OBJECTIVE: While admissions of minorities to nursing homes (NHs) are increasing and prevalence of incontinence in NHs remains high, little is known about incontinence among racial-ethnic groups of NH admissions other than blacks. The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence of incontinence among older adults admitted to NHs by race/ethnicity at three levels of measurement: individual resident, NH, and Census division. DESIGN: Cross-sectional and descriptive. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Admissions of persons age 65 or older to 1 of 457 NHs of a national, for-profit chain over 3 years 2000-2002 (n = 111,640 residents). METHODS: Data sources were the Minimum Data Set v. 2.0 and 2000 US Census. Prevalence of the following definitions of incontinence was analyzed: Only Urinary Incontinence (UI), Only Fecal Incontinence (FI), Dual Incontinence (DI; UI and FI), Any UI (UI with or without FI), Any FI (FI with or without UI), and Any Incontinence (UI and/or FI and/or DI). RESULTS: Asian patients, black patients, and Hispanic patients had a higher prevalence of Any Incontinence (67%, 66%, and 58%, respectively) compared to white patients (48%) and American Indian patients (46%). At the NH level, all prevalence measures of incontinence (except Only UI) appear to trend in the opposite direction from the percentage of NH admissions who were white. Among Asian and white patients, there was a higher prevalence of all types of incontinence in men compared with women except for Only UI. Among Census divisions, the prevalence of all types of incontinence, except Only UI, was lowest in the 2 divisions with the highest percentage of white admissions to their NHs. CONCLUSIONS: NHs admitting more racial/ethnic minorities may be faced with managing more incontinence and needing additional staffing resources. The association of the prevalence of most types of incontinence with the race/ethnicity of NH admissions at all levels of measurement lend support to the growing evidence that contextual factors beyond individual resident characteristics may contribute to NH differences.
OBJECTIVE: While admissions of minorities to nursing homes (NHs) are increasing and prevalence of incontinence in NHs remains high, little is known about incontinence among racial-ethnic groups of NH admissions other than blacks. The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence of incontinence among older adults admitted to NHs by race/ethnicity at three levels of measurement: individual resident, NH, and Census division. DESIGN: Cross-sectional and descriptive. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Admissions of persons age 65 or older to 1 of 457 NHs of a national, for-profit chain over 3 years 2000-2002 (n = 111,640 residents). METHODS: Data sources were the Minimum Data Set v. 2.0 and 2000 US Census. Prevalence of the following definitions of incontinence was analyzed: Only Urinary Incontinence (UI), Only Fecal Incontinence (FI), Dual Incontinence (DI; UI and FI), Any UI (UI with or without FI), Any FI (FI with or without UI), and Any Incontinence (UI and/or FI and/or DI). RESULTS: Asian patients, black patients, and Hispanic patients had a higher prevalence of Any Incontinence (67%, 66%, and 58%, respectively) compared to white patients (48%) and American Indian patients (46%). At the NH level, all prevalence measures of incontinence (except Only UI) appear to trend in the opposite direction from the percentage of NH admissions who were white. Among Asian and white patients, there was a higher prevalence of all types of incontinence in men compared with women except for Only UI. Among Census divisions, the prevalence of all types of incontinence, except Only UI, was lowest in the 2 divisions with the highest percentage of white admissions to their NHs. CONCLUSIONS: NHs admitting more racial/ethnic minorities may be faced with managing more incontinence and needing additional staffing resources. The association of the prevalence of most types of incontinence with the race/ethnicity of NH admissions at all levels of measurement lend support to the growing evidence that contextual factors beyond individual resident characteristics may contribute to NH differences.
Authors: John F Schnelle; Cathy A Alessi; Sandra F Simmons; Nahla R Al-Samarrai; John C Beck; Joseph G Ouslander Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: J P Boyle; A A Honeycutt; K M Narayan; T J Hoerger; L S Geiss; H Chen; T J Thompson Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Donna Z Bliss; Olga Gurvich; Kay Savik; Lynn E Eberly; Susan Harms; Christine Mueller; Jean F Wyman; Judith Garrard; Beth Virnig Journal: J Aging Health Date: 2014-09-25
Authors: Nele Van Damme; Karen Van den Bussche; Dorien De Meyer; Ann Van Hecke; Sofie Verhaeghe; Dimitri Beeckman Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Donna Z Bliss; Olga V Gurvich; Michelle A Mathiason; Lynn E Eberly; Kay Savik; Susan Harms; Christine Mueller; Jean F Wyman; Beth Virnig Journal: West J Nurs Res Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 1.967
Authors: Donna Z Bliss; Olga Gurvich; Kay Savik; Lynn E Eberly; Susan Harms; Christine Mueller; Judith Garrard; Kristen Cunanan; Kjerstie Wiltzen Journal: Arch Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Adil E Bharucha; Gena Dunivan; Patricia S Goode; Emily S Lukacz; Alayne D Markland; Catherine A Matthews; Louise Mott; Rebecca G Rogers; Alan R Zinsmeister; William E Whitehead; Satish S C Rao; Frank A Hamilton Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Susan Harms; Donna Z Bliss; Judith Garrard; Kristen Cunanan; Kay Savik; Olga Gurvich; Christine Mueller; Jean F Wyman; Lynn Eberly; Beth Virnig Journal: J Gerontol Nurs Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 1.254
Authors: Satish Sc Rao; Adil E Bharucha; Giuseppe Chiarioni; Richelle Felt-Bersma; Charles Knowles; Allison Malcolm; Arnold Wald Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2016-03-25 Impact factor: 22.682