OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of a small-house nursing home model, THE GREEN HOUSE (GH), on residents' reported outcomes and quality of care. DESIGN: Two-year longitudinal quasi-experimental study comparing GH residents with residents at two comparison sites using data collected at baseline and three follow-up intervals. SETTING: Four 10-person GHs, the sponsoring nursing home for those GHs, and a traditional nursing home with the same owner. PARTICIPANTS: All residents in the GHs (40 at any time) at baseline and three 6-month follow-up intervals, and 40 randomly selected residents in each of the two comparison groups. INTERVENTION: The GH alters the physical scale environment (small-scale, private rooms and bathrooms, residential kitchen, dining room, and hearth), the staffing model for professional and certified nursing assistants, and the philosophy of care. MEASUREMENTS: Scales for 11 domains of resident quality of life, emotional well-being, satisfaction, self-reported health, and functional status were derived from interviews at four points in time. Quality of care was measured using indicators derived from Minimum Data Set assessments. RESULTS: Controlling for baseline characteristics (age, sex, activities of daily living, date of admission, and proxy interview status), statistically significant differences in self-reported dimensions of quality of life favored the GHs over one or both comparison groups. The quality of care in the GHs at least equaled, and for change in functional status exceeded, the comparison nursing homes. CONCLUSION: The GH is a promising model to improve quality of life for nursing home residents, with implications for staff development and medical director roles.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of a small-house nursing home model, THE GREEN HOUSE (GH), on residents' reported outcomes and quality of care. DESIGN: Two-year longitudinal quasi-experimental study comparing GH residents with residents at two comparison sites using data collected at baseline and three follow-up intervals. SETTING: Four 10-person GHs, the sponsoring nursing home for those GHs, and a traditional nursing home with the same owner. PARTICIPANTS: All residents in the GHs (40 at any time) at baseline and three 6-month follow-up intervals, and 40 randomly selected residents in each of the two comparison groups. INTERVENTION: The GH alters the physical scale environment (small-scale, private rooms and bathrooms, residential kitchen, dining room, and hearth), the staffing model for professional and certified nursing assistants, and the philosophy of care. MEASUREMENTS: Scales for 11 domains of resident quality of life, emotional well-being, satisfaction, self-reported health, and functional status were derived from interviews at four points in time. Quality of care was measured using indicators derived from Minimum Data Set assessments. RESULTS: Controlling for baseline characteristics (age, sex, activities of daily living, date of admission, and proxy interview status), statistically significant differences in self-reported dimensions of quality of life favored the GHs over one or both comparison groups. The quality of care in the GHs at least equaled, and for change in functional status exceeded, the comparison nursing homes. CONCLUSION: The GH is a promising model to improve quality of life for nursing home residents, with implications for staff development and medical director roles.
Authors: Lauren W Cohen; Sheryl Zimmerman; David Reed; Patrick Brown; Barbara J Bowers; Kimberly Nolet; Sandra Hudak; Susan Horn Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Sheryl Zimmerman; Barbara J Bowers; Lauren W Cohen; David C Grabowski; Susan D Horn; Peter Kemper Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2015-12-27 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Christopher C Afendulis; Daryl J Caudry; A James O'Malley; Peter Kemper; David C Grabowski Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: S Strathmann; S Lesser; J Bai-Habelski; S Overzier; H S Paker-Eichelkraut; P Stehle; H Heseker Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.075