OBJECTIVE: To assess whether differences in strategic orientation of nursing homes as identified by the Miles and Snow typology are associated with differences in their response to the publication of quality measures on the Nursing Home Compare website. DATA SOURCES: Administrator survey of a national 10 percent random sample (1,502 nursing homes) of all facilities included in the first publication of the Nursing Home Compare report conducted in May-June 2004; 724 responded, yielding a response rate of 48.2 percent. STUDY DESIGN: The dependent variables are dichotomous, indicating whether or not action was taken and the type of action taken. Four indicator variables were created for each of the four strategic types: Defender, Analyzer, Prospector, and Reactor. Other variables were included in the seven logistic regression models to control for factors other than strategic type that could influence nursing home response to public disclosure of their quality of care. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Survey data were merged with data on quality measures and organizational characteristics from the first report (November 2002). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: About 43 percent of surveyed administrators self-typed as Defenders, followed by Analyzers (33 percent), and Prospectors (19 percent). The least self-selected strategic type was the Reactor (6.6 percent). In general, results of the regression models indicate differences in response to quality measure publication by strategic type, with Prospectors and Analyzers more likely, and Reactors less likely, to respond than Defenders. CONCLUSIONS: While almost a third of administrators took no action at all, our results indicate that whether, when, and how nursing homes reacted to publication of federally reported quality measures is associated with strategic orientation.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether differences in strategic orientation of nursing homes as identified by the Miles and Snow typology are associated with differences in their response to the publication of quality measures on the Nursing Home Compare website. DATA SOURCES: Administrator survey of a national 10 percent random sample (1,502 nursing homes) of all facilities included in the first publication of the Nursing Home Compare report conducted in May-June 2004; 724 responded, yielding a response rate of 48.2 percent. STUDY DESIGN: The dependent variables are dichotomous, indicating whether or not action was taken and the type of action taken. Four indicator variables were created for each of the four strategic types: Defender, Analyzer, Prospector, and Reactor. Other variables were included in the seven logistic regression models to control for factors other than strategic type that could influence nursing home response to public disclosure of their quality of care. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Survey data were merged with data on quality measures and organizational characteristics from the first report (November 2002). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: About 43 percent of surveyed administrators self-typed as Defenders, followed by Analyzers (33 percent), and Prospectors (19 percent). The least self-selected strategic type was the Reactor (6.6 percent). In general, results of the regression models indicate differences in response to quality measure publication by strategic type, with Prospectors and Analyzers more likely, and Reactors less likely, to respond than Defenders. CONCLUSIONS: While almost a third of administrators took no action at all, our results indicate that whether, when, and how nursing homes reacted to publication of federally reported quality measures is associated with strategic orientation.
Authors: Christopher E Johnson; Aram Dobalian; Janet Burkhard; Deborah K Hedgecock; Jeffrey Harman Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: William Rollow; Terry R Lied; Paul McGann; James Poyer; Lawrence LaVoie; Robert T Kambic; Dale W Bratzler; Allen Ma; Edwin D Huff; Lawrence D Ramunno Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-08-14 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Dana B Mukamel; David L Weimer; William D Spector; Heather Ladd; Jacqueline S Zinn Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Marloes Zuidgeest; Diana M J Delnoij; Katrien G Luijkx; Dolf de Boer; Gert P Westert Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 2.655