Lawhorne Larry W, Ouslander Joseph G, Parmelee Patricia A
Department of Geriatrics, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45408, USA.
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2008 Sep;9(7):504-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2008.04.007. Epub 2008 Jul 30.
Previous work by the AMDA Foundation Long-Term Care (AMDA-F LTC) Research Network suggests that urinary incontinence (UI), while prevalent, is not a high priority in the nursing facility (NF) and that barriers to better continence care are discipline-specific. Other studies report that interventions for UI in the NF often are not individualized or are poorly implemented. Implementation of processes of care may be more dependent on facility characteristics than on the attitudes, knowledge, and skill of individual health care workers. We tested the hypothesis that better facility performance on a quality indicator (QI) for continence care (toileting) is associated with a more systematic approach to continence care.
This is a descriptive study of a cohort of 34 for-profit NFs in the AMDA-F LTC Research Network. Facilities were categorized as either good performers or poor performers based on percentile ranking during a 1-year period on the quality indicator for toileting. Good performers and poor performers were compared based on a number of characteristics.
There were no significant differences between good performers (17 facilities) and poor performers (17 facilities) with respect to occupancy, turnover, performance on other QIs, and cost of continence products. The prevalence of pharmacotherapy for UI was between 7% and 8%, which is consistent with other reports and did not differ between good performers and poor performers. However, good performers were more likely to report the presence of a process improvement team (PIT) for UI (53% versus 18%, P = .03) and more likely to report using a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for UI along with a UI PIT (47% versus 6%, P = .007).
Facilities that are good performers on the quality indicator for toileting are more likely to report the presence of a process-improvement team for urinary incontinence. Better performance is even more strongly associated with both the presence of a process improvement team and reported use of a clinical practice guideline for urinary incontinence.
AMDA基金会长期护理(AMDA - F LTC)研究网络之前的工作表明,尿失禁(UI)虽然普遍存在,但在护理机构(NF)中并非高度优先事项,而且更好的失禁护理障碍具有学科特异性。其他研究报告称,护理机构中针对尿失禁的干预措施往往没有个体化或实施不佳。护理流程的实施可能更多地取决于机构特征,而非个体医护人员的态度、知识和技能。我们检验了这样一个假设,即失禁护理(如厕)质量指标(QI)表现较好的机构与更系统的失禁护理方法相关。
这是一项对AMDA - F LTC研究网络中34家营利性护理机构组成的队列进行的描述性研究。根据在为期1年的如厕质量指标百分位排名,将机构分为表现良好者和表现不佳者。基于一些特征对表现良好者和表现不佳者进行比较。
在入住率、人员流动率、其他质量指标的表现以及失禁产品成本方面,表现良好的机构(17家)和表现不佳的机构(17家)之间没有显著差异。尿失禁药物治疗的患病率在7%至8%之间,这与其他报告一致,且表现良好者和表现不佳者之间没有差异。然而,表现良好的机构更有可能报告存在尿失禁流程改进团队(PIT)(53%对18%,P = 0.03),并且更有可能报告在使用尿失禁临床实践指南(CPG)的同时配备尿失禁流程改进团队(47%对6%,P = 0.007)。
在如厕质量指标上表现良好的机构更有可能报告存在尿失禁流程改进团队。更好的表现与存在流程改进团队以及报告使用尿失禁临床实践指南的关联更强。