to improve guidance and planning, encourage people to think earlier about their own housing situation and support the development of more social and suitable housing forms.

This is a significant policy shift because housing decisions are often made years before care needs appear.

An individual may remain in a large inaccessible home because moving feels unnecessary at 65, only to find at 82 that the building itself is driving dependence. Municipalities face an equivalent planning problem. If suitable housing does not exist when the population ages, home-care services inherit the consequences.

Housing strategy is therefore also a form of equipment, assistive technology and home adaptation thinking at population scale: the physical environment can either compensate for changing capability or amplify impairment.

Housing policy also redistributes future workforce demand

The relationship between housing and workforce is easy to underestimate.

A home-care worker who spends significant time travelling between dispersed and inaccessible homes has less time available for direct support. Two-person visits may be required because environments make transfers difficult. Poor building design can increase manual-handling risk. A lack of lifts may limit whether someone can leave their home independently.

Conversely, accessible housing close to services can make both independent living and formal care more efficient.

This does not mean clustering all older people into specialist developments. The objective is greater choice and greater suitability across the general housing market.

Municipal planning therefore needs to connect demographic projections, housing stock, care demand and workforce geography rather than producing separate strategies for each.

Organisations examining similar long-range questions can use the Digital Twin Scenario Modeller to test how capacity, workforce and demand assumptions interact. The tool does not reproduce Norwegian municipal planning models, but it demonstrates the wider principle that future care demand should be tested against the environments in which support will actually be delivered.

Prevention means intervening before dependency becomes fixed

A second major shift within the reform is towards earlier and more preventive support.

Traditional care systems can become organised around responding after people cross a threshold of dependency. Bo trygt hjemme seeks to strengthen measures that delay or reduce the need for intensive services where this is realistic.

Examples include preventive home visits, physical activity, nutrition, rehabilitation, early identification of frailty, fall prevention, social participation and support to manage chronic conditions.

The objective needs careful interpretation. Prevention does not mean that every future care need can be avoided. Many people will eventually require substantial assistance because of dementia, neurological disease, severe frailty or other conditions.

The value lies in altering trajectories where possible.

Maintaining strength for another year matters. Preventing one avoidable fall matters. Identifying malnutrition before hospitalisation matters. Enabling someone to manage medicines independently for longer matters.

At population scale, many modest improvements can influence future demand even when no single intervention appears transformative.

The 2026 agenda is making prevention more operational

By 2026, implementation of Bo trygt hjemme had moved beyond establishing the reform architecture towards more specific programmes and follow-up activity.

National work includes further development of preventive measures for older people living at home, municipal planning support, work on identifying and assessing frailty, better knowledge about quality in older people’s services and continued attention to nutrition.

The government’s Eldreløftet, launched in 2025, reinforces selected areas within the broader reform. For 2026, its priorities include housing, staffing and quality, hearing and activity.

A new national grant arrangement of NOK 70 million was introduced for activities for and by older people, linked to the reform’s ambition to strengthen participation and reduce loneliness. The programme supports age-friendly meeting places and opportunities for older people to contribute through voluntary activity.

This is significant because prevention is often weakened by the way budgets are organised. Municipal health and care services bear the cost of dependency, while the activity, transport or housing intervention that might delay it may sit elsewhere.

The reform attempts to create a stronger cross-sector connection between those decisions.

Scenario: preventing dependency after a hospital admission

An 82-year-old woman is discharged home after treatment for pneumonia. Before admission she walked independently, cooked for herself and attended a local exercise group. After ten days of illness and reduced activity, she returns home considerably weaker.

A task-focused home-care model could begin permanently performing activities she now finds difficult: dressing, preparing breakfast and carrying laundry.

Instead, the municipality treats her loss of function as potentially reversible. Rehabilitation professionals assess strength, balance and confidence. Home-care staff support her to participate in tasks rather than routinely completing them for her. Minor equipment is introduced, and the intensity of assistance is reviewed weekly.

Her daughter is told what support is available but is not expected to replace municipal services during recovery.

Within six weeks, the woman resumes preparing breakfast, needs less help with dressing and begins attending a community activity again.

The financial benefit is relevant, but it is not the principal outcome. She has regained control over part of her daily life.

This reflects wider outcomes-focused and goal-led support. Prevention is strongest when it is expressed through something meaningful to the person rather than through a general ambition to reduce service use.

Home-first policy needs to avoid becoming home-at-all-costs policy

Every policy that encourages people to remain at home carries a potential risk: institutional care can become framed as policy failure rather than an appropriate option for some people.

Bo trygt hjemme does not remove municipalities’ responsibility to provide necessary and professionally sound health and care services. Nor does it remove the right to long-term nursing-home care or equivalent provision where that is the only arrangement capable of meeting need safely.

This distinction is essential.

A person with advanced dementia who is repeatedly leaving home at night may not be made safe simply through more technology. Someone requiring complex round-the-clock nursing may eventually be better supported in an institution. A spouse may reach a point where continued care at home is damaging both partners.

The purpose of home-first reform should therefore be to expand the period in which living at home is genuinely safe and desirable, not to postpone appropriate transitions because institutional provision is expensive.

This is where positive risk-taking and risk enablement for older people become important. Autonomy involves accepting some risk, but professional responsibility requires distinguishing chosen risk from circumstances in which support has become inadequate.

The Positive Risk-Taking Planner can help organisations examining comparable dilemmas structure discussion around choice, benefit, hazard, mitigation and review. It is not a Norwegian eligibility instrument, but it can support the wider discipline of making risk reasoning explicit without automatically defaulting to restriction.

Trust-based services are intended to improve continuity at home

One of the reform’s stated ambitions is that older people experience more predictable services with fewer different employees entering their homes.

This recognises a practical weakness that can emerge in highly scheduled home-care systems. Efficiency measured through task allocation can result in many workers visiting the same person across a week, with limited relational continuity.

For a person receiving a simple practical task, that may be inconvenient. For someone with dementia, frailty or complex medication, continuity can be clinically and emotionally significant.

Regular staff are more likely to recognise subtle deterioration. They know how someone normally walks, speaks and eats. They may notice a change that would appear unremarkable to a worker meeting the person for the first time.

Continuity also affects trust because home care takes place in private space. Older people may need assistance with intimate tasks from workers who enter their homes several times each day.

The reform’s emphasis on trust therefore connects workforce organisation with home-care workforce and scheduling. Rota efficiency and continuity need to be balanced rather than treated as separate objectives.

Empowered workers are part of the sustainability model

Bo trygt hjemme also emphasises workers who have appropriate competence, responsibility and trust.

This reflects a wider Norwegian workforce debate. As demand rises, highly standardised systems in which every minor decision has to be escalated through several layers can consume scarce professional capacity.

Empowerment does not mean removing clinical governance. It means ensuring that the people closest to older residents can exercise appropriate judgement within clear responsibilities.

A home-care worker who notices worsening mobility should understand how to initiate review. A nurse should be able to respond proportionately to changing need. Rehabilitation professionals need sufficient influence over care pathways to prevent task-focused support from undermining recovery.

The objective is not simply “fewer managers”. It is better use of professional and occupational competence.

This connects directly with workforce skill mix and practice competence in older people’s care. More responsibility at the frontline requires investment in training, supervision, information and psychological safety to escalate concerns.

Scenario: fewer workers create better clinical visibility

A municipality reviews one home-care district where older people regularly see more than a dozen different workers across a fortnight. Missed visits are relatively uncommon, so the service appears operationally reliable, but feedback shows poor predictability and frontline staff report difficulty recognising gradual changes in people’s health.

The municipality reorganises the district around smaller neighbourhood teams with clearer responsibility for defined groups of residents. Scheduling is adjusted to prioritise continuity where clinical or cognitive needs make it especially important.

The redesign does not eliminate cross-cover. Holidays, sickness and workforce shortages still require flexibility. Nor is continuity pursued so rigidly that routes become operationally inefficient.

Instead, the municipality measures a broader set of outcomes: number of different staff encountered, missed and late visits, recognition of deterioration, staff workload, continuity and user experience.

Several months later, an older man’s worsening confusion is identified earlier because workers familiar with him recognise that the change is unusual. A nurse initiates clinical review.

The scenario illustrates how workforce design can affect safety without changing the formal entitlement to care. Bo trygt hjemme therefore asks municipalities to think not only about how many staff hours they provide but about how those hours are organised around relationships and clinical observation.

Technology has a major role, but only as part of the operating model

Increased use of health and welfare technology is another explicit result ambition within the reform.

Norwegian municipalities already use technologies such as digital safety alarms, medication support, sensors and remote monitoring in varying forms. The future opportunity is to make technology a more systematic part of supporting independence.

The strongest applications solve a defined problem.

A medication dispenser may enable someone to manage independently without a routine visit. A digital safety system may allow a person with mobility concerns to remain alone with greater confidence. Remote clinical monitoring can help some people manage chronic conditions while reducing unnecessary travel.

Technology also has workforce implications. In remote municipalities, avoiding one unnecessary journey can release meaningful staff time.

But these benefits are conditional. Technology can create false reassurance if risks are poorly understood. Alarms still need a response pathway. Sensors generate data that someone has to interpret. Digital solutions can exclude people who lack confidence or cognitive ability.

This is why person-centred technology and digital enablement need to remain the starting point rather than technology adoption itself.

Leaders can use the Digital Transformation Readiness Assessment to examine whether strategy, workforce adoption, infrastructure, cyber resilience and governance are aligned before scaling digital change. It is not a Norwegian regulatory tool, but it helps distinguish a functioning digital operating model from a collection of purchased technologies.

Family support is integral to the reform but cannot be its hidden workforce strategy

Relatives feature explicitly within Bo trygt hjemme. The reform aims for older people and families to feel confident that the wider community and public services will be available when needed, while relatives should receive appropriate information and opportunities for involvement.

This is important because family support often determines whether ageing at home remains viable.

A spouse may help with meals and medication. Adult children may provide transport, shopping and coordination. Relatives often recognise deterioration before formal services do.

The danger is that a home-first strategy can transfer increasing amounts of work to families without making that transfer visible.

A person may appear to require only two municipal visits each day because a daughter is providing another three hours of practical assistance. If the daughter becomes ill or cannot continue, the actual level of need becomes immediately visible.

Strong family partnership and carer support therefore require municipalities to understand both the contribution and sustainability of informal care.

The objective should be partnership, not substitution.

Scenario: the person is stable because the spouse is carrying an invisible load

An 85-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease lives with his wife. Municipal home services assist with morning personal care and some medication tasks. On paper, the arrangement appears stable.

During a review, his wife explains that she now helps him several times each night, manages most transfers during the day and rarely leaves the house because she worries he may fall.

The formal care package has barely changed, but the household’s real care demand has increased substantially.

A narrow assessment might conclude that the man remains safe at home because there have been no major incidents. A broader Bo trygt hjemme approach recognises that safety currently depends upon his wife providing unsustainable levels of support.

The municipality reassesses the arrangement. Equipment reduces some transfer risk, respite support gives his wife predictable breaks, and the home-care package is adjusted. Longer-term housing options are discussed before the situation becomes urgent.

The result is not designed to remove his wife from the caring relationship. It is intended to make that relationship sustainable and voluntary.

The example demonstrates why family capacity should form part of service intelligence. If ageing-at-home performance is measured only through institutional admission rates, systems can appear successful while families are absorbing significant hidden cost.

Rural implementation will look different from urban implementation

Norway’s geography means there can be no single operational model for Bo trygt hjemme.

In an urban municipality, the priority may be redesigning apartment stock, neighbourhood services and home-care continuity across a dense population. In a rural municipality, the challenge may be travel distance, limited housing choice and difficulty sustaining specialist workforce roles.

Age-friendly transport becomes particularly important where ordinary public transport is sparse. Digital solutions may have greater potential to extend professional reach, but hands-on care still requires physical presence.

The housing market also behaves differently. Older people in remote communities may have few realistic opportunities to move into suitable local homes without leaving established social networks.

This creates a difficult balance between efficiency and belonging. Concentrating services may improve workforce productivity but weaken people’s connection to place, culture and family.

The reform therefore needs local adaptation rather than uniform replication.

That adaptation should still remain evidence-led. Geographic constraints explain why services may look different, but they should not become a blanket justification for poorer access or lower expectations.

Reform governance has to connect seven ministries with hundreds of local realities

The breadth of Bo trygt hjemme is one of its greatest strengths and one of its central implementation risks.

A reform spanning housing, transport, health, care, voluntary activity, workforce and planning requires vertical coordination between national, regional and municipal levels and horizontal coordination across sectors at each level.

The Norwegian Directorate of Health coordinates the national implementation structure, supported by a national implementation plan and annual reporting.

OsloMet is undertaking an independent process and outcome evaluation. By June 2026, an interim report had examined how national and regional organisation supports vertical and horizontal coordination and how national steering instruments either enable or hinder that process.

This is an important stage in the reform’s maturity. The question is shifting from whether structures exist to whether they generate sufficient coherence to influence local change.

That distinction matters for internal controls and assurance frameworks. Complex reform does not become effective simply because every participating organisation has its own programme of work. Someone needs visibility over whether those programmes combine to produce the intended result.

Organisations managing comparable multi-partner change can use the Governance Maturity Assessment to examine whether accountability, challenge, escalation and assurance are sufficiently developed. It is not an assessment of Norwegian reform compliance, but it can help structure the governance questions created when responsibility is deliberately distributed.

Municipal implementation needs to move beyond adopting the reform language

The practical danger with any broad national reform is symbolic implementation. A municipality can refer to age-friendly communities, prevention and ageing at home in strategic documents while leaving operating processes largely unchanged.

Genuine implementation should become visible in decisions.

Are demographic projections influencing housing plans? Are assessments identifying rehabilitation potential? Are home-care rotas being redesigned for continuity? Are carers’ circumstances understood? Are welfare technologies replacing or improving specific processes rather than merely being piloted? Are community and transport decisions being considered through an ageing lens?

The strongest municipal approach is therefore not necessarily a separate Bo trygt hjemme project team. It is integration into ordinary planning, budgeting and service governance.

A reform is embedded when its assumptions change how mainstream decisions are made.

Measurement needs to distinguish genuine independence from reduced formal care

The reform has explicit national result ambitions, including suitable housing, age-friendly communities, increased use of health and welfare technology, more predictable services, appropriate workforce competence and stronger support for relatives.

Those objectives create a better starting point than measuring success through service-volume reduction alone.

Municipalities still need local measures that reveal whether change is improving people’s lives.

Useful evidence might include:

• changes in functional independence following rehabilitation;
• continuity within home-care teams;
• falls, hospital use and emergency escalation;
• access to suitable and adapted housing;
• participation and loneliness indicators;
• carer experience and sustainability; and
• whether technology-supported arrangements remain safe and acceptable to users.

No single metric proves that somebody is “living safely at home”.

A falling nursing-home admission rate could represent better prevention, but it could also indicate constrained institutional access. Lower home-care hours could represent greater independence or unmet need. Higher technology use could reflect successful digital enablement or simply more devices being purchased.

This is why quality data, KPIs and performance metrics need interpretation rather than simple target management.

The Quality Dashboard Builder can help organisations connect service activity with outcomes, risk and governance questions. It does not replicate the national evaluation framework for Bo trygt hjemme, but it supports the same underlying principle: reform metrics should help leaders decide whether operating changes are producing the intended effect.

The reform needs to protect equity as expectations of individual responsibility increase

Bo trygt hjemme also encourages people to plan more actively for their own later life, including their housing situation. This is understandable and potentially beneficial, but it raises an equity question.

Not everyone has the same ability to prepare.

Some older people own valuable homes that can be adapted or exchanged for accessible housing. Others rent, have low income or live in housing markets with limited alternatives. Some have large family networks. Others are isolated. Digital capability, education and health literacy also vary.

A policy that relies too heavily on individual preparation could therefore widen inequality even while improving outcomes for people with greater resources.

The reform explicitly recognises the need to counter social differences through collective solutions. Municipal implementation should retain that principle.

Personal responsibility works best when people have realistic choices. Information about future housing is valuable only where suitable alternatives exist. Advice about physical activity is useful only where environments are accessible. Technology can empower only when people can use and afford the surrounding infrastructure.

The strongest model combines individual preparation with public conditions that make preparation possible.

International learning lies in moving ageing policy upstream

Norway’s reform is shaped by a strong municipal welfare system, high levels of public responsibility and specific national institutions. Other countries cannot simply copy the mechanism.

Its wider lesson lies in where the reform locates the ageing challenge.

Instead of assuming that a growing older population requires a proportionate expansion of conventional long-term care, Bo trygt hjemme asks which conditions influence how quickly people become dependent upon those services.

That moves policy upstream into housing, transport, prevention, rehabilitation, community participation and workforce organisation.

Other systems could adapt that principle without reproducing Norway’s municipal model. Housing authorities can be treated as care-system partners. Transport policy can be assessed for its impact on independence. Family-carer capacity can be included in system planning. Digital programmes can be tested for whether they genuinely replace burden or simply relocate it.

The transferable insight is not that everyone should remain at home indefinitely. It is that long-term care demand is partly shaped before someone becomes a formal long-term care recipient.

The next test is whether reform survives ordinary operational pressure

By 2026, Bo trygt hjemme sits in the middle of its 2024–2028 implementation period. The architecture is established, national programmes are active and evaluation is under way.

The more difficult phase is institutionalisation.

Reforms are easiest to support when they involve new programmes and pilot activity. They become harder when their principles require redirecting ordinary budgets, changing professional roles, redesigning housing policy or stopping established practices.

Norway’s demographic trajectory gives the reform little room to remain peripheral. The number of very old people will continue rising long after the formal reform period ends.

Its long-term value will therefore depend on whether municipalities and national agencies embed its underlying assumptions into routine planning: prevention before crisis, suitable housing before dependency, workforce redesign before vacancies become unmanageable, and support for families before informal care collapses.

Conclusion

Bo trygt hjemme represents a significant shift in how Norway frames the challenge of an ageing population. It does not treat living at home merely as an alternative location for services. It treats independence as the product of housing, neighbourhoods, prevention, workforce, technology, family relationships and responsive municipal care working together.

That broader model is both more ambitious and more difficult than simply expanding home-care capacity. It requires coordination across sectors that operate under different budgets and responsibilities. It also demands careful safeguards. Ageing at home must not become a means of transferring excessive responsibility to families, normalising inadequate support or delaying nursing-home care when institutional provision is genuinely required.

The strongest implementation will therefore combine independence with assurance. Municipalities need to know whether people remain safe, whether function is being maintained, whether carers can sustain their role, whether technology genuinely helps and whether workforce redesign improves continuity rather than merely reducing visible cost.

Norway’s strategic opportunity lies in moving intervention earlier. A suitable home, accessible community, timely rehabilitation or well-designed support arrangement can influence a person’s care trajectory years before intensive services are needed. If Bo trygt hjemme succeeds, its legacy will not simply be that more older people remain at home. It will be that more people are able to remain there because the wider system has made home a genuinely sustainable place in which to grow older.