PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Valena Grbic

Publications and source records attributed to Valena Grbic.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

The minimum data set prevalence of restraint quality indicator: does it reflect differences in care?

PURPOSE: This study investigated whether the use of restraining devices and related measures of care quality are different in nursing homes that score in the upper and lower quartiles on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) "prevalence of restraint" quality indicator, which assesses daily use of restraining devices when residents are out of bed. DESIGN AND METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional study, with 413 residents in 14 nursing facilities. Eight homes scored in the lower quartile (25th percentile; low prevalence, 0-5%) on the MDS restraint prevalence quality indicator, and six homes scored in the upper quartile (75th percentile; high prevalence, 28-48%). Eight care processes related to the management of restraints and gait and balance problems were defined and operationalized into clinical indicators. Research staff conducted direct observations during three 12-hr days (7 a.m.-7 p.m.) to determine the prevalence of restraining devices and identify resident and staff behaviors that may be affected by restraint use. RESULTS: Residents in high-restraint homes were in bed during the day on more observations than residents in low-restraint homes (44% vs. 33%; p <.001), were more frequently observed with bed rails in use (74% of residents vs. 64% of residents; p <.03), and received less feeding assistance during meals (2.7 min vs. 4.1 min; p <.001). There were no differences between homes in the use of out-of-bed restraints, nor were there any differences on any care process measure related to the management of restraints, gait and balance problems, or measures of physical or social activity. IMPLICATIONS: A home's score on the MDS-generated prevalence of restraint quality indicator was not associated with differences in the use of restraints, physical activity, or any care process measure when residents were out of bed. However, there were differences in the use of in-bed restraining devices, and residents in high-restraint homes were in bed more often during the day. These differences were associated with poor feeding assistance and reflect important differences in quality of care between homes, even though these differences are not what the restraint prevalence quality indicator purports to measure. Methods to monitor and improve the quality of care related to exercise, in-bed times, and resident freedom of movement are discussed.

Aged↗

The minimum data set pressure ulcer indicator: does it reflect differences in care processes related to pressure ulcer prevention and treatment in nursing homes?

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nursing homes (NHs) that score in the extreme quartiles of pressure ulcer (PU) prevalence as reported on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) PU quality indicator provide different PU care. DESIGN: Descriptive, cohort. SETTING: Sixteen NHs. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred twenty-nine NH residents at risk for PU development as determined by the PU Resident Assessment Protocol of the MDS. MEASUREMENTS: : Sixteen care process quality indicators (10 specific to PU care processes, five related to nutrition, and one related to incontinence management) were scored using medical record data, direct human observation, interviews, and data from wireless thigh movement monitors. RESULTS: There were no differences between homes with low- and high-PU prevalence rates reported on the MDS PU quality indicator on most care processes. NHs with high PU prevalence rates used pressure-reduction surfaces more frequently and were better at documentation of four wound characteristics when PUs were present. No measure of PU care processes was better in low-PU NHs. Neither low- nor high-PU prevalence NHs routinely repositioned residents every 2 hours, even though 2-hour repositioning was documented in the medical record for nearly all residents. CONCLUSION: The assumption that homes with fewer PUs and thus low PU prevalence according to the MDS PU quality indicator are providing better PU care was not supported in this sample. NHs that scored low on the MDS PU quality indicator did not provide significantly better care than NHs that scored high. All NHs could improve PU prevention, as evidenced by the poor performance on prevention care processes by low- and high-PU NHs. The MDS PU quality indicator is not a useful measure of the quality of PU care in NHs and can be misleading if not presented with an explanation of the meaning of the indicator.

Aged↗