OBRA 1987 and the quality of nursing home care

Systemic failures in nursing home care-A scoping study

Nursing homes (also referred to as residential aged care facilities, or long-term care facilities) cater for older people on a respite or long-term basis for those who are no longer able to live independently at home. Globally the sector struggles to meet societal expectations since it is torn between three competing agendas-meeting the needs of residents, meeting the demands of regulators, and meeting the financial imperatives of nursing home proprietors. Competing demands indicate that the system lacks a clear understanding of its purpose-without a clearly understood purpose any system will become dysfunctional overall and across all its levels of organisation. This scoping study aims to summarise and synthesise what is already known about the systemic function and failures in the nursing home system, and the impact this has on the wider health and aged care system.

METHOD

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCHINFO, CINAHL and SCOPUS were searched using the terms: (nursing home care OR residential aged care OR nursing home) AND (organisational failure OR institutional failure OR systemic failure), limited to English language articles, including all years up to the end of February 2021. In addition, we used snowballing of article references and Google searches of the grey literature. System-focused articles were defined as those that explored how an issue at one system level impacted other system levels, or how an issue impacted at least two different agents at the same system level.

RESULT

Thirty-eight articles addressed systemic issues as defined in four different contexts: United States (14), Canada (2), Australia (11) and European countries (11). Only four studies reported whole-of-system findings, whereas the remaining 34 more narrowly addressed systemic features of specific nursing home issues. The thematic analysis identified 29 key systemic issues across five system layers which consistently appear across every country/health system context. The negative outcomes of these systemic failings include: high rates of regulatory reprimands for unacceptable or unsafe practices; dissatisfaction in care experiences on the part of residents, families, and care staff-including a fear of being sent to a nursing home; and the perception amongst staff that nursing homes are not preferred places to work.

CONCLUSIONS

The key issues affecting nursing home residents, and the care home sector more generally, are systemic in nature arising from two key issues: first, the lack of shared agreement on the care home system's purpose; and second, the lack of clear governance and accountability frameworks for system regulation and performance at a national level. Addressing these two key issues must be the starting point for any 'real' nursing home system redesign that can achieve a seamlessly integrated system that delivers the outcomes nursing home residents and their families expect. 'Systems thinking' is required to simultaneously improve care quality and outcomes for residents, strengthen regulation and accountability, and enable financial viability.

A Practice Improvement Education Program Using a Mentored Approach to Improve Nursing Facility Depression Care-Preliminary Data

Depression is common in nursing facility residents. Depression data obtained using the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 offer opportunities for improving diagnostic accuracy and care quality. How best to integrate MDS 3.0 and other data into quality improvement (QI) activity is untested. The objective was to increase nursing home (NH) capability in using QI processes and to improve depression assessment and management through focused mentorship and team building. This was a 6-month intervention with five components: facilitated collection of MDS 3.0 nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and medication data for diagnostic interpretation; education and modeling on QI approaches, team building, and nonpharmacological depression care; mentored team meetings; educational webinars; and technical assistance. PHQ-9 and medication data were collected at baseline and 6 and 9 months. Progress was measured using team participation measures, attitude and care process self-appraisal, mentor assessments, and resident depression outcomes. Five NHs established interprofessional teams that included nursing (44.1%), social work (20.6%), physicians (8.8%), and other disciplines (26.5%). Members participated in 61% of eight offered educational meetings (three onsite mentored team meetings and five webinars). Competency self-ratings improved on four depression care measures (P = .05 to <.001). Mentors observed improvement in team process and enthusiasm during team meetings. For 336 residents with PHQ-9 and medication data, depression scores did not change while medication use declined, from 37.2% of residents at baseline to 31.0% at 9 months (P < .001). This structured mentoring program improved care processes, achieved medication reductions, and was well received. Application to other NH-prevalent syndromes is possible.

The Impact of State Nursing Home Staffing Standards on Nurse Staffing Levels

This study investigated the impact of state nursing home staffing standards on nurse staffing levels for the year 2011. Specifically, the study attempted to measure state staffing standards at facility level (i.e., nurse staffing levels that each individual nursing home must retain by its state staffing standards) and analyzed the policy impact. The study findings indicated that state staffing standards for the categories of registered nurse, licensed nurse, or total nurse are positively related to registered nurse, licensed nurse, or total nurse staffing levels, respectively. Nursing homes more actively responded to licensed staffing requirements than total staffing requirements. However, nursing homes did not increase their staffing levels as much as those required by state staffing standards. It is possibly because the quality-oriented inspection allows flexibility in nursing homes’ control of nurse staffing levels.

Applying the Advancing Excellence in America's Nursing Homes Circle of Success to improving and sustaining quality

Looking forward to the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program to be implemented and required in 2014, and as nursing home staff provide care for residents with increasingly complex health issues, knowledge of how to implement quality improvement (QI) is imperative. The nursing home administrator and director of nursing (DON) provide overall leadership, but it is the primary responsibility of the DON and other registered nurse staff to implement and manage the day to day QI process. This article describes potential roles of nursing leaders and key components of a QI project using a pressure ulcer case study exemplar to illustrate a quality improvement process. The authors suggest specific methods that RN leaders can employ using the Advancing Excellence Campaign Circle of Success as an organizing framework along with evidence-based resources. Nursing home leaders could use this article as a guideline for implementing any clinical quality improvement process.

Nursing homes and the affordable care act: a cease fire in the ongoing struggle over quality reform

Most provisions in the Affordable Care Act that affect nursing homes originated in two earlier attempts at reform, both of which failed multiple times in prior Congressional sessions: the Elder Justice Act and the Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement Act. Both of these earlier efforts focused on improving quality and reducing elder abuse in nursing homes by strengthening oversight and enforcement penalties, expanding staff training, and increasing the information on nursing home quality available to consumers and regulators. Each bill addressed problems that were serious, widespread, and had persisted for years, but each failed to pass on its own. The Affordable Care Act, with its own momentum, became the vehicle for their passage. However, the reasons the bills failed in these earlier efforts suggest implementation challenges now that they have ridden into law on the coattails of the more general effort to reform the health care sector.

An organizing framework for informal caregiver interventions: detailing caregiving activities and caregiver and care recipient outcomes to optimize evaluation efforts

Background

Caregiver interventions may help improve the quality of informal care. Yet the lack of a systematic framework specifying the targets and outcomes of caregiver interventions hampers our ability to understand what has been studied, to evaluate existing programs, and to inform the design of future programs. Our goal was to develop an organizing framework detailing the components of the caregiving activities and the caregiver and care recipient outcomes that should be affected by an intervention. In so doing, we characterize what has been measured in the published literature to date and what should be measured in future studies to enable comparisons across interventions and across time.

Methods

Our data set comprises 121 reports of caregiver interventions conducted in the United States and published between 2000 and 2009. We extracted information on variables that have been examined as primary and secondary outcomes. These variables were grouped into categories, which then informed the organizing framework. We calculated the frequency with which the interventions examined each framework component to identify areas about which we have the most knowledge and under-studied areas that deserve attention in future research.

Results

The framework stipulates that caregiver interventions seek to change caregiving activities, which in turn affect caregiver and care recipient outcomes. The most frequently assessed variables have been caregiver psychological outcomes (especially depression and burden) and care recipient physical and health care use outcomes.

Conclusions

Based on the organizing framework, we make three key recommendations to guide interventions and inform research and policy. First, all intervention studies should assess quality and/or quantity of caregiving activities to help understand to what extent and how well the intervention worked. Second, intervention studies should assess a broad range of caregiver and care recipient outcomes, including considering whether expanding to economic status and health care use of the caregiver can be accommodated, to ease subsequent economic evaluations of caregiving. Third, intervention studies should measure a common set of outcomes to facilitate cross-time and cross-study comparisons of effectiveness.

Regulation and mindful resident care in nursing homes

Regulatory oversight is intended to improve the health outcomes of nursing home residents, yet evidence suggests that regulations can inhibit mindful staff behaviors that are associated with effective care. We explored the influence of regulations on mindful staff behavior as it relates to resident health outcomes, and offer a theoretical explanation of why regulations sometimes enhance mindfulness and other times inhibit it. We analyzed data from an in-depth, multiple-case study including field notes, interviews, and documents collected in eight nursing homes. We completed a conceptual/thematic description using the concept of mindfulness to reframe the observations. Shared facility mission strongly impacted staff perceptions of the purpose and utility of regulations. In facilities with a resident-centered culture, regulations increased mindful behavior, whereas in facilities with a cost-focused culture, regulations reduced mindful care practices. When managers emphasized the punitive aspects of regulation we observed a decrease in mindful practices in all facilities.

What is nursing home quality and how is it measured?

PURPOSE

In this commentary, we examine nursing home quality and indicators that have been used to measure nursing home quality.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A brief review of the history of nursing home quality is presented that provides some context and insight into currently used quality indicators. Donabedian's structure, process, and outcome (SPO) model is used to frame the discussion. Current quality indicators and quality initiatives are discussed, including those included in the Facility Quality Indicator Profile Report, Nursing Home Compare, deficiency citations included as part of Medicare/Medicaid certification, and the Advancing Excellence Campaign.

RESULTS

Current quality indicators are presented as a mix of structural, process, and outcome measures, each of which has noted advantages and disadvantages. We speculate on steps that need to be taken in the future to address and potentially improve the quality of care provided by nursing homes, including report cards, pay for performance, market-based incentives, and policy developments in the certification process. Areas for future research are identified throughout the review.

IMPLICATIONS

We conclude that improvements in nursing home quality have likely occurred, but improvements are still needed.