Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Special Focus Facilities vs Special Focus Facility Candidates: What is the Difference?
Rhodes, Annie; Novak, Anna C; Caprio, Thomas V; Zanjani, Faika; Marrs, Sarah; Gendron, Tracey; Waters, Leland.
Afiliación
  • Rhodes A; Department of Gerontology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. Electronic address: rhodesas2@vcu.edu.
  • Novak AC; Anna Novak Consulting, Arlington, VA, USA.
  • Caprio TV; University of Rochester Medical Center: Home Care and Medicine Hospice Program, Rochester, NY, USA.
  • Zanjani F; Department of Gerontology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
  • Marrs S; Department of Gerontology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
  • Gendron T; Department of Gerontology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
  • Waters L; Department of Gerontology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 25(3): 390-395, 2024 Mar.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37951582
OBJECTIVES: This study compares Special Focus Facilities (SFFs) and Special Focus Facility Candidate Facilities (SFFcs) on organizational traits and quality outcomes to evaluate the effectiveness of the SFF program as a quality improvement intervention and inform potential areas for program reform. DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Using data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services archives for 2020, this retrospective study analyzed 247 nursing facilities (50 SFFs and 197 SFFcs). METHODS: Variables of interest were staffing, profit status, facility size, certification status, number of residents, and complaint citations: t tests, χ2, Fisher's Exact test, and multivariate analysis of variance were used to compare the 2 groups. RESULTS: From an organizational perspective, SFFs and SFFcs are minimally different. Both groups had similar facility size, profit status, hospital affiliation, continuing care retirement community status, and Medicare/Medicaid certification. Large and for-profit facilities were overrepresented in both groups. SFFs and SFFcs exhibited statistical differences in the number of complaint deficiencies. The groups had no significant difference in staffing levels, category, severity of complaints, or incident reports. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATION: The study's findings suggest that the SFF program, while resource-intensive, is minimally impactful. The similarities between SFFs and SFFcs raise questions about the program's effectiveness in improving nursing facility care. Previous adjustments to the program may not have successfully achieved the desired quality improvements. This research highlights the need to further evaluate the SFF program's effectiveness as a quality improvement intervention. It also underscores the importance of addressing biases and subjectivity in state survey agency processes, which affect the enrollment of nursing facilities. The study underscores the flaws within the nursing home monitoring system and the 5-star quality rating system, especially when comparing small samples between states.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Medicare / Casas de Salud Límite: Aged / Humans País/Región como asunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: J Am Med Dir Assoc Asunto de la revista: HISTORIA DA MEDICINA / MEDICINA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Medicare / Casas de Salud Límite: Aged / Humans País/Región como asunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: J Am Med Dir Assoc Asunto de la revista: HISTORIA DA MEDICINA / MEDICINA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos