Defining and Measuring Quality Outcomes in Long-Term Care

Evidence for publicly reported quality indicators in residential long-term care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of countries are using or planning to use quality indicators (QIs) in residential long-term care. Knowledge regarding the current state of evidence on usage and methodological soundness of publicly reported clinical indicators of quality in nursing homes is needed. The study aimed to answer the questions: 1) Which health-related QIs for residents in long-term care are currently publicly reported internationally? and 2) What is the methodological quality of these indicators?

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL and Embase in October 2019 and last updated on August 31st, 2022. Grey literature was also searched. We used the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument for the methodological quality assessment of the identified QIs.

RESULTS

Of 23'344 identified records, 22 articles and one report describing 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we found 17 websites publishing information on QIs. We identified eight countries publicly reporting a total of 99 health-related QIs covering 31 themes. Each country used between six and 31 QIs. The most frequently reported indicators were pressure ulcers, falls, physical restraints, and weight loss. For most QI sets, we found basic information regarding e.g., purpose, definition of the indicators, risk-adjustment, and stakeholders' involvement in QIs' selection. Little up to date information was found regarding validity, reliability and discriminative power of the QIs. Only the Australian indicator set reached high methodological quality, defined as scores of 50% or higher in all four AIRE instrument domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Little information is available to the public and researchers for the evaluation of a large number of publicly reported QIs in the residential long-term care sector. Better reporting is needed on the methodological quality of QIs in this setting, whether they are meant for internal quality improvement or provider comparison.

Quality of Home Health Agencies Serving Traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

IMPORTANCE

Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollment is increasing, with one-third of Medicare beneficiaries currently selecting MA. Despite this growth, it is difficult to assess the quality of the health care professionals and organizations that serve MA beneficiaries or to compare them with health care professionals and organizations serving traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries. Elderly individuals served by home health agencies (HHAs) may be particularly susceptible to the negative outcomes associated with low-quality care.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the quality of HHAs that serve TM and MA beneficiaries.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional, admission-level analysis used data from 4 391 980 home health admissions identified using the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (most commonly known as OASIS) admission assessments of Medicare beneficiaries in 2015 from Medicare-certified HHAs. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to assess whether an association existed between the Medicare plan type and HHA quality. The model was adjusted for patient demographics, acuity, and characteristics of the zip codes. Sensitivity analyses controlled for zip code fixed effects. The present analysis was conducted between October 2018 and March 2019.

EXPOSURES

Home health users were classified as TM or MA beneficiaries using the Master Beneficiary Summary File. The MA beneficiaries were further classified as enrolled in a high- or low-quality MA plan on the basis of publicly reported MA star ratings.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Quality of HHA derived from the publicly reported patient care star ratings: low quality (1.0-2.5 stars), average quality (3.0-3.5 stars), or high quality (≥4.0 stars).

RESULTS

Of 4 391 980 admissions, most (75.5%) were for TM beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 76.1 [12.2] years), with 16.6% of beneficiaries enrolled in high-quality MA plans (mean [SD] age, 77.8 [10.0] years) and 7.9% in low-quality MA plans (mean [SD] age, 74.4 [11.4] years). Individuals enrolled in low-rated MA plans were most likely to be nonwhite (percentages of nonwhite individuals in TM, 14.3%; in high-quality MA, 19.8%; and in low-quality MA, 36.5%) and dual Medicare-Medicaid eligible (percentages for dual eligible in TM, 30.5%; in high-quality MA, 19.5%; and in low-quality MA, 43.3%). Among TM beneficiaries, 30.4% received care from high-quality HHAs, whereas 17.0% received care from low-quality HHAs. Compared with TM beneficiaries, those in a low-quality MA plan were 3.0 percentage points (95% CI, 2.6%-3.4%) more likely to be treated by a low-quality HHA and 4.9 percentage points (95% CI, -5.4% to -4.3%) less likely to be treated by a high-quality HHA. The MA beneficiaries in high-quality plans were also less likely to receive care from high-quality vs low-quality HHAs (-2.8% [95% CI, -3.1% to -2.2%] vs 1.0% [95% CI, 0.7%-1.3%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Compared with TM beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries residing in the same zip code enrolled in either high- or low-quality MA plans may receive treatment from lower-quality HHAs. Policy makers may consider incentivizing MA plans to include higher-quality HHAs in their networks and improving patient education regarding HHA quality.

Do report cards predict future quality? The case of skilled nursing facilities

Report cards on provider performance are intended to improve consumer decision-making and address information gaps in the market for quality. However, inadequate risk adjustment of report-card measures often biases comparisons across providers. We test whether going to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) with a higher star rating leads to better quality outcomes for a patient. We exploit variation over time in the distance from a patient's residential ZIP code to SNFs with different ratings to estimate the causal effect of admission to a higher-rated SNF on health care outcomes, including mortality. We found that patients who go to higher-rated SNFs achieved better outcomes, supporting the validity of the SNF report card ratings.

Factors that affect quality of life from the perspective of people with dementia: a metasynthesis

OBJECTIVES

To comprehensively and systematically identify, appraise, and synthesize qualitative research findings on factors that affect quality of life from the perspective of people with dementia.

DESIGN

Systematic review and metasynthesis of primary qualitative studies in published and gray literature that aimed to identify factors that influence quality of life from the perspective of people with dementia. Expert-developed search strategies were applied in nine electronic databases. Reference lists of included articles and literature reviews identified during the search were reviewed. Structured inclusion criteria were applied to screen 5,625 titles and abstracts to identify 11 qualitative studies published from 1975 to April 2012. Two independent reviewers appraised study quality.

SETTING

Primary study recruitment sites included long-term care and community-based settings in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Ireland, Australia, and Japan.

PARTICIPANTS

A combined sample of 345 people with mild, moderate, and severe dementia.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary studies used interview and focus group methods. Findings from primary studies were synthesized using techniques of taxonomic analysis, constant comparison, and importing concepts.

RESULTS

Four factors and the experience of connectedness or disconnectedness within each factor influenced quality of life according to people with dementia. These factors, and the terms that represent connectedness and disconnectedness, were relationships (together vs alone), agency in life today (purposeful vs aimless), wellness perspective (well vs ill), and sense of place (located vs unsettled). Happiness and sadness were key outcomes of good and poor quality of life, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The four factors identified potentially modifiable areas to improve quality of life for people with dementia, even in the context of worsening cognitive function.

Does regulating private long-term care facilities lead to better care? A study from Quebec, Canada

OBJECTIVE

In the province of Quebec, Canada, long-term residential care is provided by two types of facilities: publicly funded accredited facilities and privately owned facilities in which care is privately financed and delivered. Following evidence that private facilities were delivering inadequate care, the provincial government decided to regulate this industry. We assessed the impact of regulation on care quality by comparing quality assessments made before and after regulation. In both periods, public facilities served as a comparison group.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study conducted in 2010-12 that incorporates data collected in 1995-2000.

SETTINGS

Random samples of private and public facilities from two regions of Quebec.

PARTICIPANTS

Random samples of disabled residents aged 65 years and over. In total, 451 residents from 145 care settings assessed in 1995-2000 were compared with 329 residents from 102 care settings assessed in 2010-12.

INTERVENTION

Regulation introduced by the province in 2005, effective February 2007.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Quality of care measured with the QUALCARE Scale.

RESULTS

After regulation, fewer small-size facilities were in operation in the private market. Between the two study periods, the proportion of residents with severe disabilities decreased in private facilities whereas it remained >80% in their public counterparts. Meanwhile, quality of care improved significantly in private facilities, while worsening in their public counterparts, even after controlling for confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

The private industry now provides better care to its residents. Improvement in care quality likely results in part from the closure of small homes and change in resident case-mix.

The Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set 2.0 quality indicators: a systematic review

Background

The Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set (RAI-MDS) 2.0 is designed to collect the minimum amount of data to guide care planning and monitoring for residents in long-term care settings. These data have been used to compute indicators of care quality. Use of the quality indicators to inform quality improvement initiatives is contingent upon the validity and reliability of the indicators. The purpose of this review was to systematically examine published and grey research reports in order to assess the state of the science regarding the validity and reliability of the RAI-MDS 2.0 Quality Indicators (QIs).

Methods

We systematically reviewed the evidence for the validity and reliability of the RAI-MDS 2.0 QIs. A comprehensive literature search identified relevant original research published, in English, prior to December 2008. Fourteen articles and one report examining the validity and/or reliability of the RAI-MDS 2.0 QIs were included.

Results

The studies fell into two broad categories, those that examined individual quality indicators and those that examined multiple indicators. All studies were conducted in the United States and included from one to a total of 209 facilities. The number of residents included in the studies ranged from 109 to 5758. One study conducted under research conditions examined 38 chronic care QIs, of which strong evidence for the validity of 12 of the QIs was found. In response to these findings, the 12 QIs were recommended for public reporting purposes. However, a number of observational studies (n = 13), conducted in "real world" conditions, have tested the validity and/or reliability of individual QIs, with mixed results. Ten QIs have been studied in this manner, including falls, depression, depression without treatment, urinary incontinence, urinary tract infections, weight loss, bedfast, restraint, pressure ulcer, and pain. These studies have revealed the potential for systematic bias in reporting, with under-reporting of some indicators and over-reporting of others.

Conclusion

Evidence for the reliability and validity of the RAI-MDS QIs remains inconclusive. The QIs provide a useful tool for quality monitoring and to inform quality improvement programs and initiatives. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting the QI results and other sources of evidence of the quality of care processes should be considered in conjunction with QI results.

The basis for improving and reforming long-term care. Part 3: essential elements for quality care

There is a pervasive effort to reform nursing homes and improve the care they provide. Many people are trying to educate and inform nursing homes and their staff, practitioners, and management about what to do and not do, and how to do it. But only some of that advice is sound. After more than 3 decades of such efforts, and despite evidence of improvement in many facets of care, there are still many issues. Despite improvements, the overall public, political, and health professional perception of nursing homes is often still negative. To date, no tactic or approach has succeeded nationwide in consistently facilitating good performance or correcting poor performance. Only some of the current efforts to try to improve nursing home quality and to measure it are on target. Many of the measures used to assess the quality of performance have limited value in guiding overall quality improvement. Before we can reform nursing homes, we must understand what needs to be reformed. This series of articles has focused on what is needed for safe, effective, efficient, and person-centered care. Ultimately, all efforts to improve nursing home care quality must be matched against the critical elements needed to provide desirable care. Based on the discussions in the previous 2 articles, this third article in this 4-part series considers 5 key elements of care processes and practices that can help attain multiple desirable quality objectives.