JAMDA
Volume 9, Issue 7 , Pages 504-508, September 2008

Clinical Practice Guidelines, Process Improvement Teams, and Performance on a Quality Indicator for Urinary Incontinence: A Pilot Study

  • Larry W. Lawhorne, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Geriatrics, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University, Dayton, OH
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to Larry W. Lawhorne, Department of Geriatrics, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University, 627 Edwin C. Moses Boulevard, 5th Floor, East Medical Plaza, Dayton, OH 45408
  • ,
  • Joseph G. Ouslander, MD

      Affiliations

    • Boca Institute for Quality Aging, Boca Raton, FL
  • ,
  • Patricia A. Parmelee, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Center for Mental Health and Aging and Department of Psychology, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL

published online 31 July 2008.

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

Keywords: Urinary incontinence, clinical practice guidelines, process improvement teams, nursing homes

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1525-8610(08)00122-9

doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2008.04.007

JAMDA
Volume 9, Issue 7 , Pages 504-508, September 2008