{"title":"Star Ratings in Long-Term Care Facilities in Australia: Facility Characteristics Associated with High Ratings and Changes in Ratings Over Time","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jamda.2024.105272","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>A Star Rating system (1 to 5 stars) of long-term care facilities in Australia is based on 4 sub-categories: compliance, quality measures, residents’ experience, and staffing. The objectives were to examine associations between facility characteristics and the odds of receiving a 4- or 5-star rating, and changes in ratings between the earliest reporting period (October–December 2022) to the most recent (April–June 2023).</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Cross-sectional, ecological study, with an additional longitudinal component.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Long-term care facilities in Australia.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Associations between facility characteristics and the odds of receiving a 4- or 5-star rating were examined using a multiple logistic regression model. Average changes in overall star rating and each sub-category weighted by fractional contribution to overall star rating were estimated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 2476 facilities, 53.7% received a 4- or 5-star rating, 44.1% a 3-star rating, and 2.1% a 1- or 2-star rating in the April–June 2023 reporting period. Facility characteristics associated with higher odds of 4- or 5-star ratings included small (≤60 residents) and medium-size (61–100 residents) (odds ratios, 3.16; 95% CI, 2.51–3.98 and 1.72; 95% CI, 1.38–2.13, respectively), and Queensland location compared with New South Wales (2.42; 95% CI, 1.87–3.14). Facilities in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas (0.45; 95% CI, 0.33–0.62) and for-profit (0.12; 95% CI, 0.07–0.22) or not-for-profit facilities (0.16; 95% CI, 0.09–0.29) compared with government-operated were associated with lower odds of 4- or 5-star ratings. Between the 2 reporting periods, 25.1% of facilities' star ratings increased and 10.2% decreased (average change 0.156). Residents’ experience, compliance, and staffing had the largest weighted average sub-category rating changes (0.051, 0.042, and 0.042, respectively).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Smaller size, government ownership, and location in socioeconomically advantaged areas were associated with higher odds of 4- or 5-star ratings in long-term care facilities. Average star ratings increased over time but increases and decreases in overall and sub-category ratings were observed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":17180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Directors Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Directors Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525861024006947","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
A Star Rating system (1 to 5 stars) of long-term care facilities in Australia is based on 4 sub-categories: compliance, quality measures, residents’ experience, and staffing. The objectives were to examine associations between facility characteristics and the odds of receiving a 4- or 5-star rating, and changes in ratings between the earliest reporting period (October–December 2022) to the most recent (April–June 2023).
Design
Cross-sectional, ecological study, with an additional longitudinal component.
Setting
Long-term care facilities in Australia.
Methods
Associations between facility characteristics and the odds of receiving a 4- or 5-star rating were examined using a multiple logistic regression model. Average changes in overall star rating and each sub-category weighted by fractional contribution to overall star rating were estimated.
Results
Of 2476 facilities, 53.7% received a 4- or 5-star rating, 44.1% a 3-star rating, and 2.1% a 1- or 2-star rating in the April–June 2023 reporting period. Facility characteristics associated with higher odds of 4- or 5-star ratings included small (≤60 residents) and medium-size (61–100 residents) (odds ratios, 3.16; 95% CI, 2.51–3.98 and 1.72; 95% CI, 1.38–2.13, respectively), and Queensland location compared with New South Wales (2.42; 95% CI, 1.87–3.14). Facilities in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas (0.45; 95% CI, 0.33–0.62) and for-profit (0.12; 95% CI, 0.07–0.22) or not-for-profit facilities (0.16; 95% CI, 0.09–0.29) compared with government-operated were associated with lower odds of 4- or 5-star ratings. Between the 2 reporting periods, 25.1% of facilities' star ratings increased and 10.2% decreased (average change 0.156). Residents’ experience, compliance, and staffing had the largest weighted average sub-category rating changes (0.051, 0.042, and 0.042, respectively).
Conclusions
Smaller size, government ownership, and location in socioeconomically advantaged areas were associated with higher odds of 4- or 5-star ratings in long-term care facilities. Average star ratings increased over time but increases and decreases in overall and sub-category ratings were observed.
期刊介绍:
JAMDA, the official journal of AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, is a leading peer-reviewed publication that offers practical information and research geared towards healthcare professionals in the post-acute and long-term care fields. It is also a valuable resource for policy-makers, organizational leaders, educators, and advocates.
The journal provides essential information for various healthcare professionals such as medical directors, attending physicians, nurses, consultant pharmacists, geriatric psychiatrists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, physical and occupational therapists, social workers, and others involved in providing, overseeing, and promoting quality