hand hygiene doc.pdf
-
Upload
jillian-simmons -
Category
Documents
-
view
269 -
download
2
description
Transcript of hand hygiene doc.pdf
Journal of Applied Gerontology2014, V ol 33(1) 24 –50© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0733464812449903jag.sagepub.com
449903 JAG33110.1177/0733464812449903Castle et al.Journal of Applied Gerontology
Manuscript received: June 08, 2011; final revision received: March 02, 2012; accepted: April 23, 2012.
1University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 2New York University, New York
Corresponding Author:Nicholas Castle, University of Pittsburgh, A610 Crabtree Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA. Email: [email protected]
Hand Hygiene Deficiency Citations in Nursing Homes
Nicholas Castle1, Laura Wagner2, Jamie Ferguson1, and Steven Handler1
Abstract
Hand hygiene (HH) is recognized as an effective way to decrease transmission of infections. Little research has been conducted surrounding HH in nursing homes (NHs). In this research, deficiency citations representing potential problems with HH practices by staff as identified in the certification process conducted at almost all US NHs were examined. The aims of the study were to identify potential relationships between these deficiency citations and characteristics of the NH and characteristics of the NH environment. We used a panel of 148,900 observations with information primarily coming from the 2000 through 2009 Online Survey, Certification, And Reporting data (OSCAR). An average of 9% of all NHs per year received a deficiency citation for HH. In the multivariate analyses, for all three caregivers examined (i.e., nurse aides, Licensed Practical Nurses, and Registered Nurses) low staffing levels were associated with receiv-ing a deficiency citation for HH. Two measures of poor quality (i.e., [1] Quality of care deficiency citations and [2] J, K, or L deficiency citations, that is deficiency citations with a high extent of harm and/or more residents affected) were also associ-ated with receiving a deficiency citation for HH. Given the percentage of NHs receiving deficiency citations for potential problems with HH identified in this research, more attention should be placed on this issue.
Keywords
citations, infection control, nursing homes (NHs)
Article
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Castle et al. 25
Introduction
Hand hygiene (HH) is recognized as essential to decreasing transmission of infections (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2002); however, little research has been conducted surrounding HH in nursing homes (NHs). In this research, deficiency citations for HH in a nationally representative sample of NHs are examined. These deficiency citations represent potential problems with HH prac-tices by staff as identified in the certification process conducted at almost all U.S. NHs. Using a large panel of observations (N=148,900) from 2000 through 2009, and Generalized Linear Models, the aims of this study were to identify potential relationships between these deficiency citations and characteristics of the NH (e.g., staffing levels, quality, ownership) and characteristics of the NH environ-ment (e.g., competition, reimbursement rates).
Prevention and management of infections in NH settings is an important, yet underexamined, resident safety concern (Rust, Wagner, Hoffman, Rowe, & Neumann, 2008). Healthcare Associated Infections (HAIs) are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the 1.7 million NH residents with between 1.6 and 3.8 million infections and almost 388,000 deaths occurring annually in this set-ting (Richards, 2002). Infections are the reason for one fourth of all hospitaliza-tions from long-term care (LTC) facilities (Ahlbrecht, Shearen, Degelau, & Guay, 1999; Richards, 2007). The costs associated with infections in NH settings have a significant impact on the healthcare system with annual estimates ranging from US$38 to US$137 million for antimicrobial therapy and US$673 million to US$2 billion for hospitalizations (Barker et al., 1994; Hu, 1990). Furthermore, the importance of HH in NHs extends beyond just these facilities; as millions of NH residents every year are transferred to and from acute care settings and can poten-tially spread pathogens between settings (Mody, 2009).
Although there are a number of ways to decrease transmission of infections (i.e., vaccinations, skin testing, use of antimicrobials), HH is recognized as one of the simplest and the most cost effective ways to do so (CDC, 2002; Fendleret al., 2002; Mody, 2009; Smith, Carusone, & Loeb, 2008). When performed correctly, HH can reduce HAIs by up to 30% (Boyce & Pittet, 2002). Improving HH prac-tices has also been identified as a patient safety goal by TJC (i.e., The Joint Commission) and has also been targeted by the World Health Organization (WHO) as the first global patient safety challenge entitled “Clean Care is Safer Care” (Pittet & Donaldson, 2005; WHO, 2009).
Resident infection rates are often associated with HH techniques and use of appropriate HH techniques have been shown to decrease infection rates among NH residents (Richards, 2007). Infection control standards and guidelines are underdeveloped in the NH industry. Regulations stipulate that infection control
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
26 Journal of Applied Gerontology 33(1)
activities should be performed; but, provide few details. NH infection control specialists (such as infection control nurses) are not mandated. In addition, the infection control specialists that do exist in NHs often lack training in specialized areas of microbiology or epidemiology (Otero, 1993).
BackgroundPrior Literature
As noted above, examining HH in NHs is important; however, little research has been conducted surrounding HH in NHs (12 publications during the past 9 years). Our review of these publications is summarized in Table 1. This review shows that few empirical studies have been conducted specifically in NHs; and, those that exist have a small sample size and likely poor generalizability. Moreover, few studies have examined factors of NHs associated with HH practices. Overall, our knowledge of HH practices in NHs is limited, and as noted by Juthani-Mehta and Quagliarello (2010), this topic is “vastly understudied” (p. 935). The study pre-sented here is the first nationally representative examination of HH in NHs and is the first to present characteristics of the NH and characteristics of the NH environ-ment that may influence HH practices. However, we note that the analyses are limited to secondary data and include failure to follow HH requirements only as identified by surveyors as part of the annual inspection through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
NH Certification and Deficiency CitationsCMS requires NHs to be certified before they can receive reimbursement for Medicare and/or Medicaid residents. The Medicare and Medicaid programs con-stitute major payers for care, thus almost all NHs in the United States (i.e., 96%) participate in this process. As part of this certification process deficiency cita-tions can be issued in specific areas of care (these are often called F-tags). That is, if NHs do not meet certain minimum health and safety standards, deficiency citation(s) can be issued. The current certification process is described in detail by CMS (www.cms.hhs.gov).
The Nursing Home Reform Act (NHRA) is considered to be highly influential in this regulatory process. The NHRA was included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1987 (P.L. 100-203). Of most significance to this research, the NHRA mandated that NHs were to have a functioning infection con-trol program in place (Goldrick, 1999). The programs were to include surveil-lance, outbreak investigations, isolation procedures, educational programs for
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
27
Tabl
e 1.
HH
Stu
dies
in L
TC
Set
tings
.
Aut
hor(
s)Se
ttin
gTy
peN
Mea
sure
(s)
Out
com
e(s)
Ash
raf e
t al
. (20
10)
NH
sSu
rvey
749
empl
oyee
s; 6
NH
sC
ompl
ianc
e an
d kn
owle
dge
of
hand
was
hing
bas
ed o
n th
e C
DC
gui
delin
es.
Nee
d fo
r m
ore
hand
was
hing
ed
ucat
ion
to a
ll em
ploy
ees
and
decr
easi
ng t
he n
umbe
r of
bar
rier
s to
han
dwas
hing
.R
umm
ukai
nen,
Jako
bsso
n,
Kar
ppi,
Kau
tiain
en, &
Ly
ytik
äine
n (2
009)
LTC
faci
litie
sSi
te v
isits
with
st
ruct
ured
su
rvey
123
faci
litie
sU
se o
f ABH
R a
nd o
ngoi
ng
syst
emat
ic a
ntim
icro
bial
s.O
ne y
ear
afte
r si
te v
isits
, us
e of
ABH
R in
crea
sed
and
antim
icro
bial
s fo
r pr
even
tion
of u
rina
ry t
ract
in
fect
ions
dec
reas
ed.
Aie
llo, M
alin
is, K
napp
, &
Mod
y (2
009)
NH
sC
ross
-sec
tiona
l su
rvey
of
HC
Ws
392
HC
Ws;
4 N
Hs
HH
; alc
ohol
rub
use
; fin
gern
ails
; glo
ve u
se;
know
ledg
e of
CD
C H
H
guid
elin
es.
Posi
tive
resp
onse
s to
HH
pr
actic
es; a
ppro
pria
te
glov
e us
e an
d fin
gern
ail
char
acte
rist
ics;
need
for
furt
her
educ
atio
n of
HH
gu
idel
ines
.R
ao e
t al
. (20
09)
NH
sC
lust
er
rand
omiz
ed
tria
l
12 N
Hs;
565
resi
dent
sO
bser
ved
infe
ctio
n co
ntro
l m
easu
res
(i.e.
, HH
fa
cilit
ies;
envi
ronm
enta
l cl
eanl
ines
s; sa
fe d
ispo
sal
of c
linic
al w
aste
) an
d th
en in
trod
uced
im
prov
ed in
fect
ion
cont
rol m
easu
res
to t
he
inte
rven
tion
grou
p.
Low
com
plia
nce
rate
s of
H
H; i
mpr
oved
com
plia
nce
with
saf
e di
spos
al o
f cl
inic
al w
aste
.
(con
tinue
d)
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
28
Aut
hor(
s)Se
ttin
gTy
peN
Mea
sure
(s)
Out
com
e(s)
Smith
et
al. (
2008
)LT
C fa
cilit
ies
Cro
ss-s
ectio
nal
stud
y45
9 H
H
oppo
rtun
ities
; 2
LTC
fa
cilit
ies
HH
mon
itori
ng in
stru
men
t to
exa
min
e H
H
com
plia
nce.
Low
HH
com
plia
nce.
Pan
et a
l. (2
008)
LTC
faci
lity
Obs
erva
tionl
st
udy
308
HH
op
port
uniti
esH
H c
ompl
ianc
e (i.
e.,
Han
dwas
hing
and
Glo
ve
Use
).
HH
com
plia
nce
low
and
co
mpa
rabl
e to
acu
te c
are
sett
ings
.M
acke
nzie
, Jam
es, S
mith
, Ba
rnar
d, &
Rob
inso
n (2
008)
Men
tal
heal
th c
are
sett
ings
fo
r ol
der
peop
le
Surv
ey11
4 st
aff
Han
dwas
hing
ass
ista
nce
prov
ided
to
patie
nts
by
staf
f.
Staf
f do
not
ofte
n as
sist
pa
tient
s in
han
dwas
hing
.
Ric
hard
s (2
007)
LTC
faci
litie
sLi
tera
ture
re
view
N/A
Uri
nary
tra
ct
infe
ctio
ns; r
espi
rato
ry
trac
t in
fect
ions
; ga
stro
inte
stin
al
infe
ctio
ns; s
kin
infe
ctio
ns;
antim
icro
bial
-res
ista
nt
infe
ctio
ns.
Eval
uatio
ns; i
nfec
tion
cont
rol
prog
ram
s; im
mun
izat
ion;
an
timic
robi
al p
resc
ribi
ng;
HH
.
Hua
ng &
Wu
(200
8)N
Hs
Inte
rven
tion
with
sel
f re
port
ing
40 N
As
Impa
ct o
f a t
rain
ing
prog
ram
in H
H fo
r N
As.
An
inte
nse
trai
ning
pro
gram
im
prov
ed k
now
ledg
e an
d co
mpl
ianc
e of
HH
and
a
redu
ctio
n in
res
iden
t in
fect
ion
rate
s.
(con
tinue
d)
Tabl
e 1.
(co
ntin
ued)
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
29
Aut
hor(
s)Se
ttin
gTy
peN
Mea
sure
(s)
Out
com
e(s)
Mod
y, La
nga,
Sain
t, &
Br
adle
y (2
005)
NH
sSe
lf- adm
inis
tere
d qu
estio
nnai
re
35 N
Hs
Infe
ctio
n co
ntro
l pra
ctic
es;
imm
uniz
atio
n pr
actic
es;
role
of I
CP
and
infe
ctio
n co
ntro
l act
iviti
es.
Vary
ing
infe
ctio
n co
ntro
l gu
idel
ines
; diff
eren
t de
finiti
ons
of in
fect
ions
; va
ryin
g im
mun
izat
ion
com
plia
nce;
sm
all n
umbe
r of
full
time
empl
oyed
ICP.
Fend
ler
et a
l. (2
002)
ECF
Infe
ctio
n ra
tes
275-
bed
ECF;
265
em
ploy
ees
Effe
ct o
f alc
ohol
gel
sa
nitiz
ers
on in
fect
ion
rate
s.
Alc
ohol
gel
san
itize
r ca
n re
duce
infe
ctio
n ra
tes.
Gol
dric
k (1
999)
Skill
ed
nurs
ing
LTC
fa
cilit
ies
Des
crip
tive
stud
y13
6 fa
cilit
ies
Infe
ctio
n co
ntro
l pro
gram
s; ef
fect
iven
ess
of in
fect
ion
cont
rol a
ctiv
ities
.
Low
er in
fect
ion
surv
eilla
nce
and
cont
rol;
low
ha
ndw
ashi
ng c
ompl
ianc
e.
Not
e: A
BHR
= a
lcoh
ol-b
ased
han
d ru
bs; C
DC
= C
ente
rs fo
r D
isea
se C
ontr
ol; E
CF
= e
xten
ded
care
faci
lity;
HH
=ha
nd h
ygie
ne; I
CP
= in
fect
ion
con-
trol
pra
ctiti
oner
; NA
= N
urse
Aid
es; N
H=
nurs
ing
hom
e; L
TC
= lo
ng-t
erm
car
e.
Tabl
e 1.
(co
ntin
ued)
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
30 Journal of Applied Gerontology 33(1)
both employees and residents, and reporting procedures (Ahlbrecht et al., 1999). However, details on implementing each of these programs were generally lack-ing. For example, educational programs for nurse aides are likely highly impor-tant for infection control (Juthani-Mehta & Quagliarello, 2010). Nevertheless, educational programs are considered to be ill-defined and insufficient, and are not mandated as part of the 75 hrs of training nurse aides receive (Juthani-Mehta & Quagliarello, 2010).
The staff hand washing after direct resident contact deficiency citation is examined in this research (i.e., F-Tag 444). Specifically, CMS guidelines state workers are expected to wash their hands before and after direct resident contact (for which HH is indicated by acceptable professional practice); performing any invasive procedure (e.g., fingerstick blood sampling); entering isolation precau-tion settings; eating or handling food (hand washing with soap and water); assist-ing a resident with meals; assisting a resident with personal care (e.g., oral care, bathing); handling peripheral vascular catheters and other invasive devices; inserting indwelling catheters; assisting a resident with toileting (hand washing with soap and water); and changing a dressing. In addition, after coming in con-tact with a resident’s intact skin (e.g., when taking a pulse or blood pressure, and lifting a resident); personal use of the toilet (hand washing with soap and water); contact with a resident with infectious diarrhea including, but not limited to infec-tions caused by norovirus, salmonella, shigella, and Clostridium difficile (hand washing with soap and water); blowing or wiping nose; contact with a resident’s mucous membranes and body fluids or excretions; handling soiled or used linens, dressings, bedpans, catheters and urinals; handling soiled equipment or utensils; performing personal hygiene (hand washing with soap and water); and, removing gloves or aprons; and, when hands are visibly soiled (hand washing with soap and water). Also: when coming on duty and after completing duty (CMS Manual System, 2009a).
CMS also gives guidelines on recommended techniques for washing hands. This includes the following: with soap and water include wetting hands first with clean, running warm water, applying the amount of product recommended by the manufacturer to hands, and rubbing hands together vigorously for at least 15 seconds covering all surfaces of the hands and fingers; then rinsing hands with water and drying thoroughly with a disposable towel; and turning off the faucet on the hand sink with the disposable paper towel (CMS Manual System, 2009a). In addition, CMS states that except for situations where hand washing is specifi-cally required, antimicrobial agents such as alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHR) are also appropriate for cleaning hands and can be used for direct resident care. Recommended techniques for performing HH with an ABHR include applying
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Castle et al. 31
product to the palm of one hand and rubbing hands together, covering all surfaces of hands and fingers, until the hands are dry. In addition, gloves or the use of baby wipes are not a substitute for HH (CMS Manual System, 2009a).
From 1997 to 2009, an average of approximately 1,000 NHs per year received a deficiency citation for this F-tag (i.e., F-Tag 444). This was the 24th most fre-quently used F-tag (from approximately 190 available). This F-tag was examined in the research presented here, as it was the only deficiency citation available that specifically addressed hand washing.
Conceptual FrameworkThis research was guided by the conceptual framework presented in Figure 1 (Mody, 2009). This conceptual framework is proposed as a means of understand-ing the potential relationships between HH, deficiency citations, and resident outcomes. It was also used as a means for guiding variable selection for the
RESIDENT RISK FACTORS- Age^- Chronic Diseases^- Indwelling Devices^- Decreased Immunity^- Care Processes (contact with medical
devices and group activities)^FACILITY RISK FACTORSInternal Factors- Nurse aide staffing- LPN staffing- RN staffing- Resident case-mix- Restraint use- Psychiatric condition- DementiaOrganizational Factors- Quality of care citations- J, K, or L citations- Medicaid resident occupancy- Medicaid resident occupancy XMedicaid reimbursement rate- For-profit ownership- Size- Chain membership- Occupancy rateEXTERNAL RISK FACTORS- Medicaid reimbursement rate- Competition- Elderly in county- Per capita income
HAND HYGIENEHEALTHCARE
ACQUIRED INFECTIONS^
DEATH^
HOSPITALIZATION^Deficiency Citation HAND HYGIENE(F-tag 444)
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for Examining Deficiency Citations for Hand Hygiene in Nursing Homes.Source: Conceptual framework was modified from the work of Mody (2009, p. 411)Note: RNs = Registered Nurses; LPNs = Licensed Practical Nurses.^Not examined in the empirical analyses.
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
32 Journal of Applied Gerontology 33(1)
empirical analyses. This conceptual framework consists of resident (e.g., age and decreased immunity) and facility (e.g., staffing levels and quality) risk factors as well characteristics of the NH environment (e.g., competition and reimbursement rates).
NH residents are typically older and more susceptible to acquiring infections, and this can lead to hospitalizations or even death (Mody et al., 2011). Risk fac-tors associated with NH residents’ susceptibility to acquiring infections include malnutrition and functional impairments. In addition, while in the NH, there are a number of risk factors for residents coming in contact with and/or spreading infections. These risk factors include care processes such as contact with medical devices and group activities (i.e., physical therapy, dining facilities, and bathing areas) (Richards, 2007). Resident risk factors and potential resident outcomes were initially combined in a conceptual framework by Mody (2009). That is, based on existing literature, these resident risk factors and HH practices were proposed to influence healthcare acquired infections, and in turn healthcare acquired infections were proposed to influence resident outcomes such as death and hospitalization. In this research, we modify this initial conceptual framework to include NH internal, organizational, and external factors, as well as the defi-ciency citation for HH (F-Tag 444). This is shown in Figure 1.
Internal factors are operating characteristics of the facility, such as staffing levels; organizational factors are characteristics of the facility itself, such as the number of beds; and external factors are characteristics generally outside of the influence of the organization, such as competition from other providers. Including these factors is useful, because many internal, organizational, and external factors are believed to influence care in NHs.
One often-cited important internal characteristic, for example, is the staffing level of nurse aides. High nurse aide staffing levels have been shown to be associ-ated with better quality in many prior NH studies (Castle, 2008). One often-cited important organizational characteristic, for example, is the ownership of the facility. For-profit facilities are thought to provide lower quality of care than not-for-profit NHs (Comondore et al., 2009). One often-cited important external characteristic, for example, is the Medicaid reimbursement rate. High rates have been shown to be associated with better quality in many prior NH studies (Hyer et al., 2009). These factors may also be associated with whether or not a facility receives a deficiency citation for HH.
This conceptual model is used, first because based on data availability the NH is used as the unit of observation. Thus, an organization-based conceptual framework was appropriate. Second, a similar conceptual framework was used previously in NH analyses examining deficiency citations (Castle, Wagner, Ferguson-Rome, Men, & Handler, 2011; Castle, Wagner, Ferguson,
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Castle et al. 33
& Handler, 2011). A complete list of the factors used in the analyses and their definitions are provided in Table 4. Given the large number of factors examined, and given the paucity of research in this area, this study is presented as an explor-atory analysis. Thus, specific hypotheses for the potential relationships between factors and deficiency citations for HH were not developed.
MethodSecondary data (described below) from 2000 to 2009 are used in the analyses. These data were combined into a panel consisting of a total of 148,900 NH observations. Descriptive analyses and multivariate analyses are used to examine characteristics (i.e., internal, organizational, and external factors) associated with receiving deficiency citations for HH (F-444).
Data SourcesDeficiency citations are recorded in the Online Survey, Certification, And Reporting (OSCAR) data. Moreover, the OSCAR also includes aggregate resi-dent information (e.g., number of residents with dementia, with psychiatric conditions, etc.), staffing information (e.g., number of full-time equivalent (FTE) nurse aides, etc.), and facility information (e.g., ownership characteristics, bed size, etc.). Thus, all of the internal and organizational factors examined in this research came from the OSCAR data.
The OSCAR data are publicly available from CMS (i.e., Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). The OSCAR is the only readily available data source that represents a national sample of NHs and includes resident, staffing, facility, and deficiency citation information over time. The reliability of many variables is well established (such as ownership characteristics; Kash, Hawes, & Phillips, 2007; Kash, Naufal, Cortés, & Johnson, 2010); but, this should not be overstated as no comprehensive psychometric analyses of the data are available, and opin-ions vary as to the overall reliability of this data (Kash et al., 2007). Details regarding the variables included in the OSCAR and how the data are collected is provided by Kash et al. (2007).
A limited number of variables included in the analyses came from the area resource file (ARF). Specifically, variables used as external factors (i.e., per cap-ita income in the market and the number of elderly in the market). Extensive details regarding the ARF can be found at www.arfsys.com.
In addition, Medicaid reimbursement levels (a variable used as an external fac-tor) came from primary data collected by the authors. This followed a process previously used by others (Grabowski, Feng, Intrator, & Mor, 2004). This primary
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
34 Journal of Applied Gerontology 33(1)
data collection included contacting representatives in each state, validating responses with information from other sources (when available), and adjusting the Medicaid reimbursement levels using the overall consumer price index (CPI). Extensive details regarding this data collection methodology is provided by Grabowski et al. (2004).
Analytic ApproachThe OSCAR data for each NH are available on a yearly basis (as the certifica-tion process occurs approximately yearly). Moreover, each facility has a unique ID number. Using these ID numbers, the OSCAR data for each NH from 2000 through 2009 were combined to create a longitudinal panel data source. The period 2000 through 2009 was used because these data were avail-able to the authors, and the data were used in a longitudinal panel format that allows more accurate inference of the included model parameters (Hsiao, Mountain, & Ho-Illman, 1995). ZIP codes are included in the OSCAR that were used to identify counties in which NHs were located and match facilities with the ARF data.
In the baseline year (i.e., 2000) 16,745 NHs were identified. Subsequently, 10% (N=1,855) of these NHs were excluded because they could not be identified in a subsequent year up to 2009. Thus, combined for the analyses 148,900 NH observations were used in this analysis (i.e., 14,890 NHs × 10 years).
AnalysesDescriptive statistics for the deficiency citation for HH (F-444) are presented. This includes the percentage of NHs receiving this deficiency citation; this cita-tion as a percentage of all deficiency citations given; and, the rank of this citation of all deficiency citations used, for each year from 2000 to 2009.
Twelve categories (labeled “A” through “L”) are used for each deficiency citation. These categories vary in scope and severity (i.e., the greater the letter, the more severe the citation). The severity depends on the extent of harm to the resident and the scope depends on the number of residents affected (these desig-nations are further defined in Table 2). Using all years of data (2000 through 2009), the percentage and number of NHs receiving each category of the defi-ciency citation for HH (F-444) is presented.
Descriptive statistics (means and percentages) for the internal, organizational, and external factors used in the analyses are presented. These are stratified by NHs receiving a deficiency citation for HH (F-444) in 2000, or not. These descriptive statistics are provided for the baseline year of 2000 for parsimony.
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Castle et al. 35
Table 2. Nursing Homes Receiving Deficiency Citationsa for Hand Hygiene (F-tag 444) From 2000 to 2009.
Year
Percentage of Nursing Homes
With an F-Tag 444 Deficiency Citation
F-Tag 444 Deficiency Citations as a
Percentage of All Citations Given
Rank of F-Tag 444 Deficiency Citations
of All Deficiency Citations Given
2000 7.37 1.17 312001 7.38 1.18 322002 7.31 1.40 262003 8.64 1.46 252004 9.06 1.51 232005 9.97 1.54 222006 10.75 1.55 222007 11.56 1.64 202008 11.65 1.67 192009 11.98 1.75 19Summary (all years) 9.06 1.63 24
Note: aA nursing home deficiency citation is defined as “a finding that a nursing home failed to meet one or more federal or state requirements” (Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 2004, p. 34).
To examine internal, organizational, and external factors of NHs associated with receiving deficiency citation for HH (F-444) multivariate analyses were used. Thus, multicollinearity and collinearity levels among the variables using the variance inflation factor (VIF) test were first measured (SAS Institute, 1999).
The multivariate analyses used consisted of Generalized Linear Models. Specifically, generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a logit link were used (Zeger & Liang, 1992). GEE controls for the biases that can occur in data consist-ing of repeat observations (i.e., in this case, NHs with repeat observations from 2000 to 2009). The logit link was used because the variable of interest was dichotomous (e.g., deficiency citation F-444 or no deficiency citation). SAS® version 9.13 was used for all statistical analyses.
ResultsResults of the Descriptive Analyses
From 2000 to 2009 an average of approximately 9% of all NHs per year received an HH deficiency citation (F-444; see Table 2). An upward trend is evident, with
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
36 Journal of Applied Gerontology 33(1)
an average yearly percentage increasing from 7.37% (in 2000) to 11.98% (in 2009). On average, these are the 24th most frequently used deficiency citation (from 190 available); although, as shown in Table 2, the use of these citations does vary slightly per year from the 32nd most frequently used (in 2001) to the 19th (in 2008 and 2009). In addition, the use of deficiency citations for HH (F-444) varies by state. In some states, such as Pennsylvania, an average of 6% of facilities were given this deficiency citation in 2009; whereas, in other states such as Michigan, an average of 15% of facilities were given this deficiency citation in 2009. The tercile distribution of these deficiency citations by state is shown in Figure 2.
Table 3 shows the percentage of HH deficiency citations (F-444) from 2000 to 2009 given by scope and severity. This shows that almost no NHs received defi-ciency citations in the most severe categories (i.e., J, K, and L). Most deficiency citations (i.e., 66.3%) were at the “D” level (representing potential for more than minimal harm [severity] and isolated cases [scope]).
Descriptive statistics of the variables used in the analysis for the baseline period of the year 2000 are presented in Table 4. A total of 1,828 NHs received this deficiency citation (F-444) in the year 2000. Compared to those NHs that did not receive a deficiency citation for HH, the bivariate analyses show higher rates of both more quality of care deficiency citations (addresses how well the facility renders services provided and supervised by nursing staff) and J, K, or L defi-ciency citations.
Figure 2. Tercile distribution of deficiency citations for Hand Hygiene (F-444) are presented. The figure represents the average number of these deficiency citations given per nursing home in each state.
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Castle et al. 37
Table 3. Scope and Severity Classifications Used for Medicare/Medicaid Certification Survey Deficiencies and Percentage of Nursing Homes Receiving Deficiency Citations for Hand Hygiene (F-tag 444) From 2000 to 2009.
Scope
Severity Isolated Pattern Widespread
Potential for minimal harm A(NR)
B(n=241
2%)
C(n=430.5%)
Potential for more than minimal harm D(n=5,843
66%)
E(n=2,561
29%)
F(n=1261.5%)
Other actual harm G (n=10.01%)
H(0)
I (0)
Actual or potential for death/serious injury J(0) K(0)
L(n=10.0%)
Note: Number in parentheses is the number of citations for hand hygiene (F-tag 444) from 2000 to 2009 (total number of these citations = 8,816). Severity is the extent of harm to the resident. Scope is the number of residents affected (Isolated defined as affecting a single or very limited number of residents; Pattern defined as affecting more than a very limited number of residents; Widespread defined as affecting a large portion or all resi-dents). Thus, A deficiency citations are the least problematic and L are the most problem-atic. For example, an A-level deficiency citation may be given if one nurse aide was observed to not wash her hands adequately; whereas, a C-level deficiency citation may be given if numerous nurse aides were observed to not wash her hands adequately. If one nurse aide was observed to not wash her hands adequately with a resident known to have norovirus a D-level deficiency citation may be given.NR, not recorded in the OSCAR.
Results of the Multivariate Analyses
Based on the commonly used threshold value of 0.8, the variables showed no problems of collinearity and no VIF score exceeded 2.5. Results from the GEE marginal models with a logit link are shown in Table 5.
For the internal factors all of the staffing level factors were significant at con-ventional levels (see Table 5). That is, for nurse aides high staffing levels were associated with low deficiency citations for HH (Adjusted Odds Ratios (AOR) = 0.965; p>=.01); high staffing levels of LPNs were associated with low deficiency citations for HH (AOR = 0.978; p>=.05); and, high RN staffing levels were asso-ciated with low deficiency citations for HH (AOR = 0.976; p>=.01).
For the organizational factors examined (see Table 5), facilities with quality of care deficiency citations were significantly associated with a high likelihood of
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
38
Tabl
e 4.
Des
crip
tive
Stat
istic
s of
NH
s R
ecei
ving
and
Not
Rec
eivi
ng D
efic
ienc
y C
itatio
ns fo
r H
H (
F-ta
g 44
4).
Faci
litie
s R
ecei
ving
F-t
ag
444
Cita
tions
aFa
cilit
ies
Not
Rec
eivi
ng
F-ta
g 44
4 C
itatio
nsb
Vari
able
sM
ean
(or
%)
Stan
dard
D
evia
tion
Mea
n (o
r %
)St
anda
rd
Dev
iatio
nO
pera
tiona
l Def
initi
on o
f Var
iabl
e
Inte
rnal
fact
ors
Nur
se a
ide
staf
fing
(FT
Es
per
resi
dent
)0.
330.
130.
320.
14FT
E nu
rse
aide
s pe
r re
side
nt.
LPN
sta
ffing
(FT
Es p
er
resi
dent
)0.
120.
090.
120.
09FT
E LP
Ns
per
resi
dent
.
RN
sta
ffing
(FT
Es p
er
resi
dent
)0.
060.
090.
070.
11FT
E R
Ns
per
resi
dent
.
Res
iden
t ca
se-m
ix (
AD
L sc
ore)
0.12
0.26
0.12
0.26
The
sco
re fo
r th
ree
AD
Ls (
eatin
g, to
iletin
g, an
d tr
ansf
erri
ng)
cons
truc
ted
by g
ivin
g a
scor
e of
1
for
low
ass
ista
nce,
2 fo
r m
oder
ate
assi
stan
ce,
and
3 fo
r hi
gh n
eed
for
assi
stan
ce s
umm
ed fo
r ea
ch A
DL.
Res
trai
nt u
se0.
100.
120.
100.
12Pr
opor
tion
of r
esid
ents
in p
hysi
cal r
estr
aint
s.Ps
ychi
atri
c co
nditi
on0.
170.
150.
160.
17Pr
opor
tion
of r
esid
ents
dia
gnos
ed w
ith
psyc
hiat
ric
cond
ition
s.D
emen
tia0.
440.
200.
430.
20Pr
opor
tion
of r
esid
ents
dia
gnos
ed w
ith
dem
entia
(de
fined
as
an IC
D-9
cod
e in
dica
ting
a sp
ecifi
c de
men
ting
illne
ss).
(con
tinue
d)
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
39
Faci
litie
s R
ecei
ving
F-t
ag
444
Cita
tions
aFa
cilit
ies
Not
Rec
eivi
ng
F-ta
g 44
4 C
itatio
nsb
Vari
able
sM
ean
(or
%)
Stan
dard
D
evia
tion
Mea
n (o
r %
)St
anda
rd
Dev
iatio
nO
pera
tiona
l Def
initi
on o
f Var
iabl
e
Org
aniz
atio
nal f
acto
rsQ
ualit
y of
car
e de
ficie
ncy
cita
tions
3.09
*2.
421.
591.
84D
efic
ienc
y ci
tatio
ns r
epre
sent
ing
the
sum
of 1
9 di
ffere
nt d
efic
ienc
y ci
tatio
ns (
F-ta
gs a
re: 3
09,
310,
311
, 312
, 314
, 316
, 317
, 318
, 319
, 321
, 322
, 32
3, 3
24, 3
25, 3
28, 3
29, 3
30, 3
33, 3
53).
With
in-
stat
e ra
nkin
gs (
perc
entil
es)
used
for
anal
yses
.J,
K, o
r L
defic
ienc
y ci
tatio
ns0.
08*
0.46
0.04
0.38
Any
def
icie
ncy
cita
tion
at J,
K, o
r L
leve
l (se
e Ta
ble
2). W
ithin
-sta
te r
anki
ngs
(per
cent
iles)
us
ed fo
r th
e an
alys
es.~
Med
icai
d re
side
nt
occu
panc
y64
%23
%63
%26
%Pe
rcen
t of
res
iden
ts w
ith M
edic
aid
as p
ayor
.
Size
(nu
mbe
r of
bed
s)11
074
109
73N
umbe
r of
bed
s in
the
nur
sing
hom
e.Fo
r-pr
ofit
owne
rshi
p70
%*
–65
%–
For-
prof
it or
not
-for-
prof
it (in
clud
ing
gove
rnm
ent
owne
d) o
wne
rshi
p.C
hain
mem
ber
60%
*–
56%
–W
heth
er m
embe
r of
a n
ursi
ng h
ome
chai
n or
no
t.O
ccup
ancy
rat
e82
%16
%83
%17
%Pe
rcen
t of
bed
s oc
cupi
ed b
y re
side
nts.
(con
tinue
d)
Tabl
e 4.
(co
ntin
ued)
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
40
Faci
litie
s R
ecei
ving
F-t
ag
444
Cita
tions
aFa
cilit
ies
Not
Rec
eivi
ng
F-ta
g 44
4 C
itatio
nsb
Vari
able
sM
ean
(or
%)
Stan
dard
D
evia
tion
Mea
n (o
r %
)St
anda
rd
Dev
iatio
nO
pera
tiona
l Def
initi
on o
f Var
iabl
e
Ext
erna
l fac
tors
Med
icai
d re
imbu
rsem
ent
rate
(U
S$)1
125.
05*
27.1
413
2.40
31.6
2T
he s
tate
ave
rage
dai
ly (
i.e.,
per
diem
) pa
ymen
t ra
te fo
r M
edic
aid
resi
dent
s (U
S$).
The
rat
es
wer
e ad
just
ed t
o co
nsta
nt 2
000
dolla
rs u
sing
th
e C
onsu
mer
Pri
ce In
dex
(CPI
).C
ompe
titio
n (H
erfin
dahl
In
dex)
d2,
216
2,47
72,
076
2,38
4H
erfin
dahl
Inde
x. E
ach
faci
lity’s
per
cent
age
shar
e of
bed
s in
the
cou
nty
/ squ
ared
mar
ket
shar
es
of a
ll fa
cilit
ies
in t
he c
ount
y (0
-1).
Hig
her
valu
es in
dica
te a
less
com
petit
ive
mar
ket.
Elde
rly
per
squa
re m
ile2
81*
174
146
419
Ave
rage
num
ber
of e
lder
ly p
er s
quar
e m
ile (
age
65 a
nd a
bove
) in
the
cou
nty.
Per
capi
ta in
com
e (U
S$)2
26,5
03*
6,23
727
,324
7,96
6A
vera
ge in
com
e (U
S$)
for
all c
ount
y re
side
nts
Not
e: a N
= 1
,828
faci
litie
s (b
ased
on
2000
dat
a); b N
= 1
2,37
2 fa
cilit
ies
(bas
ed o
n 20
00 d
ata)
.A
DL
= a
ctiv
ities
of d
aily
livi
ng; F
TE
= fu
ll-tim
e eq
uiva
lent
; HH
= h
and
hygi
ene;
LPN
s =
Lic
ense
d Pr
actic
al N
urse
s; LT
C =
long
-ter
m c
are;
NH
= n
urs-
ing
hom
es; R
Ns
= R
egis
tere
d N
urse
s.*D
iffer
ence
bet
wee
n re
ceiv
ing
defic
ienc
y ci
tatio
n fo
r H
H a
nd n
ot s
igni
fican
t at
p<
0.00
1.1.
The
uni
t of
ana
lysi
s fo
r th
is v
aria
ble
is t
he s
tate
(un
less
oth
erw
ise
note
d, fo
r al
l oth
er v
aria
bles
the
faci
lity
is t
he u
nit
of a
naly
sis)
.2.
The
uni
t of
ana
lysi
s fo
r th
is v
aria
ble
is t
he c
ount
y.~
Vari
atio
n in
the
use
of n
ursi
ng h
ome
defic
ienc
y ci
tatio
ns is
kno
wn
to o
ccur
from
sta
te t
o st
ate.
Usi
ng t
he p
erce
ntile
dis
trib
utio
n of
def
icie
ncy
cita
-tio
ns w
ithin
eac
h st
ate
give
s to
a m
ore
cons
iste
nt c
ompa
riso
n of
def
icie
ncy
cita
tions
acr
oss
stat
es.
(A).
vari
able
s pr
imar
ily c
ame
from
the
Onl
ine
Surv
ey, C
ertif
icat
ion,
And
Rep
ortin
g (O
SCA
R);
with
eld
erly
in t
he c
ount
y an
d pe
r ca
pita
inco
me
com
-in
g fr
om t
he A
rea
Res
ourc
e Fi
le (
AR
F); a
nd, M
edic
aid
reim
burs
emen
t ra
tes
com
ing
from
pri
mar
y da
ta; (
B). t
he fi
gure
s pr
esen
ted
are
for
the
base
line
2000
dat
a. T
he b
asel
ine
figur
es a
re p
rese
nted
for
pars
imon
y.
Tabl
e 4.
(co
ntin
ued)
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Castle et al. 41
Table 5. Multivariate Results of Nursing Homes Receiving and Not Receiving Deficiency Citations for Hand Hygiene (F-tag 444) From 2000 to 2009.
AOR 95% CI
Internal factors Nurse aide staffing 0.965 (0.961 –0.983) ** LPN staffing 0.978 (0.941 –0.993) * RN staffing 0.976 (0.938 –0.989) ** Resident case-mix (ADL score) 1.007 (1.039 –1.111) *** Restraint use 1.017 (0.989 –1.046) Psychiatric condition 1.063 (0.992 –1.035) Dementia 1.031 (1.002 –1.062) **Organizational factors Quality of care citations 1.137 (1.133 –1.142) *** J, K, or L citations 0.826 (0.779 –0.876) *** Medicaid resident occupancy 0.942 (0.927 –0.956) *** Medicaid resident occupancy × Medicaid reimbursement ratea
0.980 (0.921 –0.997) *
For-profit ownership 1.005 (0.945 –1.068) Size 1.021 (0.994 –1.049) Chain membership 0.935 (0.887 –0.986) ** Occupancy rate 1.004 (0.975 –1.035) External factors Medicaid reimbursement rate 0.922 (0.911 –0.989) ** Competition (Herfindahl Index)
1.013 (0.982 –1.045)
Elderly in county 0.976 (0.942 –1.018) Per capita income 0.993 (0.959 –1.029) Intercept 0.074 (0.0367 –0.149) ***
Note: N = 148,900 observations.*Statistically significant at p=0.05 level or better; ** Statistically significant at p=0.01 level or better; *** Statistically significant at p=0.001 level or better. Analyses also include 49 state and year dummy variables (not shown). Results reported using generalized estimating equations (GEE).FTE = full-time equivalent, ADL = activities of daily living, RNs = Registered Nurses, LPNs = Licensed Practical Nurses, AOR = Adjusted Odds Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval.aAdjusted Odds Ratios were manually calculated by using the mean levels of the variables (Medicaid reimbursement rate and Medicaid resident occupancy [i.e., a and b] and the variance/covariance matrix [Ai & Norton, 2003]).
receiving a deficiency citation for HH (AOR = 1.137; p <=.001); however, those with J, K, or L level deficiency citations were significantly associated with a low likelihood of receiving a deficiency citation for HH (AOR = 0.826 p <=.001).
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
42 Journal of Applied Gerontology 33(1)
Also, facilities that are members of a chain were significantly associated with a low likelihood of receiving a deficiency citation for HH (AOR = 0.935 p <=.01).
For the external factors examined (see Table 5), facilities located in states with higher Medicaid reimbursement rates were significantly associated with a low likelihood of receiving a deficiency citation for HH (AOR = 0.922; p <=.01).
DiscussionHAIs are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality amongst NH residents. NH residents are particularly susceptible to HAIs because they are frail, have multiple chronic comorbidities, and take antibiotics that are often inappropriately prescribed leading to greater susceptibility of antibiotic-resistant organisms (Bradley, 2009; Mody et al., 2011). HH can be an extremely influential practice in infection control management to prevent transmission of infectious disease in NHs (Mody et al., 2011). The research presented here is significant in that it gives a nationally representative picture of deficiency citations for HH (i.e., F-tag 444) in NHs. That is, in this study we examined relationships between these deficiency citations and characteristics of the NH and characteristics of the NH environment.
Overall, the conceptual framework used seemed appropriate for examining these deficiency citations. However, we note that the conceptual framework was modified from the initial work of Mody (2009) and the potential relationships indicating HH influencing healthcare acquired infections, death and hospitaliza-tion were not examined in the research presented here (see Figure 1). The major-ity of factors included in the conceptual framework and resulting analyses were significant in the multivariate analyses. This was especially true for the internal and organizational factors. That is, 5 of the 7 internal factors were statistically significant (i.e., nurse aide staffing, LPN staffing, RN staffing, resident case-mix, and dementia) and 5 of the 8 organizational factors (i.e., quality of care citations, J, K, or L citations, Medicaid resident occupancy, Medicaid resident occupancy × Medicaid reimbursement rate, and chain membership) were statistically signifi-cant. The external factors performed less well, with 1 of the 4 factors significant (i.e., Medicaid reimbursement rate) in the multivariate analyses. Thus, further modification of these external factors may be warranted in subsequent iterations and development of this conceptual framework.
With an average of approximately 9% of all NHs per year receiving a HH defi-ciency citation (see Table 2), our results confirm previous survey-based research that HH measures are not uniformly used in NHs ( Aiello et al., 2009; Ashraf et al., 2010). The results show an increasing percentage of NHs with an F-tag 444 defi-ciency citation and a reduction in rank of F-tag 444 deficiency citations of all
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Castle et al. 43
deficiency citations given (see Table 2). Thus, HH deficiency citations are becom-ing more common over time. We are not able to determine the cause(s) of this trend. We speculate that one reason may be greater awareness of surveyors to issues of infection control. A second potential reason may be a more difficult oper-ating environment for NHs. Resident case-mix has increased over time, while rev-enues have remained flat (Hyer et al., 2009). While providing more care with the same (or less) resources appropriate infection control may be sacrificed.
The issue of staffing appears very prominent in our findings (see Table 5). For all three caregivers examined (i.e., nurse aides, LPNs, and RNs) low staffing levels were associated with receiving a deficiency citation for HH (F-444). With low staffing levels, these caregivers are likely hurried, and may not have the time to use appropriate HH techniques. Empirical research has identified inadequate staffing levels to exist in many NHs (e.g., Hyer, Temple, & Johnson, 2009) and to be highly associated with quality of care (Castle, 2008; Castle & Ferguson, 2010). Our findings show one further consequence of low staffing: potential poor HH practices. We note that other staffing related reasons for poor HH likely exist. For example, poor HH practices could result from limited time for effective supervi-sion, high turnover, or from less peer support. Given the prominent findings for staffing identified in this research, it would be worth exploring some of these other staffing-related factors further.
Given the current inhospitable financial and reimbursement climate in which NHs operate, staffing levels are unlikely to improve in the near future. Therefore, HH-specific training may be one answer to improve compliance especially for nurse aides who provide 80%-90% of resident care (Beck, Ortigara, Mercer, & Shue, 1999). However, studies show that HH training in LTC facilities may be inadequate (Leinbach & English, 1995). To enhance HH training, facilities could do more to educate staff that contaminated hands are one of the most common ways to transmit infections, provide 1:1 coaching on how to wash hands appro-priately, describe the pros and cons of handwashing vs. alcohol-based hand sani-tizer products, and the need for handwashing (rather than the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizer products) when hands are soiled or there may be the presence of C. difficile infection for example.
Still, potential training and education solutions to address this deficiency cita-tion necessitate that we further understand why staff are not washing their hands as frequently as the guidelines recommend. It could be that the underlying behavior is influenced by the culture or attitudes of staff. Or it could be that staff does not have sufficient access to alcohol gel (for example). Training and education approaches should be informed by a more detailed understanding of reasons for poor HH.
Institutional policies and procedures could be developed to routinize HH as a required process for all staff, followed by internal quality improvement audits
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
44 Journal of Applied Gerontology 33(1)
(similar to state surveyor audits) to determine HH compliance. It has also been recognized that healthcare workers should receive feedback to ensure proper HH practices (Ahlbrecht et al., 1999). We speculate that a lack of such feedback may also be reflected in the findings. That is, with low staffing levels of RNs in a leadership position (who would typically provide this feedback), this process may be weak or nonexistent.
Our findings also show that receiving a deficiency citation for HH (F-444) is associated with poor quality in general (i.e., with quality of care deficiency cita-tions). This may be due to the notion that HH practices and quality of care are influenced by similar operating and environmental conditions. Nevertheless, HH deficiency citations are associated with lower levels of the worst lapses in quality of care deficiency citations (i.e., J, K, and L deficiency citations, which represent deficiency citations with a high extent of harm and/or more residents affected). These contradictory findings should be investigated further. We speculate that this may reflect the known orthogonality of quality indicators. That is, NHs often perform poorly in one area at the same time as they perform better in a different area (Castle & Ferguson, 2010).
The findings show that states with lower Medicaid reimbursement rates had higher rates of deficiency citations for HH. Low Medicaid reimbursement rates are also a characteristic of the NH industry (Grabowski et al., 2004). These low rates are associated with many negative NH outcomes such as high staff turnover and poor quality of care (Grabowski et al., 2004). That is, Medicaid reimburse-ment rates can influence the operation of NHs.
Presumably, the HH lapses resulting in deficiency citations by surveyors rep-resent observed cases of problems, and not lapses of reporting and documentation problems (which is a criticism of many other deficiency citations). As such, the use of deficiency citations for HH (similar to citations given for other observed problems such as medication errors; F-329) likely underestimate the potential HH problems in NHs. One would assume that staff would be following clinical care protocols (including HH) when surveyors are observing care. Thus, the potential problems with HH are likely much larger than we report here.
Interventions to improve HH need to be multifactorial in nature since multi-modal interventions are more effective at improving HH compliance rates over single employed approaches. The multifactorial approach should include three areas improving knowledge of HH through education (Laustsen, Bibby, Kristensen, Møller, & Thulstrup, 2009); reinforcing behavior through quality improvement activities (Pittet et al., 2000); motivating the HH behavior through introducing products such as personal bottles or wall mounted–alcohol hand rubs; changing the culture through increasing administrative support; and using reminders (Pittet et al., 2000).
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Castle et al. 45
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
One limitation of examining deficiency citations for HH is that they do not necessarily represent actual resident outcomes. The literature would suggest that when caregivers have poor HH practices this is detrimental to residents, but this cannot be substantiated in our analysis. Future research examining the influence of HH practices on resident outcomes is needed. Other sources of data could be used for such analyses, including the minimum data set (MDS), which provides a somewhat comprehensive evaluation of each resident (Castle & Ferguson, 2010).
From the information available in the OSCAR, it is not possible to present a more fine-grained analysis of specific breakdowns in HH requirements. That is, if the errors occur with specific residents or at specific locations. A more fine-grained analysis of some of the differences that exist between states may also be useful. As shown in Figure 2, considerable differences exist between states. These may be associated with specific state incentives or policies that could be further investigated.
Some of these more fine-grained analyses would also seem warranted given the recent changes in F-tags. In late 2009, F-tags 441, 442, 443, 444, and 445 were all collapsed in F-441 (CMS, 2009b). This enables aggregate “infection control” deficiency citations to be examined; but, is limited in that it is no longer possible to examine specific components of infection control, such as HH.
ConclusionsAs noted above, deficiency citations have several limitations when investigating HH. However, no prior research has presented a longitudinal analysis of a national sample of NHs examining these deficiency citations. With HH defi-ciency citations increasing over time and with an average of approximately 9% of all NHs per year receiving an HH deficiency citation, our findings provide tentative evidence that HH may be a problem in NHs. By examining relation-ships between these deficiency citations and characteristics of the NH and char-acteristics of the NH environment, we identify many of these factors (such as staffing) to be potentially important. This research may foster more interest in further elaborating influential determinants in this area of care; with the impor-tant objective of improving resident care and resident outcomes.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
46 Journal of Applied Gerontology 33(1)
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-lication of this article.
References
Ahlbrecht, H., Shearen, C., Degelau, J., & Guay, D. R. (1999). Team approach to infection prevention and control in the nursing home setting. American Journal of Infection Control, 27, 64-70.
Ai, D., & Norton, E. C. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Econom-ics Letters, 80, 123-129.
Aiello, A. E., Malinis, M., Knapp, J. K., & Mody, L. (2009). The influence of knowl-edge, perceptions, and beliefs, on hand hygiene practices in nursing homes. American Journal of Infection Control, 37, 164-167.
Ashraf, M. S., Hussain, S. W., Agarwal, N., Ashraf, S., El-Kass, G., Hussain, R., . . . Wolf-Klein, G. (2010). Hand hygiene in long-term care facilities: A multicenter study of knowledge, attitudes, practices, and barriers. Infection Control and Hos-pital Epidemiology, 31, 758-762.
Barker, W. H., Zimmer, J. G., Hall, W. J., Ruff, B. C., Freundlich, C. B., & Eggert, G. M. (1994) Rates, patterns, causes, and costs of hospitalization of nursing home residents: A population-based study. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 1615–1620.
Beck, C., Ortigara, A., Mercer, S., & Shue, V. (1999). Enabling and empowering certi-fied nursing assistants for quality dementia care. International Journal of Geriat-ric Psychiatry, 14, 197-211.
Bradley, S. F. (2009). Infections and infection control in the long-term care setting. In D. Norman & T. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Infectious disease in the aging: A clinical handbook (pp. 387-408). Humana Press, New York, NY.
Boyce, J. M., & Pittet, D. (2002). Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings: Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Com-mittee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA hand hygiene task force. [Supple-ment] Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 23, S3-S40.
Castle, N. G. (2008). Nursing home caregiver staffing levels and quality of care: A literature review. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 27, 375-405.
Castle, N. G., & Ferguson, J. C. (2010). What is nursing home quality and how is it measured? Gerontologist, 50, 426-442.
Castle, N. G., Wagner, L. M., Ferguson, J. C., & Handler, S. M. (2011). Nursing home deficiency citations for safety. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 23, 34-57.
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Castle et al. 47
Castle, N. G., Wagner, L. M., Ferguson-Rome, J. C., Men, A., & Handler, S. M. (2011). Nursing home deficiency citations for infection control. American Journal of Infection Control, 39, 263-269. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2010.12.010
Centers for Disease Control (CDC). (2002). Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings (RR-16). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 51.
CMS Manual System. (2009a). Pub. 100-07 State Operations Provider Certification. Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS). Transmittal 52. September. Retrieved February 25, 2010, fromhttp://www.cms.hhs.gov/transmittals/down-loads/R51SOMA.pdf
CMS Manual System. (2009b). Pub. 100-07 State Operations. Revisions to Appen-dix PP—Interpretive Guidelines for Long-Term Care Facilities, “Tag F441.” Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS). Transmittal 51. September. Retrieved August 25, 2011, from http://www.cms.hhs.gov/transmittals/down-loads/R51SOMA.pdf
Comondore, V., Devereaux, P., Zhou, Q., Stone, S., Busse, J., Ravindran, N., . . . Guyatt, G. (2009). Quality of care in for-profit and not-for-profit nursing homes: Systematic review and meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 339, b2732. doi: 10.1136./bmj.b2732
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (2004). Register. HFS 132.45: The author, Wisconsin.
Fendler, E. J., Ali, Y., Hammond, B. S., Lyons, M. K., Kelley, M. B., & Vowell, N. A. (2002). The impact of alcohol hand sanitizer use on infection rates in an extended care facility. American Journal of Infection Control, 30, 226-233.
Goldrick, B. A. (1999). Infection control programs in skilled nursing long-term care facilities: An assessment, 1995. American Journal of Infection Control, 27, 4-9.
Grabowski, D. C., Feng, Z., Intrator, O., & Mor, V. (2004). Recent trends in state nurs-ing home payment policies. Health Affairs, W4, 363-373.
Hsiao, C., Mountain, D. C., & Ho-Illman, K. (1995). Bayesian integration of end-use metering and conditional demand analysis. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 13, 315-326.
Hu, T.-W. (1990). Impact of urinary incontinence on healthcare costs. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 38, 292-295.
Huang, T. T., & Wu, S. C. (2008). Evaluation of a training programme on knowledge and compliance of nurse assistants’ hand hygiene in nursing homes. Journal of Hospital Infection, 68, 164-170.
Hyer, K., Temple, A., & Johnson, C. E. (2009). Florida’s efforts to improve quality of nursing home care through nurse staffing standards, regulation, and Medicaid reimbursement. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 21, 318-337.
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
48 Journal of Applied Gerontology 33(1)
Juthani-Mehta, M., & Quagliarello, V. J. (2010). Infectious diseases in the nursing home setting: Challenges and opportunities for clinical investigation. Aging and Infectious Diseases, 51, 931-936.
Kash, B. A., Hawes, C., & Phillips, C. D. (2007). Comparing staffing levels in the Online Survey Certification and Reporting (OSCAR) system with the Medicaid Cost Report data: Are differences systematic? Gerontologist, 47, 480-489.
Kash, B. A., Naufal, G. S., Cortés, L., & Johnson, C. E. (2010). Exploring factors associated with turnover among registered nurse (RN) supervisors in nursing homes. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 29, 107-127,
Laustsen, S., Bibby, B. M., Kristensen, B., Møller, J. K., & Thulstrup, A. M. (2009). E-learning may improve adherence to alcohol-based hand rubbing: A cohort study. American Journal of Infection Control, 37, 565-568.
Leinbach, R. M. & English, A. J. (1995). Training needs of infection control pro-fessionals in long-term care facilities in Virginia. American Journal of Infection Control, 23, 73-77.
Mackenzie, L., James, I. A., Smith, K., Barnard, L., & Robinson, D. (2008). Assessing hand hygiene in older people’s care settings. Nursing Times, 104, 30-31.
Mody, L. (2009). Infection control programs in nursing homes. In D. Norman & T. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Infectious Disease in the Aging: A Clinical Handbook (pp. 409-422). Humana Press, New York City, NY.
Mody, L., Bradley, S. F., Galecki, A., Olmsted, R. N., Fitzgerald, J. T., Kauffman, C. A., . . . Krein, S. L. (2011). Conceptual model for reducing infections and antimicro-bial resistance in skilled nursing facilities: Focusing on residents with indwelling devices. Aging and Infectious Diseases, 52, 654–661.
Mody, L., Langa, K. M., Saint, S., & Bradley, S. F. (2005). Preventing infections in nursing homes: A survey of infection control practices in southeast Michigan. American Journal of Infection Control, 33, 489-492.
Otero, R. B. (1993). Current approaches to infection control—Nursing care. Nursing Homes. Find Articles.com. Retrieved January 14, 2010, from http://findarticles.com/
Pan, A., Domenighini, F., Signorini, L., Assini, R., Catenazzi, P., Lorenzotti, S., . . . Guerrini, G. (2008). Adherence to hand hygiene in an Italian long-term care facil-ity. American Journal of Infection Control, 36, 495-497.
Pittet, D., & Donaldson, L. (2005). Clean care is safer care: The first global challenge of the WHO World Alliance for Patient Safety. American Journal of Infection Control, 33, 476-479.
Pittet, D., Hugonnet, S., Harbarth, S., Mourouga, V. S., Sauvan, V., Touveneau, S., . . . Members of the Infection Control Programme. (2000). Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Lancet, 356, 1307-1312.
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Castle et al. 49
Rao, G. G., Jeanes, A., Russell, H., Wilson, D., Atere-Roberts, E., O’Sullivan, D., & Donaldson, N. (2009). Effectiveness of short-term, enhanced, infection control support in improving compliance with infection control guidelines and practice in nursing homes: A cluster randomized trial. Epidemiology of Infections, 137, 1465-1471.
Richards, C. (2002). Infections in residents of long-term care facilities: An agenda for research report of an expert panel. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 20, 570-576.
Richards, C. L. (2007). Infection control in long-term care facilities. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 8, S18-S25.
Rummukainen, M., Jakobsson, A., Karppi, P., Kautiainen, H., & Lyytikäinen, O. (2009). Promoting hand hygiene and prudent use of antimicrobials in long-term care facilities. American Journal of Infection Control, 37, 168-171.
Rust, T. B., Wagner, L. M., Hoffman, C., Rowe, M., & Neumann, I. (2008). Broaden-ing the patient safety agenda to include safety in long term care [Special Issue]. Healthcare Quarterly, 11, 31-34.
SAS Institute (1999). Multicollinearity in Logistic Regression. Retrieved from www .uky.edu/ComputingCenter/SSTARS/MulticollinearityinLogisticRegression.htm
Smith, A., Carusone, S. C., & Loeb, M. (2008). Hand hygiene practices of health care workers in long-term care facilities. American Journal of Infection Control, 36, 492-494.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2009). First Global Patient Safety challenge Clean Care Is Safer Care. WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care. WHO Press, Switzerland.
Zeger, S. L., & Liang, K. Y. (1992). An overview of methods for the analysis of lon-gitudinal data. Statistics in Medicine,11, 1825-1839.
Author Biographies
Nicholas Castle is a professor with the University of Pittsburgh in the Department of Health Policy & Management. His research examines the quality of nursing homes. Previous research initiatives include examining staffing levels, staff turnover, top management, resident satisfaction, and safety culture. Dr. Castle is a Fellow of the Gerontological Society of America.
Laura Wagner is an assistant professor with the New York University College of Nursing in the Hartford Institute for Geriatric Nursing. Her research examines improving patient safety care processes in nursing homes. Previous research has focused on physical restraint and siderail reduction, improving adverse event report-ing and disclosure, and safety culture assessment.
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from
50 Journal of Applied Gerontology 33(1)
Jamie C. Ferguson-Rome is a project director with the University of Pittsburgh in the Department of Health Policy and Management. Her work includes safety and quality of care in nursing homes and assisted living facilities and the age-friendliness of communities. She can be reached at [email protected].
Steven Handler is an assistant Professor with the University of Pittsburgh in the Department of Biomedical Informatics and Division of Geriatric Medicine. His research focuses on the development, implementation, and assessment of clinical decision support systems to improve medication and patient safety primarily in the nursing home setting.
at TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-COMMERCE on July 8, 2015jag.sagepub.comDownloaded from