Nicholas G Castle1, Michael Lin. 1. Department of Health Policy & Management, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. CASTLEN@Pitt.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the relationship between top management turnover and quality of care is important because turnover among top managers in nursing homes is generally high. PURPOSES: In this research, the direct and indirect relationships among top management turnover, the number of staff, the types of staff, and the quality indicators are examined. The top managers included in this case are both nursing home administrators and directors of nursing. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Primary data were collected from 2,840 nursing homes, and 14 quality indicators came from the Nursing Home Compare. Structural equation modeling methods were used to model direct and indirect relationships. FINDINGS: The results show that high nursing home administrator turnover for four quality indicators are significantly associated with poor quality. These findings seem to contrast with those for director of nursing turnover, with high director of nursing turnover for three quality indicators significantly associated with better quality. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We identify three practice implications. First, nursing home administrators may want to be particularly vigilant to resident care in some specific areas associated with poorer quality resulting from turnover. Second, nurse aide agency staff should be used with caution. Third, higher caregiver staffing levels are generally associated with better quality of care.
BACKGROUND: Understanding the relationship between top management turnover and quality of care is important because turnover among top managers in nursing homes is generally high. PURPOSES: In this research, the direct and indirect relationships among top management turnover, the number of staff, the types of staff, and the quality indicators are examined. The top managers included in this case are both nursing home administrators and directors of nursing. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Primary data were collected from 2,840 nursing homes, and 14 quality indicators came from the Nursing Home Compare. Structural equation modeling methods were used to model direct and indirect relationships. FINDINGS: The results show that high nursing home administrator turnover for four quality indicators are significantly associated with poor quality. These findings seem to contrast with those for director of nursing turnover, with high director of nursing turnover for three quality indicators significantly associated with better quality. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We identify three practice implications. First, nursing home administrators may want to be particularly vigilant to resident care in some specific areas associated with poorer quality resulting from turnover. Second, nurse aide agency staff should be used with caution. Third, higher caregiver staffing levels are generally associated with better quality of care.
Authors: Marilyn J Rantz; Mary Zwygart-Stauffacher; Lanis Hicks; David Mehr; Marcia Flesner; Gregory F Petroski; Richard W Madsen; Jill Scott-Cawiezell Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2011-08-04 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Melissa A Clark; Anthony Roman; Michelle L Rogers; Denise A Tyler; Vincent Mor Journal: Eval Health Prof Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Ruth M Tappen; David G Wolf; Zahra Rahemi; Gabriella Engstrom; Carolina Rojido; Jill M Shutes; Joseph G Ouslander Journal: Health Care Manag (Frederick) Date: 2017 Jul/Sep
Authors: Allison M Gustavson; Rebecca S Boxer; Amy Nordon-Craft; Robin L Marcus; Andrea Daddato; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley Journal: Phys Ther J Policy Adm Leadersh Date: 2018-08
Authors: Marilyn J Rantz; Mary Zwygart-Stauffacher; Marcia Flesner; Lanis Hicks; David Mehr; Teresa Russell; Donna Minner Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2012-08-25 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Anna S Beeber; Lauren W Cohen; Sheryl Zimmerman; Lisa P Gwyther; Tiffany Washington; John G Cagle; David Reed Journal: J Gerontol Nurs Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 1.254