**Background:** Measuring quality in healthcare increasingly incorporates client experience alongside safety and clinical outcomes. However, in community aged care, quality reporting has traditionally focused on technical aspects and client satisfaction surveys, with limited use of client feedback by leadership. The Australian Government has three objectives for aged care—accessibility, appropriateness, and high quality—but no data currently exists to measure the appropriateness of services addressing client needs. This scoping review aimed to identify client-derived quality measures relevant to government-funded community aged care services, focusing on what clients themselves consider important.
**Methods:** A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, and PsychINFO was conducted in May 2022, with targeted searches of Cochrane and Google Scholar. Two separate searches were undertaken reflecting Australian age criteria (>65 years or >50 years for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people). Filters limited results to academic journals published between July 2000 and April 2022. Titles/abstracts were reviewed by one author; full texts were independently reviewed by three authors with disagreement resolved by consensus. Inclusion required reference to: (a) client/patient/lived experience expert; (b) community aged care or home care services; and (c) quality measure, satisfaction, preference, or participation. Data analysis used the 4-step Miles and Huberman model for thematic analysis. The initial search identified 2288 articles, which decreased to 125 at abstract level. After full-text review and scanning reference lists, 62 articles were included.
**Key Results:** The largest number of publications were from Australia (n=22), followed by the United Kingdom (n=8), United States (n=7), Sweden (n=6), and Canada (n=5). Most studies (81%, n=50) were qualitative. Five key quality measures were identified: (1) client satisfaction, (2) client experience, (3) access and choice, (4) preference and expectations of care, and (5) service quality. From these, five quality domains emerged: (1) Staff knowledge—clients valued receiving care from competent, knowledgeable staff who understood their individual circumstances; having well-trained workers was valued as highly as having sufficient staff. (2) Respect for clients—being treated with dignity and respect was a strong theme across most studies, with mistreatment being a strong indicator of dissatisfaction. (3) Person-centred approach—clients wanted choice and control over services, timing, and care delivery, and wanted providers to recognise their need for meaningful hobbies, social bonds, and community participation. (4) Collaborative partnership—clients described power imbalances in care relationships and wanted to be treated as equal partners, not passive recipients. (5) Clear communication—clients wanted accessible information about services, costs, and how care related to their needs, and reported dissatisfaction with large volumes of paperwork or having to find information themselves.
**Clinical Implications:** These five quality domains provide a framework for developing client-centred quality indicators for community aged care services. The domains reflect what clients value across all stages of their service experience—from navigating the system and assessment processes to ongoing care delivery and communication. In Australia, where consumer directed care is legislated but no data exists to measure appropriateness of services addressing client needs, these domains could inform future quality measures. The review highlights that interpersonal and relational aspects of care are at least as important to clients as technical service delivery. However, only 6 of 62 studies engaged clients in designing methodology, and representation of people with cognitive impairment and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples was limited, indicating areas requiring further research.