OBJECTIVES: To describe the changes in process of care before and after an evidence-based fall reduction quality improvement collaborative in nursing facilities. DESIGN: Natural experiment with nonparticipating facilities serving as controls. SETTING: Community nursing homes. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six participating and 353 nonparticipating nursing facilities in North Carolina. INTERVENTION: Two in-person learning sessions, monthly teleconferences, and an e-mail discussion list over 9 months. The change package emphasized screening, labeling, and risk-factor reduction. MEASUREMENTS: Compliance was measured using facility self-report and chart abstraction (n = 832) before and after the intervention. Fall rates as measured using the Minimum Data Set (MDS) were compared with those of nonparticipating facilities as an exploratory outcome. RESULTS: Self-reported compliance with screening, labeling, and risk-factor reduction approached 100%. Chart abstraction revealed only modest improvements in screening (51% to 68%, P < .05), risk-factor reduction (4% to 7%, P = .30), and medication assessment (2% to 6%, P = .34). There was a significant increase in vitamin D prescriptions (40% to 48%, P=.03) and decrease in sedative-hypnotics (19% to 12%, P = .04) but no change in benzodiazepine, neuroleptic, or calcium use. No significant changes in proportions of fallers or fall rates were observed according to chart abstraction (28.6% to 37.5%, P = .17), MDS (18.2% to 15.4%, P = .56), or self-report (6.1-5.6 falls/1,000 bed days, P = .31). CONCLUSION: Multiple-risk-factor reduction tasks are infrequently implemented, whereas screening tasks appear more easily modifiable in a real-world setting. Substantial differences between self-reported practice and medical record documentation require that additional data sources be used to assess the change-in-care processes resulting from quality improvement programs. Interventions to improve interdisciplinary collaboration need to be developed.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the changes in process of care before and after an evidence-based fall reduction quality improvement collaborative in nursing facilities. DESIGN: Natural experiment with nonparticipating facilities serving as controls. SETTING: Community nursing homes. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six participating and 353 nonparticipating nursing facilities in North Carolina. INTERVENTION: Two in-person learning sessions, monthly teleconferences, and an e-mail discussion list over 9 months. The change package emphasized screening, labeling, and risk-factor reduction. MEASUREMENTS: Compliance was measured using facility self-report and chart abstraction (n = 832) before and after the intervention. Fall rates as measured using the Minimum Data Set (MDS) were compared with those of nonparticipating facilities as an exploratory outcome. RESULTS: Self-reported compliance with screening, labeling, and risk-factor reduction approached 100%. Chart abstraction revealed only modest improvements in screening (51% to 68%, P < .05), risk-factor reduction (4% to 7%, P = .30), and medication assessment (2% to 6%, P = .34). There was a significant increase in vitamin D prescriptions (40% to 48%, P=.03) and decrease in sedative-hypnotics (19% to 12%, P = .04) but no change in benzodiazepine, neuroleptic, or calcium use. No significant changes in proportions of fallers or fall rates were observed according to chart abstraction (28.6% to 37.5%, P = .17), MDS (18.2% to 15.4%, P = .56), or self-report (6.1-5.6 falls/1,000 bed days, P = .31). CONCLUSION: Multiple-risk-factor reduction tasks are infrequently implemented, whereas screening tasks appear more easily modifiable in a real-world setting. Substantial differences between self-reported practice and medical record documentation require that additional data sources be used to assess the change-in-care processes resulting from quality improvement programs. Interventions to improve interdisciplinary collaboration need to be developed.
Authors: E A Mohide; P X Tugwell; P A Caulfield; L W Chambers; C W Dunnett; S Baptiste; J R Bayne; C Patterson; K V Rudnick; M Pill Journal: Med Care Date: 1988-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: W A Ray; J A Taylor; K G Meador; P B Thapa; A K Brown; H K Kajihara; C Davis; P Gideon; M R Griffin Journal: JAMA Date: 1997-08-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Maria Crotty; Craig Whitehead; Debra Rowett; Julie Halbert; David Weller; Paul Finucane; Adrian Esterman Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2004-04-06 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Cathleen S Colón-Emeric; Kenneth W Lyles; Paul House; Deborah A Levine; Anna P Schenck; Jeroan Allison; Joel Gorospe; Mary Fermazin; Kristi Oliver; Jeffrey R Curtis; Norman Weissman; Aiyuan Xie; Kenneth G Saag Journal: Am J Med Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Reena Devi; Julienne Meyer; Jay Banerjee; Claire Goodman; John Raymond Fletcher Gladman; Tom Dening; Neil Chadborn; Kathryn Hinsliff-Smith; Annabelle Long; Adeela Usman; Gemma Housley; Clive Bowman; Finbarr Martin; Phillipa Logan; Sarah Lewis; Adam Lee Gordon Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Matthias Hoben; Cornelia Mahler; Marion Bär; Sarah Berger; Janet E Squires; Carole A Estabrooks; Johann Behrens Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-11-16 Impact factor: 2.655