PURPOSE: The goals of this study are to describe the current state of residential care/assisted living (RC/AL) care and residents in comparison with nursing home (NH) care and residents, identify different types of RC/AL care and residents, and consider how variation in RC/AL case-mix reflects differences in care provision and/or consumer preference. DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were derived from the Collaborative Studies of Long-Term Care, a four-state study of 193 RC/AL facilities and 40 NHs. Multivariate analyses examined differences in ten process of care measures between RC/AL facilities with less than 16 beds; traditional RC/AL with 16 or more beds; new-model RC/AL; and NHs. Generalized estimating equation models determined differences in resident case-mix across RC/AL facilities using data for 2,078 residents. RESULTS: NHs report provision of significantly more health services and have significantly more lenient admission policies than RC/AL facilities, but provide less privacy. They do not differ from larger RC/AL facilities in policy clarity or resident control. Differences within RC/AL types are evident, with smaller and for-profit facilities scoring lower than other facilities across multiple process measures, including those related to individual freedom and institutional order. Resident impairment is substantial in both NHs and RC/AL settings, but differs by RC/AL facility characteristics. IMPLICATIONS: Differences in process of care and resident characteristics by facility type highlight the importance of considering: (1) the adequacy of existing process measures for evaluating smaller facilities; (2) resident case-mix when comparing facility types and outcomes; and (3) the complexity of understanding the implication of the process of care, given the importance of person-environment fit. Work is continuing to clarify the role of RC/AL vis-à-vis NHs in our nation's system of residential long-term care.
PURPOSE: The goals of this study are to describe the current state of residential care/assisted living (RC/AL) care and residents in comparison with nursing home (NH) care and residents, identify different types of RC/AL care and residents, and consider how variation in RC/AL case-mix reflects differences in care provision and/or consumer preference. DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were derived from the Collaborative Studies of Long-Term Care, a four-state study of 193 RC/AL facilities and 40 NHs. Multivariate analyses examined differences in ten process of care measures between RC/AL facilities with less than 16 beds; traditional RC/AL with 16 or more beds; new-model RC/AL; and NHs. Generalized estimating equation models determined differences in resident case-mix across RC/AL facilities using data for 2,078 residents. RESULTS: NHs report provision of significantly more health services and have significantly more lenient admission policies than RC/AL facilities, but provide less privacy. They do not differ from larger RC/AL facilities in policy clarity or resident control. Differences within RC/AL types are evident, with smaller and for-profit facilities scoring lower than other facilities across multiple process measures, including those related to individual freedom and institutional order. Resident impairment is substantial in both NHs and RC/AL settings, but differs by RC/AL facility characteristics. IMPLICATIONS: Differences in process of care and resident characteristics by facility type highlight the importance of considering: (1) the adequacy of existing process measures for evaluating smaller facilities; (2) resident case-mix when comparing facility types and outcomes; and (3) the complexity of understanding the implication of the process of care, given the importance of person-environment fit. Work is continuing to clarify the role of RC/AL vis-à-vis NHs in our nation's system of residential long-term care.
Authors: Timothy P Daaleman; Christianna S Williams; John S Preisser; Philip D Sloane; Holly Biola; Sheryl Zimmerman Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2009-03-28 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Carol A Giuliani; Ann L Gruber-Baldini; Nan S Park; Lori A Schrodt; Franzi Rokoske; Philip D Sloane; Sheryl Zimmerman Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2008-04
Authors: Jennifer Nazareno; Wenhan Zhang; Benjamin Silver; David Dosa; Pedro Gozalo; Kali Thomas Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Brandy Harris-Wallace; John G Schumacher; Rosa Perez; J Kevin Eckert; Patrick J Doyle; Anna Song Beeber; Sheryl Zimmerman Journal: Seniors Hous Care J Date: 2011-01-01
Authors: Christine E Kistler; Philip D Sloane; Timothy F Platts-Mills; Anna S Beeber; Christine Khandelwal; David J Weber; C Madeline Mitchell; David Reed; Latarsha Chisholm; Sheryl Zimmerman Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 5.562