PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Mary P Cadogan

Publications and source records attributed to Mary P Cadogan.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

A standardized quality assessment system to evaluate pain detection and management in the nursing home.

CONTEXT: Assessment and management of pain for nursing home residents is frequently reported to be inadequate, yet few studies have used objective criteria to measure the quality of care related to pain. OBJECTIVE: Field test a standardized resident interview and medical record review protocol to assess and score quality indicators relevant to pain. DESIGN: Descriptive. SETTING: Thirty nursing homes (NHs). PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred ninety-four residents met overall eligibility criteria. Quality indicators were scored for those residents who met specific eligibility requirements for each pain indicator. MEASUREMENTS: Medical record reviews were completed for 542 participants, and data were used to score 12 indicators related to pain assessment, management, and response to treatment. A seven-item pain interview was attempted with all 794 participants and completed with 478 participants who were rated by NH staff as cognitively aware. RESULTS: Quality indicators could be reliably scored. Physicians scored low on assessment of pain, performing targeted history and physical examinations, documenting risk factors for use of analgesics, and documenting response to treatment. Forty-eight percent of participants (227/478) reported symptoms of chronic pain during the interview, and 81% of this group reported a preference for a pain medication. However, nearly half had no physician assessment of pain in the past year and only 42% were receiving pain medication. Licensed nurse assessments of pain were documented weekly; but, more than 50% of those reporting symptoms of chronic pain on interview had nurse pain scores of 0 for 4 consecutive weeks prior to interview. CONCLUSIONS: Infrequent or incomplete physician pain assessment and treatment and inaccurate documentation by licensed nurses limits evaluation of pain care quality based on medical record review alone. A brief resident interview identified participants reporting symptoms of chronic pain not documented in the medical record and those with a preference for medication. Initial targeting of residents with self-reported pain maximizes the efficiency of the standardized scoring system described in this study. Focusing on explicit process measures clearly identifies areas for improvement and represents an important step in assessing the quality of pain care in the NH.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2004

The pain experience of cognitively impaired nursing home residents: perceptions of family members and certified nursing assistants.

Pain in cognitively impaired nursing home (NH) elders is difficult to detect. We report the results of the qualitative interview portion of a larger study that characterized the pain experience of cognitively impaired NH residents. Interviews were conducted with 16 family members or friends and 11 certified nursing assistants (CNAs) of 20 cognitively impaired NH residents experiencing pain. Analysis of the interviews yielded themes in family and CNA perceptions of pain in cognitively impaired NH residents. Family members and CNAs concurred that knowing the resident's usual behavior and daily habits was essential to being able to detect pain in cognitively impaired NH residents. Although a majority of family members reported that their relative was "stoic" about pain expression prior to NH placement, personal care information and historical information were perceived as helpful by nursing staff members. CNAs used facial and eye cues to detect pain and pain relief in their assigned residents. In addition, CNAs reported specific pain management strategies for their residents. Major themes related to pain detection in cognitively impaired NH residents identified in this investigation include: (a) knowing the resident; (b) importance of family input about previous pain behaviors in knowing the resident; (c) CNA reliance on face and eye cues for pain detection, particularly with residents who were nonverbal; and (d) the prevalence of pain with caregiving activities. Information from multiple sources can improve pain management strategies for cognitively impaired NH residents.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

A minimum data set prevalence of pain quality indicator: is it accurate and does it reflect differences in care processes?

BACKGROUND: A new prevalence of pain quality indicator based on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) has been developed for the purpose of providing nursing home (NH) consumers with information that would allow them to compare the quality of pain care between facilities. The purpose of this study was to compare pain-related care processes between NHs that scored in the lower 25th percentile (low pain prevalence) or upper 75th percentile (high pain prevalence) based on this indicator. METHODS: Care processes related to pain assessment, documentation, and treatment were independently evaluated using standardized resident interview and medical record review protocols for 255 residents in 16 NHs that reported MDS pain prevalence of less than 15% (8 NHs in lower 25th percentile) or greater than 30% (8 NHs in upper 75th percentile). RESULTS: A significantly greater proportion of participants in the high pain prevalence NHs reported symptoms indicative of chronic pain during interview. The standardized pain interview revealed a significantly higher prevalence of pain among participants in the lowest quartile NH group compared to the MDS pain prevalence quality indicator, but the pain prevalence according to both MDS and interview were comparable in the higher quartile NHs. Medical record review showed that a significantly greater proportion of participants in upper quartile NHs had pain assessments documented by licensed nurses and physicians, received pain medication, and had documentation of treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: An MDS pain quality indicator accurately discriminates prevalence of pain between facilities. However, interpretation of the pain indicator requires caution. Rather than reflecting poor quality, a high prevalence of pain according to the MDS was associated with better pain assessment and treatment care processes.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Using the minimum data set to select nursing home residents for interview about pain.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how many nursing home residents can provide stable responses to a simple pain interview and whether a Minimum Data Set (MDS) cognitive performance measure can be used to identify these residents. DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive study. SETTING: Thirty-three community-based nursing homes. PARTICIPANTS: Eight hundred ninety-five nursing home residents. MEASUREMENTS: Resident completion rate, stability, and interrater reliability of a four-item interview derived from the Geriatric Pain Measure were calculated. Demographic data and MDS items concerning pain and memory were obtained from medical records. RESULTS: Overall, 835 residents were able to answer all four interview questions. At the lowest MDS recall score of 0, 52.7% of residents were able to complete all questions. All residents able to respond to the interview achieved high stability (kappa=0.633, P<.001). Overall, 62.8% of residents with daily pain or activity-limiting pain on interview did not have daily or moderate to severe pain recorded on the MDS. Residents who had lower MDS recall scores were significantly less likely (P=.004) to be appropriately identified on the MDS. CONCLUSION: Residents with a low MDS recall score were significantly less likely to be noted on the MDS as having serious pain despite being able to complete a simple yes/no interview about pain in a stable fashion. Nursing staff should attempt to ask all residents direct questions about pain. Surveyors may restrict direct questioning to those residents with an MDS recall score of 1 or higher if time is an important consideration. Adjustment for MDS-derived prevalence of pain based on residents' cognitive status is questionable.

Aged↗
PubMed2003

The minimum data set weight-loss quality indicator: does it reflect differences in care processes related to weight loss?

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nursing homes (NHs) that score differently on prevalence of weight loss, according to a Minimum Data Set (MDS) quality indicator, also provide different processes of care related to weight loss. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Sixteen skilled nursing facilities: 11 NHs in the lower (25th percentile-low prevalence) quartile and five NHs in the upper (75th percentile-high prevalence) quartile on the MDS weight-loss quality indicator. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred long-term residents. MEASUREMENTS: Sixteen care processes related to weight loss were defined and operationalized into clinical indicators. Trained research staff conducted measurement of NH staff implementation of each care process during assessments on three consecutive 12-hour days (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.), which included direct observations during meals, resident interviews, and medical record abstraction using standardized protocols. RESULTS: The prevalence of weight loss was significantly higher in the participants in the upper quartile NHs than in participants in the lower quartile NHs based on MDS and monthly weight data documented in the medical record. NHs with a higher prevalence of weight loss had a significantly larger proportion of residents with risk factors for weight loss, namely low oral food and fluid intake. There were few significant differences on care process measures between low- and high-weight-loss NHs. Staff in low-weight-loss NHs consistently provided verbal prompting and social interaction during meals to a greater proportion of residents, including those most at risk for weight loss. CONCLUSION: The MDS weight-loss quality indicator reflects differences in the prevalence of weight loss between NHs. NHs with a lower prevalence of weight loss have fewer residents at risk for weight loss and staff who provide verbal prompting and social interaction to more residents during meals, but the adequacy and quality of feeding assistance care needs improvement in all NHs.

Aged↗
PubMed2003

A standardized quality assessment system to evaluate incontinence care in the nursing home.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the reliability and feasibility of a standardized protocol to assess and score urinary incontinence care in nursing homes. DESIGN: Descriptive. SETTING: Eighteen nursing homes (NHs). PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred twenty-six incontinent residents. MEASUREMENTS: Resident interview data were used to score three quality indicators, and usable data were retrieved from 117 (27%) of 426 incontinent residents in 18 homes who were selected for interview based on evidence that they could accurately describe the care they received. Medical record data were used to score six quality indicators for a subset of 58 participants in five homes. RESULTS: Zero to 98% of the participants were scored as receiving care consistent with the intent of the indicator across the nine indicators. All NHs failed to provide chart documentation of an assessment to determine an incontinent resident's appropriateness for a scheduled toileting program (0% passed). The absence of an assessment to determine a resident's potential responsiveness to toileting assistance may explain why 103 incontinent residents who were documented on the Minimum Data Set as being on a scheduled toileting program reported that they received the same number of toileting assists per day (1.3) as the group of 114 incontinent residents who were not on a scheduled toileting program (1.0). The received toileting assistance frequencies reported by both groups were too low to maintain continence. CONCLUSION: The standardized quality assessment system generated scores for nine incontinence quality indicators with good interrater reliability and provided explicit scoring rules that can facilitate replication. The focus of the indicators on care processes that are under the control of NH staff make the protocol useful for external survey and internal quality improvement purposes.

Aged↗
PubMed2003

The minimum data set urinary incontinence quality indicators: do they reflect differences in care processes related to incontinence?

PURPOSE: To determine if nursing homes that score in the lower 25th percentile (low prevalence) versus the upper 75th percentile (high prevalence) on each of two Minimum Data Set (MDS) incontinence quality indicators provide different incontinence care processes DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SUBJECTS: 347 long-term residents in 14 skilled nursing facilities for the MDS "prevalence of incontinence" indicator and 432 residents in 16 skilled nursing facilities for the MDS "prevalence of incontinence without a toileting plan" indicator. MEASURES: Nine care processes related to incontinence were defined and operationalized into clinical indicators. Research staff assessed implementation of each care process on 3 consecutive 12-hour days (7 am to 7 pm ). The assessment included resident interviews, physical performance evaluations, and chart abstraction using standardized protocols. RESULTS: Homes with lower prevalence rates on both MDS incontinence quality indicators (good outcomes) had a significantly higher proportion of participants with chart documentation of two relevant care processes: 1 an evaluation of the resident's incontinence history and 2 toileting assistance rendered by staff. However, interviews with incontinent residents capable of accurately reporting care activity occurrence showed no difference in toileting assistance frequency between homes in the upper and lower quartiles for either MDS incontinence indicator. Participants reported an average of 1.8 toileting assists per day across all homes with a narrow average frequency range between homes (1.6-2.0). These frequencies of toileting assistance are not sufficient to improve urinary incontinence. There was also no difference in the frequency of toileting assistance received by incontinent participants rated on the MDS as receiving scheduled toileting (n = 75, mean = 1.9 +/- 1.24) compared to incontinent residents rated on the MDS as not receiving scheduled toileting (n = 131, mean = 1.8 +/- 1.22). None of the homes provided chart documentation that supported staff decisions to place or not place a resident on a scheduled toileting program. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of incontinence assessment and treatment as documented by scheduled toileting interventions was poor across all homes, and the MDS incontinence quality indicators were not associated with clinically important differences in related care processes. Chart documentation that a resident was on a scheduled toileting program or received toileting assistance was not related to resident reports of the frequency of received assistance.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

A standardized quality assessment system to evaluate pain detection and management in the nursing home.

CONTEXT: Assessment and management of pain for nursing home residents is frequently reported to be inadequate, yet few studies have used objective criteria to measure the quality of care related to pain. OBJECTIVE: Field test a standardized resident interview and medical record review protocol to assess and score quality indicators relevant to pain. DESIGN: Descriptive. SETTING: Thirty nursing homes (NHs). PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred ninety-four residents met overall eligibility criteria. Quality indicators were scored for those residents who met specific eligibility requirements for each pain indicator. MEASUREMENTS: Medical record reviews were completed for 542 participants, and data were used to score 12 indicators related to pain assessment, management, and response to treatment. A seven-item pain interview was attempted with all 794 participants and completed with 478 participants who were rated by NH staff as cognitively aware. RESULTS: Quality indicators could be reliably scored. Physicians scored low on assessment of pain, performing targeted history and physical examinations, documenting risk factors for use of analgesics, and documenting response to treatment. Forty-eight percent of participants (227/478) reported symptoms of chronic pain during the interview, and 81% of this group reported a preference for a pain medication. However, nearly half had no physician assessment of pain in the past year and only 42% were receiving pain medication. Licensed nurse assessments of pain were documented weekly; but, more than 50% of those reporting symptoms of chronic pain on interview had nurse pain scores of 0 for 4 consecutive weeks prior to interview. CONCLUSIONS: Infrequent or incomplete physician pain assessment and treatment and inaccurate documentation by licensed nurses limits evaluation of pain care quality based on medical record review alone. A brief resident interview identified participants reporting symptoms of chronic pain not documented in the medical record and those with a preference for medication. Initial targeting of residents with self-reported pain maximizes the efficiency of the standardized scoring system described in this study. Focusing on explicit process measures clearly identifies areas for improvement and represents an important step in assessing the quality of pain care in the NH.

Aged↗