Related Experiment Videos
The minimum data set urinary incontinence quality indicators: do they reflect differences in care processes related
John F Schnelle1, Mary P Cadogan, June Yoshii
1Los Angeles Jewish Home for the Aging, UCLA Borun Center for Gerontological Research, and Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatrics, UCLA, and Veterans Administration Hospital-Sepulveda, Los Angeles, California, USA. jschnell@ucla.edu
Purpose:
To determine if nursing homes that score in the lower 25th percentile (low prevalence) versus the upper 75th percentile (high prevalence) on each of two Minimum Data Set (MDS) incontinence quality indicators provide different incontinence care processes
Design:
Cross-sectional.
Subjects:
347 long-term residents in 14 skilled nursing facilities for the MDS "prevalence of incontinence" indicator and 432 residents in 16 skilled nursing facilities for the MDS "prevalence of incontinence without a toileting plan" indicator.
Measures:
Nine care processes related to incontinence were defined and operationalized into clinical indicators. Research staff assessed implementation of each care process on 3 consecutive 12-hour days (7 am to 7 pm ). The assessment included resident interviews, physical performance evaluations, and chart abstraction using standardized protocols.
Results:
Homes with lower prevalence rates on both MDS incontinence quality indicators (good outcomes) had a significantly higher proportion of participants with chart documentation of two relevant care processes: 1 an evaluation of the resident's incontinence history and 2 toileting assistance rendered by staff. However, interviews with incontinent residents capable of accurately reporting care activity occurrence showed no difference in toileting assistance frequency between homes in the upper and lower quartiles for either MDS incontinence indicator. Participants reported an average of 1.8 toileting assists per day across all homes with a narrow average frequency range between homes (1.6-2.0). These frequencies of toileting assistance are not sufficient to improve urinary incontinence. There was also no difference in the frequency of toileting assistance received by incontinent participants rated on the MDS as receiving scheduled toileting (n = 75, mean = 1.9 +/- 1.24) compared to incontinent residents rated on the MDS as not receiving scheduled toileting (n = 131, mean = 1.8 +/- 1.22). None of the homes provided chart documentation that supported staff decisions to place or not place a resident on a scheduled toileting program.
Conclusions:
The quality of incontinence assessment and treatment as documented by scheduled toileting interventions was poor across all homes, and the MDS incontinence quality indicators were not associated with clinically important differences in related care processes. Chart documentation that a resident was on a scheduled toileting program or received toileting assistance was not related to resident reports of the frequency of received assistance.