HomeLarge Type Edition
HOME ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Download to citation manager
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 60:1173-1179 (2005)
© 2005 The Gerontological Society of America

State Variability in Indicators of Quality of Care in Nursing Facilities

Nicholas G. Castle1,, Howard Degenholtz1 and John Engberg2

1 Department of Health Policy and Management, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
2 RAND, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Address correspondence to Nicholas G. Castle, PhD, Assistant Professor, A649 Crabtree Hall, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261. E-mail: castlen{at}pitt.edu

Background. The objective of this research was to profile and compare state-level physical restraint use, urethral catheterization, contractures, pressure ulcers, and psychoactive medication use as indicators of quality of care in nursing facilities.

Methods. Using nationally representative data from the Online Survey, Certification, and Reporting system for 2000 (N = 17,072), we calculated predicted quality scores using risk-adjusted models based on aggregate resident variables generated by hierarchical linear regression models for each of the five quality indicators.

Results. We observed significant variation in both the actual and risk-adjusted quality measures. The average risk-adjusted physical restraint quality score ranged from 8.4% to 12.8%; the average risk-adjusted catheterization quality score ranged from 3.6% to 7.7%; the average risk-adjusted contractures quality score ranged from 19.0% to 31.6%; the average risk-adjusted pressure ulcer quality score ranged from 3.8% to 7.6%; and the average risk-adjusted psychoactive medication quality score ranged from 47.8% to 56.9%. Eleven states had quality measures better than the risk-adjusted expectation for at least four of the five measures, and eight states were worse than expected in at least four of the five.

Conclusions. This study provides evidence that there is variation in quality indicators across states. These differences exist even after risk adjustment. Our results may be important for state regulators trying to understand and improve quality.







HOME ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by The Gerontological Society of America.