Dataset Information

Changes in Consumer Demand Following Public Reporting of Summary Quality Ratings: An Evaluation in Nursing Homes.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Limited consumer use of health care report cards may be due to the large amount of information presented in report cards, which can be difficult to understand. These limitations may be overcome with summary measures. Our objective was to evaluate consumer response to summary measures in the setting of nursing homes.

Data sources/study setting

2005-2010 nursing home Minimum Data Set and Online Survey, Certification and Reporting (OSCAR) datasets.

Study design

In December 2008, Medicare converted its nursing home report card to summary or star ratings. We test whether there was a change in consumer demand for nursing homes related to the nursing home's star rating after the information was released.

Principal findings

The star rating system was associated with a significant change in consumer demand for low- and high-scoring facilities. After the star-based rating system was released, 1-star facilities typically lost 8 percent of their market share and 5-star facilities gained over 6 percent of their market share.

Conclusions

The nursing home star rating system significantly affected consumer demand for high- and low-rated nursing homes. These results support the use of summary measures in report cards.

SUBMITTER: Werner RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4874944 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceImproving the quality of dialysis care and access to kidney transplantation for patients with end-stage kidney disease is a national clinical and policy priority. The role of dialysis facility quality in increasing access to kidney transplantation is not known.ObjectiveTo determine whether patient, facility, and kidney transplant waitlisting characteristics are associated with variations in dialysis center quality.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based cohort study is an analysis of US Renal Data System data and Medicare Dialysis Facility Compare (DFC) data from 2013 to 2018. Participants included all adult (aged ≥18 years) patients in the US Renal Data System beginning long-term dialysis in the US from 2013 to 2017 with follow-up through the end of 2018. Patients with a prior kidney transplant and matched Medicare DFC star ratings to each annual cohort of recipients were excluded. Patients at facilities without a star rating in that year were also excluded. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2021.ExposuresDialysis center quality, as defined by Medicare DFC star ratings.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients undergoing incident dialysis who were waitlisted within 1 year of dialysis initiation. Secondary outcomes were patient and facility characteristics.ResultsOf 507 581 patients beginning long-term dialysis in the US from 2013 to 2017, 291 802 (57.4%) were male, 266 517 (52.5%) were White, and the median (interquartile range) age was 65 (55-75) years. Of 5869 dialysis facilities in 2017, 132 (2.2%) were 1-star, 436 (7.4%) were 2-star, 2047 (34.9%) were 3-star, 1660 (28.3%) were 4-star, and 1594 (27.2%) were 5-star. Higher-quality dialysis facilities were associated with 47% higher odds of transplant waitlisting (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57 for 5-star facilities vs 1-star facilities; P < .001). Black patients were less likely than White patients to be waitlisted for transplantation (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.72-0.76). In addition, patients at for-profit (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81) and rural (OR, 0.63; 95%, CI 0.58-0.68) facilities were less likely to be waitlisted for transplantation compared with those at nonprofit and urban facilities, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, patients at higher-quality dialysis facilities had higher odds than patients at lower-quality facilities of being waitlisted for kidney transplantation within 1 year. Waitlisting rates for kidney transplantation should be considered for integration into the current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services DFC star ratings to incentivize dialysis facility referral to transplant centers, inform patient choice, and drive quality improvement by increasing transplant waitlisting rates.

Project description:Nursing homes are high-risk settings for outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1,2). During the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. health departments worked to improve infection prevention and control (IPC) practices in nursing homes to prevent outbreaks and limit the spread of COVID-19 in affected facilities; however, limited resources have hampered health departments' ability to rapidly provide IPC support to all nursing homes within their jurisdictions. Since 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has published health inspection results and quality ratings based on their Five-Star Quality Rating System for all CMS-certified nursing homes (3); these ratings might be associated with facility-level risk factors for COVID-19 outbreaks. On April 17, 2020, West Virginia became the first state to mandate and conduct COVID-19 testing for all nursing home residents and staff members to identify and reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in these settings (4). West Virginia's census of nursing home outbreaks was used to examine associations between CMS star ratings and COVID-19 outbreaks. Outbreaks, defined as two or more cases within 14 days (with at least one resident case), were identified in 14 (11%) of 123 nursing homes. Compared with 1-star-rated (lowest rated) nursing homes, the odds of a COVID-19 outbreak were 87% lower among 2- to 3-star-rated facilities (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.03-0.54) and 94% lower among 4- to 5-star-rated facilities (aOR = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.006-0.39). Health departments could use star ratings to help identify priority nursing homes in their jurisdictions to inform the allocation of IPC resources. Efforts to mitigate outbreaks in high-risk nursing homes are necessary to reduce overall COVID-19 mortality and associated disparities. Moreover, such efforts should incorporate activities to improve the overall quality of life and care of nursing home residents and staff members and address the social and health inequities that have been recognized as a prominent feature of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (5).

Project description:BackgroundThis study aims to describe the validation and optimization of a new instrument designed to comprehensively measure and evaluate the quality of care in nursing homes; the Quality Evaluation Questionnaires for Nursing Homes (QEQ-NH). This instrument comprises several questionnaires on the perceived quality of care for various perspectives (e.g. clients, family and professional caregivers) and covers eight themes of the national quality framework for nursing home care in the Netherlands.MethodsData were collected in six nursing homes between September 2017 and June 2018, among 359 residents, 48 family caregivers and 648 professional caregivers who completed a subgroup-specific questionnaire of the QEQ-NH. Construct and criterion validity of the three questionnaires were tested with item- and scale analyses. Content validity of the questionnaires was tested in cognitive interviews with 20 participants (7 residents, 5 family caregivers and 8 professional caregivers).ResultsPsychometric analyses confirmed the multidimensionality and reliability of the three questionnaires, and the cognitive interviews showed various possibilities for further optimization of the instrument. Construct, criterion and content validity of the three questionnaires ranged from acceptable to good. Cronbach's alphas were > .70 for almost all scales. More than half of the items were candidate for optimization according to the cognitive interviews, mainly due to clarity or knowledge problems, and the questionnaires of the QEQ-NH were optimized accordingly.ConclusionsThe Quality Evaluation Questionnaires for Nursing Homes (QEQ-NH) provide a solid basis to measure the quality of nursing home care, by covering the national quality themes and by integrating the various perspectives of all parties involved. With real-time feedback, the instrument provides the management and care teams with information to select possibilities or areas for improvement and to continuously monitor the effects of quality improvement in nursing homes.

Project description:BackgroundQuality improvement (QI) is used in nursing homes (NH) to implement and sustain improvements in patient outcomes. Little is known about how QI strategies are used in NHs. This lack of information is a barrier to replicating successful strategies. Guided by the Framework for Implementation Research, the purpose of this study was to map-out the use, evaluation, and reporting of QI strategies in NHs.MethodsThis scoping review was completed to identify reports published between July 2003 through February 2019. Two reviewers screened articles and included those with (1) the term "quality improvement" to describe their methods, or reported use of a QI model (e.g., Six Sigma) or strategy (e.g., process mapping) (2), findings related to impact on service and/or resident outcomes, and (3) two or more NHs included. Reviewers extracted data on study design, setting, population, problem, solution to address problem, QI strategies, and outcomes (implementation, service, and resident). Vote counting and narrative synthesis were used to describe the use of QI strategies, implementation outcomes, and service and/or resident outcomes.ResultsOf 2302 articles identified, the full text of 77 articles reporting on 59 studies were included. Studies focused on 23 clinical problems, most commonly pressure ulcers, falls, and pain. Studies used an average of 6 to 7 QI strategies. The rate that strategies were used varied substantially, e.g., the rate of in-person training (55%) was more than twice the rate of plan-do-study-act cycles (20%). On average, studies assessed two implementation outcomes; the rate these outcomes were used varied widely, with 37% reporting on staff perceptions (e.g., feasibility) of solutions or QI strategies vs. 8% reporting on fidelity and sustainment. Most studies (n = 49) reported service outcomes and over half (n = 34) reported resident outcomes. In studies with statistical tests of improvement, service outcomes improved more often than resident outcomes.ConclusionsThis study maps-out the scope of published, peer-reviewed studies of QI in NHs. The findings suggest preliminary guidance for future studies designed to promote the replication and synthesis of promising solutions. The findings also suggest strategies to refine procedures for more effective improvement work in NHs.

Project description:ObjectivesThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely affected nursing home residents. Given the continued high incidence of COVID-19, and the likelihood that new variants and other infectious agents may cause future outbreaks, we sought to understand the relationship of nursing home quality ratings and measures of COVID-19 outbreak severity and persistence.DesignWe analyzed nursing home facility-level data on COVID-19 cases and deaths, county-level COVID-19 rates, and nursing home data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), including ratings from the CMS Nursing Home Five-Star Quality Rating System. We used regression analysis to examine the association between star ratings and cumulative COVID-19 incidence and mortality as well as persistent high resident incidence.SettingAll nursing homes in the CMS COVID-19 Nursing Home Dataset reporting data that passed quality assurance checks for at least 20 weeks and that were included in the January 2021 Nursing Home Care Compare update.ParticipantsResidents of the included nursing homes.MeasurementsCumulative resident COVID-19 incidence and mortality through January 10, 2021; number of weeks with weekly resident incidence of COVID-19 in the top decile nationally.ResultsAs of January 10, 2021, nearly all nursing homes (93.6%) had reported at least one case of COVID-19 among their residents, more than three-quarters (76.9%) had reported at least one resident death, and most (83.5%) had experienced at least 1 week in the top decile of weekly incidence. In analyses adjusted for facility and county-level characteristics, we found generally consistent relationships between higher nursing home quality ratings and lower COVID-19 incidence and mortality, as well as with fewer high-incidence weeks.ConclusionNursing home quality ratings are associated with COVID-19 incidence, mortality, and persistence. Nursing homes receiving five-star ratings, for overall quality as well as for each domain, had lower COVID-19 rates among their residents.

Project description:Importance:The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Five-Star measure for nursing homes is designed with input from expert panels about the importance of multiple quality indicators. Consumers may assign different values to these indicators, creating different 5-star ratings. Objective:To compare nursing homes' rankings based on the CMS Five-Star measure with rankings based on consumers' judgment about the importance of the same quality indicators. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this quality improvement study, CMS Five-Star data were linked with a measure calculated from CMS quality indicators and consumer values obtained from a national survey. Data covered the last quarter of 2016 and the first three quarters of 2017. The study included 10?676 nursing homes, comprising 69.8% of those with reported Five-Star measures. The national survey included adults, either nursing home residents or their family members who reported being familiar with the quality of care their relative received. Data analysis was performed from January 2019 to February 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures:The contingent valuation method was administered via the survey to obtain consumers' relative values of the quality indicators, and statistical analyses were used to create the contingent valuation measure. Agreement in nursing home rankings was assessed using the Five-Star measure, which is based on weights developed by expert panels, compared with rankings based on the contingent valuation measure. Results:Among 10?676 study nursing homes with a mean (SD) of 119.4 (59.4) beds, 7845 (73.5%) were for profit, 6424 (61.8%) were part of a chain, and 8009 (75.0%) were urban. The 4310 survey respondents (mean [SD] age, 39.9 [15.6] years; 1143 [26.5%] men; 3448 [80%] white) included mostly family members (3879 participants [90.0%]). The Pearson correlation coefficient (0.65) and weighted ? statistics (0.48) indicated only moderate agreement between ranking of nursing homes' performance by the 2 measures and disagreement on ranking for approximately one-half of the nursing homes. Conclusions and Relevance:Current nursing home report cards might not reflect consumers' values and the relative importance consumers place on each of the quality indicators that compose the overall Five-Star measure. Quality report cards might be more relevant to consumers by augmenting the Five-Star measure with a measure reflecting consumers' preferences. It is unknown whether these conclusions are generalizable to other report cards, such as Hospital and Home Health Compare, without conducting similar studies for these report cards.