You are not logged in.
Openly accessible

The resident assessment instrument-minimum data set 2.0 quality indicators : a systematic review

Hutchinson, Alison M., Milke, Doris L., Maisey, Suzanne, Johnson, Cynthia, Squires, Janet E., Teare, Gary and Estabrooks, Carole A. 2010, The resident assessment instrument-minimum data set 2.0 quality indicators : a systematic review, BMC health services research, vol. 10, no. 166, pp. 1-45, doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-166.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
hutchinson-residentassessment-2010.pdf Published version application/pdf 381.37KB 83

Title The resident assessment instrument-minimum data set 2.0 quality indicators : a systematic review
Author(s) Hutchinson, Alison M.ORCID iD for Hutchinson, Alison M. orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-2726
Milke, Doris L.
Maisey, Suzanne
Johnson, Cynthia
Squires, Janet E.
Teare, Gary
Estabrooks, Carole A.
Journal name BMC health services research
Volume number 10
Issue number 166
Start page 1
End page 45
Total pages 45
Publisher BioMed Central
Place of publication London, England
Publication date 2010-06-16
ISSN 1472-6963
Summary Background
The Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set (RAI-MDS) 2.0 is designed to collect the minimum amount of data to guide care planning and monitoring for residents in long-term care settings. These data have been used to compute indicators of care quality. Use of the quality indicators to inform quality improvement initiatives is contingent upon the validity and reliability of the indicators. The purpose of this review was to systematically examine published and grey research reports in order to assess the state of the science regarding the validity and reliability of the RAI-MDS 2.0 Quality Indicators (QIs).

Methods
We systematically reviewed the evidence for the validity and reliability of the RAI-MDS 2.0 QIs. A comprehensive literature search identified relevant original research published, in English, prior to December 2008. Fourteen articles and one report examining the validity and/or reliability of the RAI-MDS 2.0 QIs were included.

Results
The studies fell into two broad categories, those that examined individual quality indicators and those that examined multiple indicators. All studies were conducted in the United States and included from one to a total of 209 facilities. The number of residents included in the studies ranged from 109 to 5758. One study conducted under research conditions examined 38 chronic care QIs, of which strong evidence for the validity of 12 of the QIs was found. In response to these findings, the 12 QIs were recommended for public reporting purposes. However, a number of observational studies (n=13), conducted in "real world" conditions, have tested the validity and/or reliability of individual QIs, with mixed results. Ten QIs have been studied in this manner, including falls, depression, depression without treatment, urinary incontinence, urinary tract infections, weight loss, bedfast, restraint, pressure ulcer, and pain. These studies have revealed the potential for systematic bias in reporting, with under-reporting of some indicators and over-reporting of others.

Conclusion

Evidence for the reliability and validity of the RAI-MDS QIs remains inconclusive. The QIs provide a useful tool for quality monitoring and to inform quality improvement programs and initiatives. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting the QI results and other sources of evidence of the quality of care processes should be considered in conjunction with QI results.
Language eng
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-10-166
Field of Research 111702 Aged Health Care
Socio Economic Objective 920299 Health and Support Services not elsewhere classified
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Copyright notice ©2010, BioMed Central
Free to Read? Yes
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30029321

Document type: Journal Article
Collections: School of Nursing and Midwifery
Open Access Collection
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 36 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 43 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 642 Abstract Views, 83 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Tue, 22 Jun 2010, 10:49:11 EST by Jane Moschetti

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.