National release of the nursing home quality report cards: implications of statistical methodology for risk adjustment.

Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 03/2009; 44(1):79-102. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00910.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine how alternative statistical risk-adjustment methods may affect the quality measures (QMs) in nursing home (NH) report cards. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTINGS: Secondary data from the national Minimum Data Set files of 2004 and 2005 that include 605,433 long-term residents in 9,336 facilities.
We estimated risk-adjusted QMs of decline in activities of daily living (ADL) functioning using classical, fixed-effects, and random-effects logistic models. Risk-adjusted QMs were compared with each other, and with the published QM (unadjusted) in identifying high- and low-quality facilities by either the rankings or 95 percent confidence intervals of QMs.
Risk-adjusted QMs showed better overall agreement (or convergent validity) with each other than did the unadjusted versus each adjusted QM; the disagreement rate between unadjusted and adjusted QM can be as high as 48 percent. The risk-adjusted QM derived from the random-effects shrinkage estimator deviated nonrandomly from other risk-adjusted estimates in identifying the best 10 percent facilities using rankings.
The extensively risk-adjusted QMs of ADL decline, even when estimated by alternative statistical methods, show higher convergent validity and provide more robust NH comparisons than the unadjusted QM. Outcome rankings based on ADL decline tend to show lower convergent validity when estimated by the shrinkage estimator rather than other statistical methods.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: © 2002 Optical Society of America
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Pay-for-performance (P4P) is commonly used to improve health care quality in the United States and is expected to be frequently implemented under the Affordable Care Act. However, evidence supporting its use is mixed with few large-scale, rigorous evaluations of P4P. This study tests the effect of P4P on quality of care in a large-scale setting-the implementation of P4P for nursing homes by state Medicaid agencies. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: 2001-2009 nursing home Minimum Data Set and Online Survey, Certification, and Reporting (OSCAR) datasets. STUDY DESIGN: Between 2001 and 2009, eight state Medicaid agencies adopted P4P programs in nursing homes. We use a difference-in-differences approach to test for changes in nursing home quality under P4P, taking advantage of the variation in timing of implementation across these eight states and using nursing homes in the 42 non-P4P states plus Washington, DC as contemporaneous controls. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Quality improvement under P4P was inconsistent. While three clinical quality measures (the percent of residents being physically restrained, in moderate to severe pain, and developed pressure sores) improved with the implementation of P4P in states with P4P compared with states without P4P, other targeted quality measures either did not change or worsened. Of the two structural measures of quality that were tied to payment (total number of deficiencies and nurse staffing) deficiency rates worsened slightly under P4P while staffing levels did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid-based P4P in nursing homes did not result in consistent improvements in nursing home quality. Expectations for improvement in nursing home care under P4P should be tempered.
    Health Services Research 02/2013; 48(4). DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.12035 · 2.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper considers approaches to the question "Which long-term care facilities have residents with high use of acute hospitalisations?" It compares four methods of identifying long-term care facilities with high use of acute hospitalisations by demonstrating four selection methods, identifies key factors to be resolved when deciding which methods to employ, and discusses their appropriateness for different research questions.
    BMC Medical Research Methodology 07/2014; 14(1):93. DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-14-93 · 2.17 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014