Background Nursing homes (NHs) are increasingly implementing electronic health records (EHRs); however, little information is available on EHR use in NH settings. It remains unclear how care workers perceive its safety, quality, and efficiency, and whether EHR use might ease the burden of documentation, thereby reducing its implicit rationing. Objective This study aims to describe nurses’ perceptions regarding the usefulness of the EHR system and whether sufficient numbers of computers are available in Swiss NHs, and to explore the system’s association with implicit rationing of nursing care documentation. Methods This was a multicenter cross-sectional study using survey data from the Swiss Nursing Homes Human Resources Project 2018. It includes a convenience sample of 107 NHs, 302 care units, and 1975 care workers (ie, registered nurses and licensed practical nurses) from Switzerland’s German- and French-speaking regions. Care workers completed questionnaires assessing the level of implicit rationing of nursing care documentation, their perceptions of the EHR system’s usefulness and of how sufficient the number of available computers was, staffing and resource adequacy, leadership ability, and teamwork and safety climate. For analysis, we applied generalized linear mixed models, including individual-level nurse survey data and data on unit and facility characteristics. Results Overall, the care workers perceived the EHR systems as useful; ratings ranged from 69.42% (1362/1962; guarantees safe care and treatment) to 78.32% (1535/1960; allows quick access to relevant information on the residents). However, less than half (914/1961, 46.61%) of the care workers reported sufficient computers on their unit to allow timely documentation. Half of the care workers responded that they sometimes or often had to ration the documentation of care. After adjusting for work environment factors and safety and teamwork climate, both higher care worker ratings of the EHR system’s usefulness (β=−.12; 95% CI −0.17 to −0.06) and sufficient numbers of computers (β=−.09; 95% CI −0.12 to −0.06) were consistently associated with lower implicit rationing of nursing care documentation. Conclusions Both the usefulness of the EHR system and the number of computers available were important explanatory factors for care workers leaving care activities (eg, developing or updating nursing care plans) unfinished. NH managers should carefully select and implement their information technology infrastructure with greater involvement and attention to the needs of their care workers and residents. Further research is needed to develop and implement user-friendly information technology infrastructure in NHs and to evaluate their impact on care processes as well as resident and care worker outcomes.

Nursing home quality indicators are often used to publicly report the quality of nursing home care. In Switzerland, six national nursing home quality indicators covering four clinical domains (polypharmacy, pain, use of physical restraints and weight loss) were recently developed. To allow for meaningful comparisons, these indicators must reliably show differences in quality of care levels between nursing homes. This study’s objectives were to assess nursing home quality indicators’ between-provider variability and reliability using intraclass correlations and rankability. This approach has not yet been used in long-term care contexts but presents methodological advantages. This cross-sectional multicenter study uses data of 11,412 residents from a convenience sample of 152 Swiss nursing homes. After calculating intraclass correlation 1 (ICC1) and rankability, we describe between-provider variability for each quality indicator using empirical Bayes estimate-based caterpillar plots. To assess reliability, we used intraclass correlation 2 (ICC2). Overall, ICC1 values were high, ranging from 0.068 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.047–0.086) for polypharmacy to 0.396 (95% CI 0.297–0.474) for physical restraints, with quality indicator caterpillar plots showing sufficient between-provider variability. However, testing for rankability produced mixed results, with low figures for two indicators (0.144 for polypharmacy; 0.471 for self-reported pain) and moderate to high figures for the four others (from 0.692 for observed pain to 0.976 for physical restraints). High ICC2 figures, ranging from 0.896 (95% CI 0.852–0.917) (self-reported pain) to 0.990 (95% CI 0.985–0.993) (physical restraints), indicated good reliability for all six quality indicators. Intraclass correlations and rankability can be used to assess nursing home quality indicators’ between-provider variability and reliability. The six selected quality indicators reliably distinguish care differences between nursing homes and can be recommended for use, although the variability of two—polypharmacy and self-reported pain—is substantially chance-driven, limiting their utility.

No abstract

Background An increasing number of countries are using or planning to use quality indicators (QIs) in residential long-term care. Knowledge regarding the current state of evidence on usage and methodological soundness of publicly reported clinical indicators of quality in nursing homes is needed. The study aimed to answer the questions: 1) Which health-related QIs for residents in long-term care are currently publicly reported internationally? and 2) What is the methodological quality of these indicators? Methods A systematic search was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL and Embase in October 2019 and last updated on August 31st, 2022. Grey literature was also searched. We used the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument for the methodological quality assessment of the identified QIs. Results Of 23′344 identified records, 22 articles and one report describing 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we found 17 websites publishing information on QIs. We identified eight countries publicly reporting a total of 99 health-related QIs covering 31 themes. Each country used between six and 31 QIs. The most frequently reported indicators were pressure ulcers, falls, physical restraints, and weight loss. For most QI sets, we found basic information regarding e.g., purpose, definition of the indicators, risk-adjustment, and stakeholders’ involvement in QIs’ selection. Little up to date information was found regarding validity, reliability and discriminative power of the QIs. Only the Australian indicator set reached high methodological quality, defined as scores of 50% or higher in all four AIRE instrument domains. Conclusions Little information is available to the public and researchers for the evaluation of a large number of publicly reported QIs in the residential long-term care sector. Better reporting is needed on the methodological quality of QIs in this setting, whether they are meant for internal quality improvement or provider comparison.

Background: Physical restraints are used in nursing homes (NHs) despite their negative consequences. Use of surveillance technologies as alternatives to physical forms of restraints and negative staff opinions about the appropriateness of restraint use have been postulated to reduce this practice; however, these have rarely been investigated alongside resident outcome data. This study aimed to measure physical restraint prevalence in Swiss NHs and its associations with (a) the use of surveillance technologies and (b) staff's opinion about the appropriateness of physical restraint use. Methods:This cross-sectional multicenter study analyzed data on 3,137 staff and 6,149 residents of 292 units in 86 Swiss NHs (2018)(2019). Based on routine resident data, we measured the prevalence of two classes of physical restraint: (a) bedrails or (b) trunk fixation or seating option that prevents standing. To assess potential factors associated with restraint use, we applied a logistic multilevel model.Results: A 11.1% of residents were restrained with at least one form of physical restraint. Against our hypothesis, surveillance technologies were not significantly associated with restraint use, and staff members' opinion that the use of physical restraints was appropriate on their unit was associated with decreased odds of residents being restrained (odds ratio (OR): 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.80).Conclusions: Although Swiss NHs have a low prevalence of physical restraint use, only a minority of NH units do not use any restraints with their residents.Surveillance technologies seem to be used concurrently with restraints and not as an alternative. Further research should investigate staff's current and intended uses of surveillance technologies in practice. Staff members' opinion that they use restraints inappropriately might correctly reflect overuse of [Correction added on 7 May 2022, after first online publication: Funding statement has been corrected.]