OBJECTIVES: To understand whether nursing home (NH) introduction of culture change practices is associated with improved quality. DESIGN: NH-level panel study using multivariate fixed-effects statistical modeling to estimate the effect of culture change introduction on quality outcomes. SETTING: Eight hundred twenty-four U.S. NHs with culture change practice involvement beginning between 2005 and 2010. PARTICIPANTS: Directors of nursing and nursing home administrators. MEASUREMENTS: A culture change practice score (derived from a 2009/10 national NH survey) was used to stratify NHs according to practice implementation (high (scores in the top quartile; n = 217) vs other (n = 607)). NH-level outcomes included prevalence of seven care practices and three resident outcomes, health-related and quality-of-life weighted survey deficiencies, and average number of hospitalizations per resident year. RESULTS: For NHs with high practice implementation, introduction of culture change was associated with a significant decrease in prevalence of restraints, tube feeding, and pressure ulcers; an increase in the proportion of residents on bladder training programs; and a small decrease in the average number of hospitalizations per resident year (coefficient -0.04, standard error (SE) 0.02, P = .06). For NHs with lower practice implementation (practice scores in lower three quartiles), introduction was associated with fewer health-related (coefficient -5.26, SE 3.05; P = .09) and quality-of-life (coefficient -0.10, SE 0.05; P = .04) survey deficiencies, although these NHs also had small statistically significant increases in the prevalence of residents with urinary tract infections and in average hospitalizations per resident year (coefficient 0.03, SE 0.01, P = .02). CONCLUSION: The introduction of NH culture change appears to result in significant improvements in some care processes and outcomes in NHs with high practice implementation. For other NHs, culture change introduction results in fewer survey deficiencies.
OBJECTIVES: To understand whether nursing home (NH) introduction of culture change practices is associated with improved quality. DESIGN: NH-level panel study using multivariate fixed-effects statistical modeling to estimate the effect of culture change introduction on quality outcomes. SETTING: Eight hundred twenty-four U.S. NHs with culture change practice involvement beginning between 2005 and 2010. PARTICIPANTS: Directors of nursing and nursing home administrators. MEASUREMENTS: A culture change practice score (derived from a 2009/10 national NH survey) was used to stratify NHs according to practice implementation (high (scores in the top quartile; n = 217) vs other (n = 607)). NH-level outcomes included prevalence of seven care practices and three resident outcomes, health-related and quality-of-life weighted survey deficiencies, and average number of hospitalizations per resident year. RESULTS: For NHs with high practice implementation, introduction of culture change was associated with a significant decrease in prevalence of restraints, tube feeding, and pressure ulcers; an increase in the proportion of residents on bladder training programs; and a small decrease in the average number of hospitalizations per resident year (coefficient -0.04, standard error (SE) 0.02, P = .06). For NHs with lower practice implementation (practice scores in lower three quartiles), introduction was associated with fewer health-related (coefficient -5.26, SE 3.05; P = .09) and quality-of-life (coefficient -0.10, SE 0.05; P = .04) survey deficiencies, although these NHs also had small statistically significant increases in the prevalence of residents with urinary tract infections and in average hospitalizations per resident year (coefficient 0.03, SE 0.01, P = .02). CONCLUSION: The introduction of NH culture change appears to result in significant improvements in some care processes and outcomes in NHs with high practice implementation. For other NHs, culture change introduction results in fewer survey deficiencies.
Authors: Cordula Wagner; Karen Klein Ikkink; Gerrit van der Wal; Peter Spreeuwenberg; Dinny Herman de Bakker; Peter Paulus Groenewegen Journal: Health Policy Date: 2005-04-25 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Mary Thoesen Coleman; Stephen Looney; James O'Brien; Craig Ziegler; Cynthia A Pastorino; Carolyn Turner Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 6.053
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: Christine W Hartmann; Michael Shwartz; Shibei Zhao; Jennifer A Palmer; Dan R Berlowitz Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Kali S Thomas; Danielle Cote; Rajesh Makineni; Orna Intrator; Bruce Kinosian; Ciaran S Phibbs; Susan M Allen Journal: J Aging Soc Policy Date: 2018-01-08
Authors: Kristine N Williams; Yelena Perkhounkova; Ying-Ling Jao; Ann Bossen; Maria Hein; Sophia Chung; Anne Starykowicz; Margaret Turk Journal: West J Nurs Res Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 1.967
Authors: Susan C Miller; Margot L Schwartz; Julie C Lima; Renée R Shield; Denise A Tyler; Clara W Berridge; Pedro L Gozalo; Michael J Lepore; Melissa A Clark Journal: Med Care Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 2.983
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