• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

养老院报告卡的演变

The Evolution of Nursing Home Report Cards.

作者信息

Castle Nicholas, Diesel Jill, Ferguson-Rome Jamie C

机构信息

1 University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

出版信息

J Appl Gerontol. 2011 Dec;30(6):744-778. doi: 10.1177/0733464810378263.

DOI:10.1177/0733464810378263
PMID:29480085
Abstract

Nursing home report cards can be potentially key tools for disseminating information to consumers. However, few accounts of state-based nursing home report cards are available. In the research presented here, the scale, scope, utility, and changes over time in these nursing home report cards are described. This article finds that the number of report cards has increased from 24 in 2003 to 29 in 2009. The quality information presented varies considerably; however, deficiency citations are still the most frequently reported quality indicators. The utility of report cards varies considerably. The authors present their opinions of features that seem most conducive for consumer use of these report cards.

摘要

疗养院成绩单可能是向消费者传播信息的潜在关键工具。然而,关于各州疗养院成绩单的报道却很少。在本文所呈现的研究中,描述了这些疗养院成绩单的规模、范围、效用以及随时间的变化。本文发现成绩单的数量已从2003年的24份增加到2009年的29份。所呈现的质量信息差异很大;然而,缺陷引用仍然是最常报告的质量指标。成绩单的效用差异也很大。作者们阐述了他们认为最有利于消费者使用这些成绩单的特征的观点。

相似文献

1
The Evolution of Nursing Home Report Cards.养老院报告卡的演变
J Appl Gerontol. 2011 Dec;30(6):744-778. doi: 10.1177/0733464810378263.
2
Report cards and nursing homes.成绩单与养老院。
Gerontologist. 2005 Feb;45(1):48-67. doi: 10.1093/geront/45.1.48.
3
Quality report cards and nursing home quality.质量报告卡与养老院质量。
Gerontologist. 2003 Apr;43 Spec No 2:58-66. doi: 10.1093/geront/43.suppl_2.58.
4
Consumer Response to Composite Ratings of Nursing Home Quality.消费者对养老院质量综合评级的反应。
Am J Health Econ. 2019 Spring;5(2):165-190. doi: 10.1162/ajhe_a_00115. Epub 2019 Apr 23.
5
Where should Momma go? Current nursing home performance measurement strategies and a less ambitious approach.妈妈该去哪里?当前养老院绩效评估策略及一种较为保守的方法。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Jun 25;7:93. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-93.
6
Building quality report cards for geriatric care in The Netherlands: using concept mapping to identify the appropriate "building blocks" from the consumer's perspective.
Gerontologist. 2008 Feb;48(1):79-92. doi: 10.1093/geront/48.1.79.
7
The pay-off on nursing home report cards.养老院成绩单的回报。
LDI Issue Brief. 2011 Apr;16(6):1-4.
8
Medicaid nursing home pay for performance: where do we stand?医疗补助养老院绩效薪酬:我们目前的状况如何?
Gerontologist. 2009 Oct;49(5):587-95. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnp044. Epub 2009 May 20.
9
Web-Based Public Reporting as a Decision-Making Tool for Consumers of Long-Term Care in the United States and the United Kingdom: Systematic Analysis of Report Cards.基于网络的公开报告作为美国和英国长期护理消费者的决策工具:对报告卡的系统分析
JMIR Form Res. 2023 Dec 14;7:e44382. doi: 10.2196/44382.
10
Does mandating nursing home participation in quality reporting make a difference? Evidence from Massachusetts.强制要求养老院参与质量报告有作用吗?来自马萨诸塞州的证据。
Med Care. 2015 Aug;53(8):713-9. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000390.

引用本文的文献

1
Family Satisfaction With Nursing Home Care: Findings and Implications From Two State Comparison.家庭对养老院护理的满意度:两项州对比研究的结果与启示。
J Appl Gerontol. 2020 Apr;39(4):385-392. doi: 10.1177/0733464818790381. Epub 2018 Aug 17.
2
Choosing a Nursing Home: What Do Consumers Want to Know, and Do Preferences Vary across Race/Ethnicity?选择养老院:消费者想了解什么,不同种族/族裔的偏好是否存在差异?
Health Serv Res. 2016 Jun;51 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):1167-87. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12457. Epub 2016 Feb 11.
3
Satisfaction with Massachusetts nursing home care was generally high during 2005-09, with some variability across facilities.
2005-09 年期间,马萨诸塞州养老院的护理满意度普遍较高,各机构之间存在一定差异。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Aug;32(8):1416-25. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1416.