Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate WIN A STEP UP, a workforce development program for nursing assistants (NAs) in nursing homes (NHs) involving continuing education by onsite trainers, compensation for education modules, supervisory skills training of frontline supervisors, and short-term retention contracts for bonuses and/or wage increases upon completion. Design and Methods: We collected longitudinal semistructured interview and survey data from NAs, supervisors, and managers at 8 program NHs and 10 comparison NHs. To control for selection bias, we matched 77 NA program participants to 81 participating site and 135 comparison site controls using propensity scores in a quasi-experimental design supplemented by qualitative assessments. Results: Managers at seven of eight participating NHs wanted to repeat the program. At 3 months after baseline, participants differed from controls by having (a) more improved nursing care and supportive leadership scores, (b) greater improvement in team care, and (c) stronger ratings of career and financial rewards. Nurse supervisors participating in supervisory skills training reported positive changes in management practices for themselves and peers. Modest 3-month turnover reductions occurred in six settings where the program was fully implemented without incident. Implications: Managers', supervisors', and participating NAs' consistent perceptions of improved quality of care and job quality, along with a promise of increased retention, suggest that interventions like WIN A STEP UP are beneficial.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate WIN A STEP UP, a workforce development program for nursing assistants (NAs) in nursing homes (NHs) involving continuing education by onsite trainers, compensation for education modules, supervisory skills training of frontline supervisors, and short-term retention contracts for bonuses and/or wage increases upon completion. Design and Methods: We collected longitudinal semistructured interview and survey data from NAs, supervisors, and managers at 8 program NHs and 10 comparison NHs. To control for selection bias, we matched 77 NA program participants to 81 participating site and 1 35 comparison site controls using propensity scores in a quasi-experimental design supplemented by qualitative assessments. Results: Managers at seven of eight participating NHs wanted to repeat the program. At 3 months after baseline, participants differed from controls by having (a) more improved nursing care and supportive leadership scores, (b) greater improvement in team care, and (c) stronger ratings of career and financial rewards. Nurse supervisors participating in supervisory skills training reported positive changes in management practices for themselves and peers. Modest 3-month turnover reductions occurred in six settings where the program was fully implemented without incident. Implications: Managers', supervisors', and participating NAs' consistent perceptions of improved quality of care and job quality, along with a promise of increased retention, suggest that interventions like WIN A STEP UP are beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Residential care/assisted living facilities have become an alternative to nursing homes for many individuals, yet little information exists about staffing in these settings and the effect of staffing. This study analyzed the intensity and skill mix of nursing staff using data from a four-state study, and their relationship to outcomes. Design and Methods: We obtained longitudinal data for 1,894 residents of 170 residential care/assisted living facilities participating in the Collaborative Studies of Long-Term Care. Descriptive statistics assessed the levels of direct care staff (registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, personal care aide). Regression analyses evaluated the relationship between two staffing measures (intensity measured as care hours per resident and skill mix measured as the percentage of total care hours by licensed nurses), facility characteristics, and four health outcomes (mortality, nursing home transfer, hospitalization, and incident morbidity). Results: Care hours per resident decreased with facility size (economies of scale) only for very small facilities and increased with dementia prevalence (case-mix effect). Licensed staff accounted for a greater proportion of total hours in nonprofit settings. Health outcomes did not vary by total care hours per resident, but hospitalization rates were significantly lower in facilities with higher proportions of skilled staff hours; this effect was stronger as dementia case mix increased. Implications: Current staffing levels for the outcomes analyzed meet most residents' needs. Reduced hospitalization in relation to greater use of licensed staff suggests that increased use of these workers might result in reductions in acute care expenditures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study compares health and functional outcomes and health care utilization of persons with dementia residing in residential care/assisted living (RC/AL) facilities and nursing homes. Design and Methods: The study uses data from a longitudinal cohort study of 1,252 residents with dementia in 106 RC/AL facilities and 40 nursing homes in four states. Results: Rates of mortality; new or worsening morbidity; and change in activities of daily living, cognition, behavioral problems, depressive symptoms, social function, and withdrawal did not differ between the two settings. However, because of death or transfer, only about one half of the persons with mild dementia and one third of those with moderate to severe dementia remained in RC/AL facilities 1 year after enrollment. In addition, hospitalization rates were greater among individuals with mild dementia in RC/AL facilities, largely because of a medically unstable subgroup with high nursing-home-transfer rates. Implications: Many persons with dementia can be served equally well in either setting; however, those with major medical care needs may benefit from nursing home residence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose:The goals of this study are to describe the current state of residential care/assisted living (RC/AL) care and residents in comparison with nursing home (NH) care and residents, identify different types of RC/AL care and residents, and consider how variation in RC/AL case-mix reflects differences in care provision and/or consumer preference.Design and Methods:Data were derived from the Collaborative Studies of Long-Term Care, a four-state study of 193 RC/AL facilities and 40 NHs. Multivariate analyses examined differences in ten process of care measures between RC/AL facilities with less than 16 beds; traditional RC/AL with 16 or more beds; new-model RC/AL; and NHs. Generalized estimating equation models determined differences in resident case-mix across RC/AL facilities using data for 2,078 residents.Results:NHs report provision of significantly more health services and have significantly more lenient admission policies than RC/AL facilities, but provide less privacy. They do not differ from larger RC/AL facilities in policy clarity or resident control. Differences within RC/AL types are evident, with smaller and for-profit facilities scoring lower than other facilities across multiple process measures, including those related to individual freedom and institutional order. Resident impairment is substantial in both NHs and RC/AL settings, but differs by RC/AL facility characteristics.Implications:Differences in process of care and resident characteristics by facility type highlight the importance of considering: (1) the adequacy of existing process measures for evaluating smaller facilities; (2) resident case-mix when comparing facility types and outcomes; and (3) the complexity of understanding the implication of the process of care, given the importance of person–environment fit. Work is continuing to clarify the role of RC/AL vis-à-vis NHs in our nation's system of residential long-term care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]