Using assessing care of vulnerable elders quality indicators to measure quality of hospital care for vulnerable elders

被引:68
作者
Arora, Vineet M.
Johnson, Martha
Olson, Jared
Podrazik, Paula M.
Levine, Stacie
DuBeau, Catherine E.
Sachs, Greg A.
Meltzer, Anddavid O.
机构
[1] Univ Chicago, Gen Internal Med Sect, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
[2] Univ Chicago, Sect Geriatr, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
[3] Univ Chicago, Dept Med, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
[4] Univ Chicago, Pritzker Sch Med, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
[5] Univ Chicago, Dept Econ, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
[6] Univ Chicago, Dept Publ Policy Studies, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
关键词
quality indicators; hospitalization; frail elders quality indicators; frail elders;
D O I
10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01444.x
中图分类号
R592 [老年病学]; C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 100203 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of care for hospitalized vulnerable elders using measures based on Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) quality indicators (QIs). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Single academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects aged 65 and older hospitalized on the University of Chicago general medicine inpatient service who were defined as vulnerable using the Vulnerable Elder Survey-13 (VES-13), a validated tool based on age, self-reported health, and functional status. MEASUREMENTS: Inpatient interview and chart review using ACOVE-based process-of-care measures referring to 16 QIs in general hospital care and geriatric-prevalent conditions (e. g., pressure ulcers, dementia, and delirium); adherence rates calculated for type of care process ( screening, diagnosis, and treatment) and type of provider (doctor, nurse). RESULTS: Six hundred of 845 (71%) older patients participated. Of these, 349 (58%) were deemed vulnerable based on VES-13 score. Three hundred twenty-eight (94%) charts were available for review. QIs for general medical care were met at a significantly higher rate than for pressure ulcer care (81.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 579.3 -83.7% vs 75.8%, 95% CI=70.5-81.1%, P= .04) and for delirium and dementia care (81.5%, 95% CI = 79.3-83.7 vs 31.4% 95% CI = 27.5-35.2%, P <. 01). According to standard nursing assessment forms, nurses were responsible for high rates of adherence to certain screening indicators (pain, nutrition, functional status, pressure ulcer risk; P <. 001 when compared with physicians), although in patients with functional limitations, nurse admission assessments of functional limitations often did not agree with reports of limitations by patients on admission. CONCLUSION: Adherence to geriatric-specific QIs is lower than adherence to general hospital care QIs. Hospital care QIs that focus on screening may overestimate performance by detecting standard nursing or protocol-driven care.
引用
收藏
页码:1705 / 1711
页数:7
相关论文
共 21 条