PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of the prevalence rating of depression in nursing homes as flagged on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) quality indicator report. DESIGN AND METHODS: Research Staff measured depression symptoms and compared the results with the prevalence of disturbed mood symptoms documented by nursing home (NH) staff on the MDS in two samples of residents living in different NHs. The homes had been flagged on the nationally mandated MDS quality indicator report as having unusually low (Site 1) or high (Site 2) prevalence rates of depression. RESULTS: The percentages of residents determined by research staff interview assessments to have probable depression in the two resident samples were not significantly different (49% vs. 55%, respectively) between homes. The staff in the home flagged on the MDS quality indicator report as having a high depression prevalence rate identified significantly more residents who also had scores indicative of probable depression on the resident interviews for follow-up mood assessments than did the home with a low quality indicator prevalence rate (78% vs. 25%, respectively). IMPLICATIONS: The prevalence of the depression quality indicator may be more reflective of measurement processes than of depression outcomes. Factors that may affect the difference in detection rates are discussed.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of the prevalence rating of depression in nursing homes as flagged on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) quality indicator report. DESIGN AND METHODS: Research Staff measured depression symptoms and compared the results with the prevalence of disturbed mood symptoms documented by nursing home (NH) staff on the MDS in two samples of residents living in different NHs. The homes had been flagged on the nationally mandated MDS quality indicator report as having unusually low (Site 1) or high (Site 2) prevalence rates of depression. RESULTS: The percentages of residents determined by research staff interview assessments to have probable depression in the two resident samples were not significantly different (49% vs. 55%, respectively) between homes. The staff in the home flagged on the MDS quality indicator report as having a high depression prevalence rate identified significantly more residents who also had scores indicative of probable depression on the resident interviews for follow-up mood assessments than did the home with a low quality indicator prevalence rate (78% vs. 25%, respectively). IMPLICATIONS: The prevalence of the depression quality indicator may be more reflective of measurement processes than of depression outcomes. Factors that may affect the difference in detection rates are discussed.
Authors: Rebecca S Allen; Louis D Burgio; David L Roth; Rachael Ragsdale; John Gerstle; Michelle S Bourgeois; Katinka Dijkstra; Linda Teri Journal: Psychol Aging Date: 2003-12
Authors: Mary Lynn Piven; Ruth A Anderson; Cathleen S Colón-Emeric; Margarete Sandelowski Journal: West J Nurs Res Date: 2008-04-04 Impact factor: 1.967
Authors: Timo W Hakkarainen; Patricia Ayoung-Chee; Rafael Alfonso; Saman Arbabi; David R Flum Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2014-06-08 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Carrie A Levin; Wenhui Wei; Ayse Akincigil; Judith A Lucas; Scott Bilder; Stephen Crystal Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Josephine P Gomes; Wassim H Shaheen; Son V Truong; Edward F Brown; Brent W Beasley; Byron J Gajewski Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Richard N Jones; John P Hirdes; Jeffrey W Poss; Maureen Kelly; Katharine Berg; Brant E Fries; John N Morris Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 2.655