Literature DB >> 12919231

The minimum data set pressure ulcer indicator: does it reflect differences in care processes related to pressure ulcer prevention and treatment in nursing homes?

Barbara M Bates-Jensen1, Mary Cadogan, Dan Osterweil, Lené Levy-Storms, Jennifer Jorge, Nahla Al-Samarrai, Valena Grbic, John F Schnelle.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nursing homes (NHs) that score in the extreme quartiles of pressure ulcer (PU) prevalence as reported on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) PU quality indicator provide different PU care.
DESIGN: Descriptive, cohort.
SETTING: Sixteen NHs. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred twenty-nine NH residents at risk for PU development as determined by the PU Resident Assessment Protocol of the MDS. MEASUREMENTS: : Sixteen care process quality indicators (10 specific to PU care processes, five related to nutrition, and one related to incontinence management) were scored using medical record data, direct human observation, interviews, and data from wireless thigh movement monitors.
RESULTS: There were no differences between homes with low- and high-PU prevalence rates reported on the MDS PU quality indicator on most care processes. NHs with high PU prevalence rates used pressure-reduction surfaces more frequently and were better at documentation of four wound characteristics when PUs were present. No measure of PU care processes was better in low-PU NHs. Neither low- nor high-PU prevalence NHs routinely repositioned residents every 2 hours, even though 2-hour repositioning was documented in the medical record for nearly all residents.
CONCLUSION: The assumption that homes with fewer PUs and thus low PU prevalence according to the MDS PU quality indicator are providing better PU care was not supported in this sample. NHs that scored low on the MDS PU quality indicator did not provide significantly better care than NHs that scored high. All NHs could improve PU prevention, as evidenced by the poor performance on prevention care processes by low- and high-PU NHs. The MDS PU quality indicator is not a useful measure of the quality of PU care in NHs and can be misleading if not presented with an explanation of the meaning of the indicator.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12919231     DOI: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51403.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc        ISSN: 0002-8614            Impact factor:   5.562


  13 in total

1.  Relationship of nursing home staffing to quality of care.

Authors:  John F Schnelle; Sandra F Simmons; Charlene Harrington; Mary Cadogan; Emily Garcia; Barbara M Bates-Jensen
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Factors associated with time to identify physical problems of nursing home residents with dementia.

Authors:  Christine R Kovach; Brent R Logan; Michelle R Simpson; Sheila Reynolds
Journal:  Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen       Date:  2010-03-17       Impact factor: 2.035

3.  Distance coursework and coaching to improve nursing home incontinence care: lessons learned.

Authors:  Anna N Rahman; John F Schnelle; Robert Applebaum; Kate Lindabury; Sandra Simmons
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 5.562

4.  Connection, regulation, and care plan innovation: a case study of four nursing homes.

Authors:  Cathleen S Colón-Emeric; Deborah Lekan-Rutledge; Queen Utley-Smith; Natalie Ammarell; Donald Bailey; Mary L Piven; Kirsten Corazzini; Ruth A Anderson
Journal:  Health Care Manage Rev       Date:  2006 Oct-Dec

5.  Comparison of the effectiveness of two protocols for treating nursing home residents with advanced dementia.

Authors:  Christine R Kovach; Michelle R Simpson; Laura Joosse; Brent R Logan; Patricia E Noonan; Sheila A Reynolds; Diana Lynn Woods; Hershel Raff
Journal:  Res Gerontol Nurs       Date:  2012-09-17       Impact factor: 1.571

6.  Resident Vignettes for Assessing Care Quality in Nursing Homes.

Authors:  Cathleen S Colón-Emeric; Kirsten N Corazzini; Eleanor S McConnell; Wei Pan; Mark P Toles; Rasheeda Hall; Melissa Batchelor-Murphy; Tracey L Yap; Amber L Anderson; Andrew Burd; Sathya Amarasekara; Ruth A Anderson
Journal:  J Am Med Dir Assoc       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 4.669

Review 7.  Structure, process, and outcomes in skilled nursing facilities: understanding what happens to surgical patients when they cannot go home. A systematic review.

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

8.  A controlled trial of an intervention to improve urinary and fecal incontinence and constipation.

Authors:  John F Schnelle; Felix W Leung; Satish S C Rao; Linda Beuscher; Emmett Keeler; Jack W Clift; Sandra Simmons
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2010-07-23       Impact factor: 5.562

9.  Preventing Pressure Ulcers: A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial in Nursing Homes.

Authors:  Nancy Bergstrom; Susan D Horn; Mary Rapp; Anita Stern; Ryan Barrett; Michael Watkiss; Murray Krahn
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2014-10-01

10.  Characteristics of recurrent pressure ulcers in veterans with spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Barbara M Bates-Jensen; Marylou Guihan; Susan L Garber; Amy S Chin; Stephen P Burns
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.985

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.