Literature DB >> 15075421

The minimum data set prevalence of restraint quality indicator: does it reflect differences in care?

John F Schnelle1, Barbara M Bates-Jensen, Lené Levy-Storms, Valena Grbic, June Yoshii, Mary Cadogan, Sandra F Simmons.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study investigated whether the use of restraining devices and related measures of care quality are different in nursing homes that score in the upper and lower quartiles on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) "prevalence of restraint" quality indicator, which assesses daily use of restraining devices when residents are out of bed. DESIGN AND METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional study, with 413 residents in 14 nursing facilities. Eight homes scored in the lower quartile (25th percentile; low prevalence, 0-5%) on the MDS restraint prevalence quality indicator, and six homes scored in the upper quartile (75th percentile; high prevalence, 28-48%). Eight care processes related to the management of restraints and gait and balance problems were defined and operationalized into clinical indicators. Research staff conducted direct observations during three 12-hr days (7 a.m.-7 p.m.) to determine the prevalence of restraining devices and identify resident and staff behaviors that may be affected by restraint use.
RESULTS: Residents in high-restraint homes were in bed during the day on more observations than residents in low-restraint homes (44% vs. 33%; p <.001), were more frequently observed with bed rails in use (74% of residents vs. 64% of residents; p <.03), and received less feeding assistance during meals (2.7 min vs. 4.1 min; p <.001). There were no differences between homes in the use of out-of-bed restraints, nor were there any differences on any care process measure related to the management of restraints, gait and balance problems, or measures of physical or social activity. IMPLICATIONS: A home's score on the MDS-generated prevalence of restraint quality indicator was not associated with differences in the use of restraints, physical activity, or any care process measure when residents were out of bed. However, there were differences in the use of in-bed restraining devices, and residents in high-restraint homes were in bed more often during the day. These differences were associated with poor feeding assistance and reflect important differences in quality of care between homes, even though these differences are not what the restraint prevalence quality indicator purports to measure. Methods to monitor and improve the quality of care related to exercise, in-bed times, and resident freedom of movement are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15075421     DOI: 10.1093/geront/44.2.245

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gerontologist        ISSN: 0016-9013


  10 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

Review 2.  Improving the quality of long-term care with better information.

Authors:  Vincent Mor
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.911

3.  Have Nursing Home Compare quality measure scores changed over time in response to competition?

Authors:  Nicholas G Castle; John Engberg; Darren Liu
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2007-06

4.  Nursing home admissions and long-stay conversions among persons with and without serious mental illness.

Authors:  Kelly Aschbrenner; David C Grabowski; Shubing Cai; Stephen J Bartels; Vincent Mor
Journal:  J Aging Soc Policy       Date:  2011 Jul-Sep

Review 5.  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

Review 6.  The Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set 2.0 quality indicators: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alison M Hutchinson; Doris L Milke; Suzanne Maisey; Cynthia Johnson; Janet E Squires; Gary Teare; Carole A Estabrooks
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-06-16       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  Temporal and Geographic variation in the validity and internal consistency of the Nursing Home Resident Assessment Minimum Data Set 2.0.

Authors:  Vincent Mor; Orna Intrator; Mark Aaron Unruh; Shubing Cai
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Leadership, staffing and quality of care in nursing homes.

Authors:  Anders Kvale Havig; Anders Skogstad; Lars Erik Kjekshus; Tor Inge Romøren
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-11-28       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Where should Momma go? Current nursing home performance measurement strategies and a less ambitious approach.

Authors:  Charles D Phillips; Catherine Hawes; Trudy Lieberman; Mary Jane Koren
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-06-25       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 10.  Definition and Measurement of Physical and Chemical Restraint in Long-Term Care: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Lauren M Robins; Den-Ching A Lee; J Simon Bell; Velandai Srikanth; Ralph Möhler; Keith D Hill; Terry P Haines
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 3.390

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.