Assessing the reliability and feasibility of quality indicators used to evaluate long-term care for older adults.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Geriatrics & Gerontology International Pub Date : 2025-01-28 DOI:10.1111/ggi.15074
Kiyomi Kawase, Ayumi Igarashi, Sameh Eltaybani, Taisuke Yasaka, Yuka Sumikawa, Manami Takaoka, Kosuke Kashiwabara, Chie Fukui, Noriko Yamamoto-Mitani
{"title":"Assessing the reliability and feasibility of quality indicators used to evaluate long-term care for older adults.","authors":"Kiyomi Kawase, Ayumi Igarashi, Sameh Eltaybani, Taisuke Yasaka, Yuka Sumikawa, Manami Takaoka, Kosuke Kashiwabara, Chie Fukui, Noriko Yamamoto-Mitani","doi":"10.1111/ggi.15074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Standardized quality indicators for long-term care (QIs-LTC) were previously developed to ensure high-quality holistic nursing care for older adults. This research aimed to assess the feasibility and reliability of unfavorable health outcomes measured by the QIs-LTC and proposed strategies for improvement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-nine pairs of home care nurses assessed 53 clients. We evaluated 20 of the 21 items of feasibility to calculate scores for the \"I do not know\" answer and test the interrater reliability using bias-adjusted and prevalence-adjusted kappa (PABAK). We then conducted interviews with 16 home care nurses to collect feedback on the implementation of QIs-LTC. Based on this feedback, we developed the QIs-LTC assessment manual and reassessed the QIs-LTC when used with the manual.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean for the \"I do not know\" answer was 13.8%, and the mean PABAK was 0.75 (±0.28). Overall, the reliability was good for physical assessment but inadequate for social aspects. Using the assessment manual, the mean for the \"I do not know\" answers decreased to 10.4%. The mean PABAK was 0.77 (±0.32) and increased for 12 unfavorable health outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The feasibility and reliability of most unfavorable health outcomes were ensured by using the newly developed assessment manual. Challenges in education and practice of social aspects were identified. QIs-LTC support individual and agency evaluations, nursing interventions and quality evaluations, which are a priority for long-term care in Japan. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2025; ••: ••-••.</p>","PeriodicalId":12546,"journal":{"name":"Geriatrics & Gerontology International","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geriatrics & Gerontology International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.15074","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Standardized quality indicators for long-term care (QIs-LTC) were previously developed to ensure high-quality holistic nursing care for older adults. This research aimed to assess the feasibility and reliability of unfavorable health outcomes measured by the QIs-LTC and proposed strategies for improvement.

Methods: Thirty-nine pairs of home care nurses assessed 53 clients. We evaluated 20 of the 21 items of feasibility to calculate scores for the "I do not know" answer and test the interrater reliability using bias-adjusted and prevalence-adjusted kappa (PABAK). We then conducted interviews with 16 home care nurses to collect feedback on the implementation of QIs-LTC. Based on this feedback, we developed the QIs-LTC assessment manual and reassessed the QIs-LTC when used with the manual.

Results: The mean for the "I do not know" answer was 13.8%, and the mean PABAK was 0.75 (±0.28). Overall, the reliability was good for physical assessment but inadequate for social aspects. Using the assessment manual, the mean for the "I do not know" answers decreased to 10.4%. The mean PABAK was 0.77 (±0.32) and increased for 12 unfavorable health outcomes.

Conclusions: The feasibility and reliability of most unfavorable health outcomes were ensured by using the newly developed assessment manual. Challenges in education and practice of social aspects were identified. QIs-LTC support individual and agency evaluations, nursing interventions and quality evaluations, which are a priority for long-term care in Japan. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2025; ••: ••-••.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.10%
发文量
189
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Geriatrics & Gerontology International is the official Journal of the Japan Geriatrics Society, reflecting the growing importance of the subject area in developed economies and their particular significance to a country like Japan with a large aging population. Geriatrics & Gerontology International is now an international publication with contributions from around the world and published four times per year.
期刊最新文献
Assessing the reliability and feasibility of quality indicators used to evaluate long-term care for older adults. Association of chronic low back pain and knee pain with subjective fatigue incidence among community-dwelling older adults: A prospective cohort study. Can hearing screening criteria at general health checkups be an indirect indicator of frailty and cognitive deficit in the older population? - with prevalence estimates based on updated World Health Organization hearing loss classification. Effect of pet therapy on sleep and life quality of elderly individuals. Comment on: "Mid-upper arm circumference as a screening tool for identifying physical frailty in community-dwelling older adults: The Korean Frailty and Aging Cohort Study".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1