Application and content of minimum data sets for care homes: A mapping review

Barbara Hanratty, Gizdem Akdur, Jennifer Kirsty Burton, Vanessa Davey, Claire Goodman, Adam Lee Gordon, Anne Killett, Jenny Liddle, Stacey Rand, Karen Spilsbury, Ann-Marie Towers
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.24.24309361

Abstract

Background Care home residents have complex needs, and minimum data sets (MDSs) provide a unique source of information on their health and wellbeing. Although MDSs were first developed to monitor quality and costs of care, they can make an important contribution to research.

Aim To describe the research applications of data from care home MDSs, and identify key outcome variables and measures used.

Design Mapping review of published empirical studies using data generated from minimum data sets in long term care facilities for older adults.

Methods We performed a comprehensive search of electronic databases (Medline OVID, CINAHL, Embase and ASSIA), using bespoke search strategies to identify English language publications 2011 - 2024. Articles were screened by two independent reviewers. They were grouped by study topic and data (on publication date, country, MDS, outcome variables and specific items or measures) were charted without quality assessment. The key features of the data are described in a narrative synthesis.

Findings Searches identified 18588 articles published 2011-2024, of which 661 met inclusion criteria. 72% were from the USA, 12% from Canada and the remaining 16% from four European countries, South Korea and New Zealand. The studies encompassed individual resident functioning (e.g. mobility, incontinence), health conditions and symptoms (e.g. depression, pain), healthcare in the home (e.g. prescribing, end of life care), hospital attendances and admissions, transitions to and from care homes, quality of care and systemwide issues. Measures used reflected the content of the major MDSs, but there was a mismatch between the importance of some topics to care homes (e.g. incontinence) and the range of published papers, and limited consensus over how to measure quality of life.

Conclusions Care home MDSs are a unique resource to support study of care home residents and impact of interventions over time. They are a powerful resource when linked to other datasets, and as an adjunct to primary data collection This analysis may serve as an accessible guide to the content and applications of MDS, allowing researchers to consider the sort of questions that can be posed and the different components of resident care or experience that can be evaluated.

Introduction

Care home residents have complex needs, and a good understanding of their health and wellbeing is the key to optimising care.1 2 This is an important group, growing in size and with increasing needs for care.3 4 Over the next twenty years, the number of people requiring the level of support provided by a care home is expected to increase by 50%, in line with population ageing.5 6 Research from Europe, New Zealand and North America has described rising care needs and acuity of medical conditions amongst care home entrants.7 8 Older age, cognitive impairment and difficulties with activities of daily living (ADLs) are established risk factors for care home admission.9 Three out of four residents have reduced mobility and a similar proportion live with incontinence.10 Arthritis, depression and dementia are common,1 10 and an increasing number of residents are admitted directly from hospitals, with associated needs for rehabilitation and infection control.6 Demands on health services may be high, with greater use of primary care by older adults in care homes, compared to people in their own homes, more frequent hospital attendances10 and high rates of in-hospital death.11

A minimum data set (MDS) describes a core dataset, collected for a specific purpose. Most often, MDSs are focused on demographic, social, economic or health characteristics. Care home MDSs may provide data on individual residents, staff and homes, which can be aggregated to study activity at care home, organisation or population levels. Over time, the resulting longitudinal data on residents’ and their home can be a resource to support planning, delivery and evaluation of services tailored to residents’ needs.12 An MDS can also enable national reporting on care metrics, cross-national comparative studies, and - in conjunction with other healthcare record systems - studies of how older adults move between care homes, hospitals and the wider community.13 14 An MDS for care homes has been used in the USA for almost 30 years, where Medicaid and Medicare affiliated care homes are now mandated to use the it (currently version 3.0).15 Two other forms of MDS, the Resident Assessment Instrument and Dutch National Measurement of Care Problems (LPZ) 16–20 are in use elsewhere. All MDSs specify the schedule and content of assessments, support standardised data collection, and provide protocols to guide assessment, and in some cases, triggers for escalation of care. Established MDS are lengthy tools, with the US MDS version 3.0 consisting of over 400 items.15 They form part of a vast array of tools, available to use with care home populations. A recent review of quality management guidelines and frameworks for care homes from seven European countries and the US identified 94 performance indicators across five domains. The quality of care domain alone included 24 indicators.21

Many countries have no regular sources of data from care homes and no reliable means of identifying care home residents within routine data sources.22 The coronavirus pandemic that started in 2020 highlighted the importance of this omission, and the potential benefits of data collection for residents, care systems and research. Data on activity and COVID-19 infection in care homes were needed urgently, but infrastructure to support data collection and transfer were often absent. In countries without MDS or similar systems, there are examples of swift action to redress this information gap. For example, in England, a capacity tracker app was used to provide aggregate information such as care home bed occupancy and staffing, to local authorities.23 This and other interventions during the pandemic, heightened interest in the potential of MDS to support responses to emergencies and rational planning, as well as research.

The purpose of this study was twofold. First, to provide an overview of the breadth of topics that may be studied using data from care home MDS. Second, to map the key measures used within each topic area. We did this to generate a resource for researchers, with a guide to where MDS has supported research, and where the gaps are.

Methods

We undertook a mapping review of the published literature. This was judged to be the most appropriate approach, as we were interested in a broad overview of the content of a large literature. It allows researchers to map and describe the literature in a specific area, and highlight important concepts.24 We adopted the established standards for the conduct of these type of reviews. 25,26–28 In keeping with the mapping review approach, we extracted limited, descriptive information about studies. The purpose was to understand how MDS data has been used in research and identify items/measures used in common topic areas of MDS research. Throughout this review, we use the terms ‘items/variables’ to describe responses to single items or questions and ‘measures’ to describe multiple items (more than two) forming a measurement scale.

Search Strategy

This work utilised broad searches developed for a linked review.29 Initially, a bespoke search strategy was developed with an information scientist to identify original studies analysing data from care home MDSs. It was used to search seven data bases (Medline OVID, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Embase, ASSIA) from 2011 to 2015, subsequently updated to 2019.29 (Search strategies reported elsewhere and reproduced in the Supplementary Material).29 Further updating was undertaken to 2024. This provides fourteen full years of publications, with recent data most likely to reflect current practice. Additional targeted searches used the names of MDSs known to be implemented (e.g. MDS, InterRAI, LPZ) and by manually searching the reference lists of potentially relevant papers and sources of grey literature, including websites of MDS providers. References were imported into Endnote software for screening.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were included if they reported original research, using data from an MDS in care homes (care home, residential home, long-term care facility, skilled nursing facility). Studies that described development of an MDS, validated measures within MDSs, or used measures taken from MDSs to undertake data collection, were all excluded. We included articles that combined analysis of previously collected MDS data with new data collection in a single study. No restrictions on language, country, age of study participants, type of care home or study topic were applied at this stage. All observational and experimental study designs were eligible, but editorials, reviews, commentaries and conference abstracts were excluded. Included studies were published between January 2011 and March 2024, to ensure the findings reflected recent practice in care homes.

Title and abstract, full text screening

Title, abstract and full text screening were all completed in EndNote. One reviewer screened all records, with 20% checked by a second reviewer. All uncertainties were resolved by discussion between two reviewers, with a third reviewer available to intervene in the event of conflicts. Studies that presented analysis of MDS data were included for data extraction.

Data charting

A data charting form was developed in Microsoft Excel, tested on ten articles and modified before applying to all included studies. Descriptive data were charted from each article that met the inclusion criteria: year of publication, country, study topic, MDS, and items or measures in the topic area being studied.

Given the study heterogeneity and breadth of topics, a narrative synthesis approach was used to collate and summarise the literature, including a count of study characteristics. Articles were categorised by study topic, with some studies covering more than one category. The study categories were then grouped into broader thematic groups, based on our interpretation of the categories. No assessment of study quality was made, as this was a mapping review.

Findings

After deduplication, searches identified 18,588 articles published 2011-2024, of which 661 met inclusion criteria. The majority (72%) were from the USA, 12% Canada and the remaining 16% from four European countries, South Korea and New Zealand. The average annual number of relevant publications was 51 with a peak in 2020 (90 articles). As the overall number of studies in the review is high, the narrative below includes only selected references. Complete lists, by category, are provided in the supplementary material. An adapted PRISMA diagram is presented in Figure 1.30

Figure 1. (PRISMA diagram)

Topics studied using information from MDS

Overall, one of the most common uses of MDSs in this review was to describe residents, either in epidemiological terms, as described below, or in terms of their health, functioning and service use. This review includes studies that have considered individual resident functioning (e.g. mobility, incontinence), health conditions and symptoms (e.g. depression, pain), health care in the home (e.g. prescribing, end of life care), hospital attendances and admissions, transitions to and from care homes, quality of care and system-wide issues. Information from MDSs has been particularly useful when employed in empirical studies, providing a sampling frame and baseline for randomised controlled trials or other intervention studies.31–33 Many studies have used MDS data linked to other sources of information, most commonly routine data sets such as those collected by Medicare. This provides a comprehensive picture of the resident’s care as they transit across settings. It also enables assessment of outcomes that may be important to residents in their daily lives (e.g. activities of daily living), but may not be the intended primary outcome for medical care.

View this table:
Table 1 Study topics in research using MDS*
Health conditions

MDSs can support investigation of the epidemiology, care and outcomes for specific health conditions amongst residents, despite not being healthcare records. Dementia and cognitive impairment are amongst the most commonly studied conditions in this regard. Mental health has also been an important area of study,34 particularly the treatment of depression35 and anxiety.36 Prediction, prevention and treatment of infections are also feasible applications of MDSs. For example, studies have looked at trends in infections over time,37 risk factors for developing pneumonia,38 evaluation39 and use40 of vaccines. MDSs have been used to investigate specific infections that have serious consequences for older adult residents, such as clostridium difficile,41 norovirus42 or methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus.43

Medications

Analysis of medications prescribed in care homes was the most common application of data from MDS in this review. De-prescribing or de-intensification of treatment was the explicit focus of a modest number of studies.44–53 Research also examined specific categories of medications with known potential adverse effects for older adults, such as those with a high anticholinergic burden,54–61 anticoagulants,62–68 antidepressants,69–80 anti-psychotics,31 36 44 70 77 78 81–107 or statins.49–51 108–112 Analysis of prescribing in some medication categories - antibiotics113–116 or benzodiazepines,84 117 for example, may be used to make broader assumptions about quality of care. A common approach in MDS-based research has been to consider medications as risk factors for adverse events in care homes. These have included, for example, falls,47 70 96 118 fractures,73 101 119–121 frailty122 and death.57 69,90,92,94,104,123

Pain

Assessment and prevalence of pain have been extensively studied using MDSs,124 125 along with pharmacological management.126 127 Authors have also explored factors associated with pain, including cognitive impairment128and dementia, and the consequences for behaviour within the home.129–131

Assessment of functional status or decline

The ability of an older adult to perform day to day tasks, such as washing and dressing, and their mobility, have important implications in care homes. ADLs are available from MDS, but seldom recorded in healthcare records. Researchers have used MDS to explore changes in functional ability over time,132–135 after acute medical and surgical hospital admissions,136 137 138 139 and for residents who are ultimately discharged home with140 or without restorative (rehabilitative) care.137

Falls

Falls are recorded in care homes across the world as a measure of care quality and safety, and often as a regulatory requirement. Falls data from MDS have been used to characterise the scale and consequences,141–143 and identify potential risk factors for falls, including functional ability,118 health status144 145 and a range of medications.47 70 96 146 Information on falls has also been analysed as part of wider research studies147 148 and supplemented with data from healthcare records.149

COVID-19

The coronavirus pandemic had broad ranging consequences for staff and resident health and wellbeing, as well as the organisation, delivery, regulation and scrutiny of care. This is reflected in the analyses of MDS, though the number of studies with a particular focus on COVID-19 was modest.150–156

Hospital admissions

Across the world health systems strive to ensure that admissions to hospital from care homes only occur if appropriate and unavoidable. MDSs have been a common source of information for research on admissions157 158 and readmissions. Individual and institutional factors associated with admissions have been studied, including mental and physical health,159 160functioning,161 race,162 payer status, quality of care in the home,163 and ownership status of the care home.164

Neglected topics

There are a number of topics, such as incontinence, oral health, that are important to residents and staff in care homes, but often neglected by research. We found a small number of studies concerned with the management or sequelae of incontinence,165–183 but few with a specific focus on faecal incontinence.170 174 177 In this review, a majority of the identified papers on dental or oral health were excluded because they focused on validating measures, rather than analysing data collected within an MDS. Those that were included all used the MDS RAI oral/dental items.184 32

Measures and items

Almost all studies in this review utilised MDS 3.0 (or preceding versions) or RAI and its versions. Hence, the majority of measures in this review were drawn from these well-established tools.

Quality of Life

There is widespread acknowledgement of the importance of resident-level quality of life (QoL) in care homes. QoL as it reflects the quality, safety and effectiveness of care from the resident’s perspective (‘care-related quality of life’) is important, but also residents’ health-related and condition-specific QoL. However, the importance of the topic does not appear to be reflected in the breadth of published papers using routinely collected data to investigate QoL. This may be partly due to the availability of QoL data from established MDS. InterRai’s quality of life survey contains 49 items, but they are self-reported, and they may be liable to poor completion. Other domains of QoL that are important to residents and reflect the quality of care, e.g. interpersonal relationships may be difficult to capture.185 Some of the dimensions that have been labelled as QoL could also be appropriately considered to be basic needs – e.g. safety and security, food, comfort, access to services. The lack of clarity over the measurement of QoL is also exemplified in another study, which measured changes in functional status, weight and depressive symptoms, and termed them QoL outcomes.152 Measures of resident-level QoL (e.g. the Minnesota Quality of Life Survey) have been implemented in care homes in some geographical locations, but this has been to supplement collection of information for MDS, and compare to different MDS components.186 187 Such localised data collections have enabled studies that examine the association between individual and institutional factors and QoL over time.188

Discussion

This review has demonstrated the potential of MDSs to contribute to enhancing care and outcomes for care home residents through research. The research application of data from care home MDSs is broad. Key categories studied were description of resident status (e.g. functional assessment), symptoms (e.g. pain), service use (e.g. general and care of specific diagnoses or points in the life course), prescribing and quality of care. A wide range of measures were used, but the majority reflected the content of contemporary, implemented MDS.

The value and application of MDSs is increased by linking to other sources of routine information. In this review, many of the studies analysing MDSs linked to health service datasets. Such enlarged data sources support scrutiny of transitions across settings, evaluation of outcomes of care or generation of an in-depth picture of care delivery. Data linkage may also be helpful to identify care home residents in other routine data sources. This is an ongoing challenge in many countries, that inhibits basic study of care home resident health and social care utilisation and patterns of mortality.189 190

There are notable gaps in the published MDS research on issues that are important to residents and families, such as QoL, incontinence and oral health. There is an emerging focus and consensus on measurement of QoL in this setting, which could inform the future addition of QoL measures, especially for research purposes. Common metrics across datasets and studies would support comparative research and may act as a stimulus for intervention development. Previous studies have taken a broad interpretation of the term ‘QoL’, which may be useful, but often leads to imprecision in what is being measured and a diversity of QoL measures used. Future MDS research ought to carefully consider the construct of interest (e.g. care-related, health-related or condition-specific QoL), as well as the study’s specific aims and objectives and the emerging consensus (add DACHA refs), to guide the selection of QoL measure(s) for their analysis.

Comparison with other work

A previous review of measurement tools designed for the management and care of older people in long term care identified 25 instruments. Similar to our study, a majority were drawn from MDS and RAI-MDS. Depression, cognition and functional capacity were the most commonly assessed domains.191 Our review was broader because it included measures used in published research studies, some of which were developed in different settings. A common finding from both reviews is the clear potential of MDS to make a significant contribution beyond research, to the practical aspects of care home life.192 The role of MDS in quality improvement activities has been well documented. Previous work showed that the Resident Assessment Instrument has been employed most often in the development of process improvement models, and in multi-faceted approaches and educational interventions to improve the quality of care.193 The absence of any measurable impact was attributed to a paucity of staff and time, and turnover of personnel. End of life care is one of the most important aspects of care home work, but one that presents particular challenges to the measurement of quality. Eleven measures used in long term care settings to assess the quality of care when a resident is dying were identified by van Soest-Poortvliet and colleagues.194 Key areas covered by the 11 instruments (340 items) were structure, process and evaluation of care (42%) and the quality of dying (38%). Most measures (7/11) encompassed multiple constructs, but it is noteworthy that the two developed outside of North America placed far less emphasis on measuring processes of care. A recent review of outcome measures from intervention research with care homes found similar gaps in under-studied areas, such as incontinence, but more studies on health-related QoL.195 This latter may be explained by our focus on studies that analysed routinely collected data, rather than those that validated or tested QoL measures.

Our review focused on the content of MDS, and how the data may be applied to resident care and outcomes. Analyses of large datasets may be criticized as insensitive to resident experiences and perceptions. The US MDS 3.0 strives to overcome this by requiring care homes to interview residents with scripted questions to assess pain, mood and cognitive functioning. In practice, although a high proportion of long stay residents do participate, people in smaller homes and those with cognitive impairment or in the last six months of life are less likely to have their voices heard.196

Strengths and limitations

This is a novel review of the content and use of care home MDS data. Mapping of items and measures used in research on different topics can inform the development of future MDS. The review has also generated a resource for researchers, by highlighting the possible uses of MDS data, and areas where research is limited, including due to absence of data collection (e.g. QoL). However, it should be acknowledged that a review of this size is prone to errors and omissions. We excluded studies that used MDS derived items or measures to collect data, or implemented MDS in a research context. This gave prominence to studies from the USA and Canada where MDS are well established. Financial incentives and federally mandated data collection in the USA are a key concern. In other countries, statutes and regulations have a role in implementing standardised assessments,197 and it is important to consider the local context when drawing conclusions from cross national studies. A number of European studies have made a major contribution to our understanding of the feasibility and potential of MDS. Notably, the Services and Health for Elderly in Long TERm care study (SHELTER) assessed the validity of InterRAI in seven European Union countries and Israel.198 This research generated findings across a range of topic areas including prescribing, sensory impairment, prognostication and sleep. 100 198–216 205 217 218 In Italy the ULISSE study involved 31 nursing homes in a study of the quality of care delivered to older people, using InterRAI based assessments. 219–222 Whilst excluding these and other research initiatives from our review may limit the generalisability of our findings, it allows us to answer questions about what can be achieved with MDS data collected in a real-world context, without research staff input.

Implications and conclusions

MDS are an invaluable source of longitudinal data on care home residents, generating unique insights into health, wellbeing and functional status. For researchers there are two scenarios where MDS are particularly useful. First, when linked to other datasets, MDSs provide a powerful resource for investigation of factors that may be associated with positive and adverse outcomes, including transfer to hospital and mortality. The range of factors that can be investigated is vast, ranging from funding models to institutional and individual characteristics. However, availability of such rich data within the MDS makes it critically important that researchers ensure that they have a robust hypothesis or rationale for their analyses. Second, MDSs can contribute to empirical studies involving primary data collection. Generating baseline data from an MDS, or providing a comparison group for an intervention study helps to keep research costs down by reducing the work of data collection. Modern analytical techniques combined with MDSs offer exciting possibilities to

There are some important gaps in the body of MDS research that should be addressed. QoL has often been conceptualised in terms of health and functioning, rather than potentially more holistic, social care related outcomes. In addition, where MDS use is established, there may be limited ability to modify or influence the data collected. Other apparent gaps – such as decline in functional status, sensory impairment and incontinence – point to a need for MDS based researchers to ensure their questions reflect the priorities of residents and those who care for them. This is important, because when MDS data does reflect the experience of care, data entry is improved, and the information can be used as a basis for care planning and review.223

Data Availability

All data produced are contained in the manuscript. This is an analysis of material already in the public domain.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Gordon AL, Franklin M, Bradshaw L, et al. Health status of UK care home residents: a cohort study. Age and ageing 2014;43(1):97–103. doi: 10.1093/ageing/aft077 [published Online First: 2013/07/19]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    Office for National Statistics. Changes in the Older Resident Care Home Population between 2001 and 2011. London: ONS, 2014.
  3. 3.↵
    Barker RO, Hanratty B, Kingston A, et al. Changes in health and functioning of care home residents over two decades: what can we learn from population-based studies? Age and ageing 2020 doi: 10.1093/ageing/afaa227 [published Online First: 2020/11/18]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    ONS. National Population Projections: 2014-based Statistical Bulletin. London, 2015:1–19.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    Wittenberg R, Comas-Herrera A, Pickard L, et al. Future demand for long-term care in the UK. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2004.
  6. 6.↵
    Martin F, Thorpe T, Heath H, et al. Quest for Quality. London: British Geriatrics Society, 2011.
  7. 7.↵
    Boyd M, Broad JB, Kerse N, et al. Twenty-Year Trends in Dependency in Residential Aged Care in Auckland, New Zealand: A Descriptive Study. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2011;12(7):535–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2011.01.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    The changing role of care homes; 2011.
  9. 9.↵
    Luppa M, Luck T, Weyerer S, et al. Prediction of institutionalization in the elderly. A systematic review. Age and ageing 2010;39(1):31–8. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afp202 [published Online First: 2009/11/26]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    Bowman C, Whistler J, Ellerby M. A national census of care home residents. Age and ageing 2004;33(6):561–6. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afh177 [published Online First: 2004/08/17]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    Martin F, Thorpe T, Heath H, et al. Quest for quality: British Geratrics Society joint working party inquiry into the quality of healthcare support for older people in care homes: A call for leadership, partnership and quality improvement. London: BGS, 2011.
  12. 12.↵
    Wysocki A, Thomas KS, Mor V. Functional Improvement Among Short-Stay Nursing Home Residents in the MDS 3.0. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2015;16:470–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.11.018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Werner RM, Konetzka RT, Kruse GB. Impact of public reporting on unreported quality of care. Health Services Research 2009;44:379–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00915.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    Callahan CM, Arling G, Tu W, et al. Transitions in care for older adults with and without dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2012;60:813–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.03905.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
  16. 16.↵
    Morris JN, Fries BE, Frijters D, et al. interRAI home care quality indicators. BMC Geriatrics 2013;13:127–27. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-13-127
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.
    Halfens RJG, Meesterberends E, van Nie-Visser NC, et al. International prevalence measurement of care problems: results. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2013;69(9):e5–e17. doi: 10.1111/jan.12189
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.
    Implementing the Resident Assessment Instrument: Case Studies of Policymaking for Long-Term Care in Eight Countries. Implementing the Resident Assessment Instrument: Case Studies of Policymaking for Long-Term Care in; 2003.
  19. 19.
    CAPHRI. LPZ Publications 2015 [2016.
  20. 20.↵
    Greenhalgh T, Robert G, McFarlane F, et al. Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations: Systematic Review and Recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly 2004;82 doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    Hoffmann F, Maas F, Rodrigues R, et al. Measuring Progress: Indicators for care homes. Vienna, Austria: European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, 2010.
  22. 22.↵
    Comas-Herrera A MJ, Byrd W, Lorenz-Dant K, Patel D, Pharoah D LTCcovid International living report on COVID-19 and Long-Term Care. London: Care Policy & Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science., 2022.
  23. 23.↵
    NECS NECSU. Capacity Tracker Insight for Care 2020 [Available from: https://www.necsu.nhs.uk/capacity-tracker/.
  24. 24.↵
    Campbell F, Tricco AC, Munn Z, et al. Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different— the “Big Picture” review family.
  25. 25.↵
    Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2005;8(1):19–32.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010;5:69. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 [published Online First: 2010/09/22]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.
    Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67(12):1291–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013 [published Online First: 2014/07/19]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015;13(3):141–6. doi: 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000050 [published Online First: 2015/07/03]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    Kelly S, Cowan A, Akdur G, et al. Outcome measures from international older adult care home intervention research: a scoping review. Age Ageing 2023;52(5) doi: 10.1093/ageing/afad069
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. 30.↵
    Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169(7):467–73. doi: 10.7326/m18-0850 [published Online First: 2018/09/05]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Hirdes JP, Major J, Didic S, et al. A Canadian Cohort Study to Evaluate the Outcomes Associated with a Multicenter Initiative to Reduce Antipsychotic Use in Long-Term Care Homes. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2020;21(6):817–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.04.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Weintraub JA, Zimmerman S, Ward K, et al. Improving Nursing Home Residents’ Oral Hygiene: Results of a Cluster Randomized Intervention Trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2018;19(12):1086–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2018.09.036
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    Gravenstein S, Davidson HE, Han LF, et al. Feasibility of a cluster-randomized influenza vaccination trial in U.S. nursing homes: Lessons learned. Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics 2018;14(3):736–43. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2017.1398872
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    Rahman M, Grabowski DC, Intrator O, et al. Serious mental illness and nursing home quality of care. Health services research 2013;48(4):1279–98. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12023
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. 35.↵
    Siegel MJ, Lucas JA, Akincigil A, et al. Race, education, and the treatment of depression in nursing homes. Journal of aging and health 2012 24(5):752–78. doi: 10.1177/0898264311435548
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Biering P, Hjaltadottir I. [The prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses and psychotropic medication in icelandic nursing homes from 2003 to 2018]. Laeknabladid 2021;107(1):11–16. doi: 10.17992/lbl.2021.01.615
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.↵
    Herzig CTA, Dick AW, Sorbero M, et al. Infection Trends in US Nursing Homes, 2006-2013. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2017;18(7):635.e9–35.e20. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.04.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. 38.↵
    Sloane PD, Zimmerman S, Ward K, et al. The Nursing Home Pneumonia Risk Index: A Simple, Valid MDS-Based Method of Identifying 6-Month Risk for Pneumonia and Mortality. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2017;18(9):810.e11–10.e14. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.06.008 [published Online First: 20170729]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    Gravenstein S, Dahal R, Gozalo PL, et al. A cluster randomized controlled trial comparing relative effectiveness of two licensed influenza vaccines in US nursing homes: Design and rationale. Clinical trials (London, England) 2016;13(3):264–74. doi: 10.1177/1740774515625976
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Black CL, Williams WW, Arbeloa I, et al. Trends in Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccination Among US Nursing Home Residents, 2006-2014. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2017;18(8):735.e1–35.e14. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.05.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    Joyce NR, Mylonakis E, Mor V. Effect of Clostridium difficile Prevalence in Hospitals and Nursing Homes on Risk of Infection. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2017;65(7):1527–34. doi: 10.1111/jgs.14838
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    Trivedi TK, DeSalvo T, Lee L, et al. Hospitalizations and mortality associated with norovirus outbreaks in nursing homes, 2009-2010. JAMA 2012;308(16):1668–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    McDanel JS, Murphy CR, Diekema DJ, et al. Chlorhexidine and mupirocin susceptibilities of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus from colonized nursing home residents. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy 2013;57(1):552–8. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01623-12
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    Niznik JD, Zhao X, He M, et al. Impact of deprescribing AChEIs on aggressive behaviors and antipsychotic prescribing. Alzheimer’s & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer’s Association 2020;16(4):630–40. doi: 10.1002/alz.12054
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.
    Niznik JD, Zhao X, He M, et al. Risk for Health Events After Deprescribing Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors in Nursing Home Residents With Severe Dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2020;68(4):699–707. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16241
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.
    Niznik JD, Hunnicutt JN, Zhao X, et al. Deintensification of Diabetes Medications among Veterans at the End of Life in VA Nursing Homes. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2020;68(4):736–45. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16360
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. 47.↵
    Song W, Intrator O, Lee S, et al. Antihypertensive Drug Deintensification and Recurrent Falls in Long-Term Care. Health services research 2018;53(6):4066–86. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13074
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.
    Tamura BK, Bell CL, Lubimir K, et al. Physician intervention for medication reduction in a nursing home: the polypharmacy outcomes project. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2011;12(5):326–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2010.08.013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    Mack DS, Baek J, Tjia J, et al. Statin Discontinuation and Life-Limiting Illness in Non-Skilled Stay Nursing Homes at Admission. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2020;68(12):2787–96. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16777
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. 50.
    Tjia J, Cutrona SL, Peterson D, et al. Statin discontinuation in nursing home residents with advanced dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc 2014;62(11):2095–101. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13105 [published Online First: 20141104]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    Thorpe CT, Sileanu FE, Mor MK, et al. Discontinuation of Statins in Veterans Admitted to Nursing Homes near the End of Life. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2020;68(11):2609–19. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16727
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.
    Maclagan LC, Bronskill SE, Guan J, et al. Predictors of Cholinesterase Discontinuation during the First Year after Nursing Home Admission. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2018;19(11):959–66.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2018.07.020 [published Online First: 20180924]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. 53.↵
    Linsky A, Hermos JA, Lawler EV, et al. Proton pump inhibitor discontinuation in long-term care. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2011;59(9):1658–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03545.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    Chatterjee S, Bali V, Carnahan RM, et al. Anticholinergic burden and risk of cognitive impairment in elderly nursing home residents with depression. Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP 2020 16(3):329–35. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.05.020
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. 55.
    Wouters H, Hilmer SN, Twisk J, et al. Drug Burden Index and Cognitive and Physical Function in Aged Care Residents: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2020;21(8):1086–92.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.05.037
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.
    Malagaris I, Mehta HB, Li S, et al. Decrease of Anticholinergic Drug Use in Nursing Home Residents in the United States, 2009 to 2017. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2020;68(12):2797–804. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16776
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    Chatterjee S, Bali V, Carnahan RM, et al. Risk of Mortality Associated with Anticholinergic Use in Elderly Nursing Home Residents with Depression. Drugs & aging 2017 34(9):691–700. doi: 10.1007/s40266-017-0475-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. 58.
    Niznik J, Zhao X, Jiang T, et al. Anticholinergic Prescribing in Medicare Part D Beneficiaries Residing in Nursing Homes: Results from a Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analysis of Medicare Data. Drugs & aging 2017;34(12):925–39. doi: 10.1007/s40266-017-0502-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.
    Chatterjee S, Bali V, Carnahan RM, et al. Anticholinergic Medication Use and Risk of Fracture in Elderly Adults with Depression. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2016 64(7):1492–7. doi: 10.1111/jgs.14182
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. 60.
    Vetrano DL, La Carpia D, Grande G, et al. Anticholinergic Medication Burden and 5-Year Risk of Hospitalization and Death in Nursing Home Elderly Residents With Coronary Artery Disease. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2016;17(11):1056–59. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2016.07.012
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. 61.↵
    Landi F, Dell’Aquila G, Collamati A, et al. Anticholinergic drug use and negative outcomes among the frail elderly population living in a nursing home. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2014;15(11):825–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.08.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    Zhang N, Patel J, Chen Z, et al. Geriatric Conditions Are Associated With Decreased Anticoagulation Use in Long-Term Care Residents With Atrial Fibrillation. J Am Heart Assoc 2021;10(16):e021293. doi: 10.1161/jaha.121.021293 [published Online First: 20210813]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. 63.
    Chen Q, Lapane K, Nunes AP, et al. Prevalence and the factors associated with oral anticoagulant use among nursing home residents. J Clin Pharm Ther 2021;46(6):1714–28. doi: 10.1111/jcpt.13508 [published Online First: 20210831]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. 64.
    Alcusky M, Baek J, Tjia J, et al. Geographic Variation in Anticoagulant Use and Resident, Nursing Home, and County Characteristics Associated With Treatment Among US Nursing Home Residents. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2021;22(1):164–72.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.10.001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. 65.
    Kapoor A, Foley G, Zhang N, et al. Geriatric Conditions Predict Discontinuation of Anticoagulation in Long-Term Care Residents With Atrial Fibrillation. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2020;68(4):717–24. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16335
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. 66.
    Alcusky M, McManus DD, Hume AL, et al. Changes in Anticoagulant Utilization Among United States Nursing Home Residents With Atrial Fibrillation From 2011 to 2016. Journal of the American Heart Association 2019;8(9):e012023. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.012023
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.
    Reardon G, Pandya N, Nutescu EA, et al. Use of warfarin therapy among residents who developed venous thromboembolism in the nursing home. The American journal of geriatric pharmacotherapy 2012;10(6):361–72. doi: 10.1016/j.amjopharm.2012.11.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. 68.↵
    Meyers JL, Davis KL, Yu YF. Stroke and transient ischemic attack in the long-term care setting: patient characteristics, medication treatment, and length of stay. The Consultant pharmacist : the journal of the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists 2011;26(3):170–81. doi: 10.4140/TCP.n.2011.170
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. 69.↵
    Bali V, Chatterjee S, Johnson ML, et al. Risk of Mortality in Elderly Nursing Home Patients with Depression Using Paroxetine. Pharmacotherapy 2017 37(3):287–96. doi: 10.1002/phar.1898
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. 70.↵
    Wei YJ, Simoni-Wastila L, Lucas JA, et al. Fall and Fracture Risk in Nursing Home Residents With Moderate-to-Severe Behavioral Symptoms of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias Initiating Antidepressants or Antipsychotics. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2017;72(5):695–702. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glw095
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. 71.
    Bali V, Johnson ML, Chen H, et al. Comparative Cognitive Profile of Second-Generation Antidepressants in Elderly Nursing Home Residents With Depression. The Annals of pharmacotherapy 2016 50(2):96–105. doi: 10.1177/1060028015618978
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.
    Bali V, Holmes HM, Johnson ML, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Second-Generation Antidepressants in Reducing the Risk of Dementia in Elderly Nursing Home Residents with Depression. Pharmacotherapy 2016 36(1):38–48. doi: 10.1002/phar.1680
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  73. 73.↵
    Bali V, Chatterjee S, Johnson ML, et al. Comparative risk of hip fractures in elderly nursing home patients with depression using paroxetine and other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Journal of comparative effectiveness research 2016 5(5):461–73. doi: 10.2217/cer-2016-0009
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. 74.
    Bali V, Chatterjee S, Johnson ML, et al. Risk of Cognitive Decline Associated With Paroxetine Use in Elderly Nursing Home Patients With Depression. American journal of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias 2016 31(8):678–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.
    Luo H, Tang JY, Wong GH, et al. The Effect of Depressive Symptoms and Antidepressant Use on Subsequent Physical Decline and Number of Hospitalizations in Nursing Home Residents: A 9-Year Longitudinal Study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2015;16(12):1048–54. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.06.016 [published Online First: 20150731]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  76. 76.
    Bali V, Chatterjee S, Carnahan RM, et al. Risk of Dementia Among Elderly Nursing Home Patients Using Paroxetine and Other Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors. Psychiatric services (Washington, DC) 2015;66(12):1333–40. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201500011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    Wei YJ, Simoni-Wastila L, Zuckerman IH, et al. Quality of psychopharmacological medication prescribing and mortality in Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes. J Am Geriatr Soc 2014;62(8):1490–504. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12939 [published Online First: 20140715]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    Stevenson DG, O’Malley AJ, Dusetzina SB, et al. Effect of Part D coverage restrictions for antidepressants, antipsychotics, and cholinesterase inhibitors on related nursing home resident outcomes. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2014;62(9):1666–74. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12988
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.
    Shah S, Schoenbachler B, Streim J, et al. Antidepressant prescribing patterns in the nursing home: second-generation issues revisited. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2012;13(4):406.e13–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2011.09.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.↵
    Gaboda D, Lucas J, Siegel M, et al. No longer undertreated? Depression diagnosis and antidepressant therapy in elderly long-stay nursing home residents, 1999 to 2007. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2011 59(4):673–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03322.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    Chekani F, Holmes HM, Johnson ML, et al. Use of Atypical Antipsychotics in Long-Term Care Residents with Parkinson’s Disease and Comorbid Depression. Drug, healthcare and patient safety 2020 12:23–30. doi: 10.2147/DHPS.S226486
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  82. 82.
    Walker K, Shearkhani S, Bai YQ, et al. The Impact of the Long-term Care Homes Act and Public Reporting on Physical Restraint and Potentially Inappropriate Antipsychotic Use in Ontario’s Long-term Care Homes. The journals of gerontology Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 2020;75(4):813–19. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glz143
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. 83.
    Roberts AR, Smith AC, Bowblis JR. Nursing Home Social Services and Post-Acute Care: Does More Qualified Staff Improve Behavioral Symptoms and Reduce Antipsychotic Drug Use? Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2020;21(3):388–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2019.07.024
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  84. 84.↵
    Maclagan LC, Maxwell CJ, Harris DA, et al. Sex Differences in Antipsychotic and Benzodiazepine Prescribing Patterns: A Cohort Study of Newly Admitted Nursing Home Residents with Dementia in Ontario, Canada. Drugs Aging 2020;37(11):817–27. doi: 10.1007/s40266-020-00799-2 [published Online First: 20200926]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  85. 85.
    Briesacher BA, Mui B, Devlin JW, et al. Nursing homes underreport antipsychotic prescribing. Aging & mental health 2020;24(4):668–72. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2019.1571015
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  86. 86.
    Zhang Y, Letuchy EM, Carnahan RM. Where Are Antipsychotics Prescribed in Nursing Homes Initiated? Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2018;66(6):1082–88. doi: 10.1111/jgs.15223
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  87. 87.
    Phillips LJ, Birtley NM, Petroski GF, et al. An observational study of antipsychotic medication use among long-stay nursing home residents without qualifying diagnoses. Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing 2018;25(8):463–74. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12488
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  88. 88.
    Jester DJ, Hyer K, Molinari V, et al. Age-dependent determinants of antipsychotic use among newly admitted residents of skilled nursing facilities: A population-based study. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2018;33(10):1370–82. doi: 10.1002/gps.4934
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. 89.
    Carnahan RM, Letuchy EM. Bipolar Disorder in Nursing Homes: Impact on Antipsychotic Use, Diagnosis Patterns, and New Diagnoses in People with Dementia. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry 2018;26(1):2–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2017.09.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  90. 90.↵
    Liperoti R, Sganga F, Landi F, et al. Antipsychotic Drug Interactions and Mortality Among Nursing Home Residents With Cognitive Impairment. J Clin Psychiatry 2017;78(1):e76–e82. doi: 10.4088/JCP.15m10303
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. 91.
    Heckman GA, Crizzle AM, Chen J, et al. Clinical Complexity and Use of Antipsychotics and Restraints in Long-Term Care Residents with Parkinson’s Disease. Journal of Parkinson’s disease 2017;7(1):103–15. doi: 10.3233/JPD-160931
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  92. 92.↵
    Simoni-Wastila L, Wei Y-J, Lucas JA, et al. Mortality Risk of Antipsychotic Dose and Duration in Nursing Home Residents with Chronic or Acute Indications. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2016;64(5):973–80. doi: 10.1111/jgs.14111
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  93. 93.
    Gordon SE, Dufour AB, Monti SM, et al. Impact of a Videoconference Educational Intervention on Physical Restraint and Antipsychotic Use in Nursing Homes: Results From the ECHO-AGE Pilot Study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2016;17(6):553–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2016.03.002 [published Online First: 20160506]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  94. 94.↵
    Park Y, Franklin JM, Schneeweiss S, et al. Antipsychotics and mortality: adjusting for mortality risk scores to address confounding by terminal illness. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2015;63(3):516–23. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13326
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. 95.
    Foebel A, Ballokova A, Wellens NIH, et al. A retrospective, longitudinal study of factors associated with new antipsychotic medication use among recently admitted long-term care residents. BMC geriatrics 2015;15:128. doi: 10.1186/s12877-015-0127-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  96. 96.↵
    Bozat-Emre S, Doupe M, Kozyrskyj AL, et al. Atypical antipsychotic drug use and falls among nursing home residents in Winnipeg, Canada. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2015;30(8):842–50. doi: 10.1002/gps.4223
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  97. 97.
    Tjia J, Field T, Lemay C, et al. Antipsychotic use in nursing homes varies by psychiatric consultant. Med Care 2014;52(3):267–71. doi: 10.1097/mlr.0000000000000076
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. 98.
    Simoni-Wastila L, Wei YJ, Luong M, et al. Quality of psychopharmacological medication use in nursing home residents. Res Social Adm Pharm 2014;10(3):494–507. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2013.10.003 [published Online First: 20131115]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  99. 99.
    Huybrechts KF, Gerhard T, Franklin JM, et al. Instrumental variable applications using nursing home prescribing preferences in comparative effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 2014;23(8):830–8. doi: 10.1002/pds.3611
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  100. 100.↵
    Foebel AD, Liperoti R, Onder G, et al. Use of antipsychotic drugs among residents with dementia in European long-term care facilities: results from the SHELTER study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2014;15(12):911–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.07.012 [published Online First: 20140924]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  101. 101.↵
    Rigler SK, Shireman TI, Cook-Wiens GJ, et al. Fracture risk in nursing home residents initiating antipsychotic medications. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2013;61(5):715–22. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12216
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. 102.
    Huybrechts KF, Schneeweiss S, Gerhard T, et al. Comparative safety of antipsychotic medications in nursing home residents. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2012;60(3):420–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03853.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  103. 103.
    Huybrechts KF, Rothman KJ, Brookhart MA, et al. Variation in antipsychotic treatment choice across US nursing homes. Journal of clinical psychopharmacology 2012;32(1):11–7. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0b013e31823f6f46
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. 104.↵
    Huybrechts KF, Gerhard T, Crystal S, et al. Differential risk of death in older residents in nursing homes prescribed specific antipsychotic drugs: population based cohort study. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2012;344:e977. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e977
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  105. 105.
    Gellad WF, Aspinall SL, Handler SM, et al. Use of antipsychotics among older residents in VA nursing homes. Medical care 2012;50(11):954–60. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31825fb21d
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. 106.
    Lustenberger I, Schüpbach B, von Gunten A, et al. Psychotropic medication use in Swiss nursing homes. Swiss Med Wkly 2011;141:w13254. doi: 10.4414/smw.2011.13254 [published Online First: 20111004]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  107. 107.↵
    Jalbert JJ, Daiello LA, Eaton CB, et al. Antipsychotic use and the risk of diabetes in nursing home residents with dementia. The American journal of geriatric pharmacotherapy 2011;9(3):153–63. doi: 10.1016/j.amjopharm.2011.04.006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  108. 108.↵
    Mack DS, Baek J, Tjia J, et al. Geographic Variation of Statin Use Among US Nursing Home Residents With Life-limiting Illness. Med Care 2021;59(5):425–36. doi: 10.1097/mlr.0000000000001505
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  109. 109.
    Zullo AR, Ofori-Asenso R, Wood M, et al. Effects of Statins for Secondary Prevention on Functioning and Other Outcomes Among Nursing Home Residents. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2020;21(4):500–07.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.01.102
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  110. 110.
    Zullo AR, Mogul A, Corsi K, et al. Association Between Secondary Prevention Medication Use and Outcomes in Frail Older Adults After Acute Myocardial Infarction. Circulation Cardiovascular quality and outcomes 2019;12(4):e004942. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.004942
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  111. 111.
    Zullo AR, Sharmin S, Lee Y, et al. Secondary Prevention Medication Use After Myocardial Infarction in U.S. Nursing Home Residents. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2017;65(11):2397–404. doi: 10.1111/jgs.15144
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  112. 112.↵
    Dybicz SB, Thompson S, Molotsky S, et al. Prevalence of diabetes and the burden of comorbid conditions among elderly nursing home residents. The American journal of geriatric pharmacotherapy 2011;9(4):212–23. doi: 10.1016/j.amjopharm.2011.05.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. 113.↵
    Silva JBB, Riester MR, Zullo AR. Antibiotic Prescribing Patterns for Urinary Tract Infections and Pneumonia by Prescriber Type and Specialty in Nursing Home Care, 2016-2018. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2024;25(5):769–73.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2024.01.019 [published Online First: 20240227]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  114. 114.
    Cohen CC, Dick AW, Agarwal M, et al. Trends in antibiotics use among long-term US nursing-home residents. Infection control and hospital epidemiology 2020:1–7. doi: 10.1017/ice.2020.422
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  115. 115.
    Saxena FE, Bronskill SE, Brown KA, et al. The Association of Resident Communication Abilities and Antibiotic Use in Long-Term Care. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2019;67(6):1164–73.
    OpenUrl
  116. 116.↵
    Rummukainen M-L, Makela M, Noro A, et al. Assessing prevalence of antimicrobial use and infections using the minimal data set in Finnish long-term care facilities. American journal of infection control 2013;41(4):e35–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2012.09.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  117. 117.↵
    Malagaris I, Mehta HB, Goodwin JS. Trends and variation in benzodiazepine use in nursing homes in the USA. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2022;78(3):489–96. doi: 10.1007/s00228-021-03244-4 [published Online First: 20211102]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  118. 118.↵
    Boyce RD, Kravchenko OV, Perera S, et al. Falls prediction using the nursing home minimum dataset. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2022;29(9):1497–507. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocac111
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  119. 119.↵
    Zullo AR, Sorial MN, Lee Y, et al. Predictors of Hip Fracture Despite Treatment with Bisphosphonates among Frail Older Adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2020;68(2):256–60. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16176
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  120. 120.
    Zullo AR, Zhang T, Lee Y, et al. Effect of Bisphosphonates on Fracture Outcomes Among Frail Older Adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2019;67(4):768–76. doi: 10.1111/jgs.15725
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  121. 121.↵
    Dore DD, Zullo AR, Mor V, et al. Age, Sex, and Dose Effects of Nonbenzodiazepine Hypnotics on Hip Fracture in Nursing Home Residents. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2018;19(4):328–32.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.09.015
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  122. 122.↵
    Yuan Y, Lapane KL, Tjia J, et al. Physical Frailty and Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults in United States Nursing Homes. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2021;50(1):60–67. doi: 10.1159/000515140 [published Online First: 20210422]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  123. 123.↵
    Steinman MA, Zullo AR, Lee Y, et al. Association of β-Blockers With Functional Outcomes, Death, and Rehospitalization in Older Nursing Home Residents After Acute Myocardial Infarction. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177(2):254–62. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.7701
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  124. 124.↵
    Morrison RA, Jesdale BM, Dube CE, et al. Differences in Staff-Assessed Pain Behaviors among Newly Admitted Nursing Home Residents by Level of Cognitive Impairment. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders 2020;49(3):243–51. doi: 10.1159/000508096
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  125. 125.↵
    Morrison R, Jesdale B, Dube C, et al. Racial/Ethnic Differences in Staff-Assessed Pain Behaviors Among Newly Admitted Nursing Home Residents. Journal of pain and symptom management 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.08.034
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  126. 126.↵
    Wergeland Sorbye L, Steindal SA, Kalfoss MH, et al. Opioids, Pain Management, and Palliative Care in a Norwegian Nursing Home From 2013 to 2018. Health services insights 2019;12:1178632919834318. doi: 10.1177/1178632919834318
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  127. 127.↵
    Hunnicutt JN, Ulbricht CM, Tjia J, et al. Pain and pharmacologic pain management in long-stay nursing home residents. Pain 2017;158(6):1091–99. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000887
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  128. 128.↵
    Cole CS, Blackburn J, Carpenter JS, et al. Pain and Associated Factors in Nursing Home Residents. Pain Manag Nurs 2023;24(4):384–92. doi: 10.1016/j.pmn.2023.03.002 [published Online First: 20230330]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  129. 129.↵
    Brennan PL, SooHoo S. Effects of Mental Health Disorders on Nursing Home Residents’ Nine-Month Pain Trajectories. Pain medicine (Malden, Mass) 2020;21(3):488–500. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnz177
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  130. 130.
    Ahn H, Garvan C, Lyon D. Pain and Aggression in Nursing Home Residents With Dementia: Minimum Data Set 3.0 Analysis. Nursing research 2015;64(4):256–63. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000099
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  131. 131.↵
    Ahn H, Horgas A. Does pain mediate or moderate the effect of cognitive impairment on aggression in nursing home residents with dementia? Asian nursing research 2014;8(2):105–9. doi: 10.1016/j.anr.2014.03.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  132. 132.↵
    Downer B, Pritchard K, Thomas KS, et al. Improvement in Activities of Daily Living during a Nursing Home Stay and One-Year Mortality among Older Adults with Sepsis. J Am Geriatr Soc 2021;69(4):938–45. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16915 [published Online First: 20201105]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  133. 133.
    Gustavson AM, Falvey JR, Forster JE, et al. Predictors of Functional Change in a Skilled Nursing Facility Population. Journal of geriatric physical therapy (2001) 2019;42(3):189-95. doi: 10.1519/JPT.0000000000000137
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  134. 134.
    Levy CR, Zargoush M, Williams AE, et al. Sequence of Functional Loss and Recovery in Nursing Homes. The Gerontologist 2016;56(1):52–61. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnv099
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  135. 135.↵
    Hjaltadóttir I, Hallberg IR, Ekwall AK, et al. Health status and functional profile at admission of nursing home residents in Iceland over 11-year period. Int J Older People Nurs 2012;7(3):177–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-3743.2011.00287.x [published Online First: 20110801]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  136. 136.↵
    Singh S, Molina E, Meyer E, et al. Post-Acute Care Outcomes and Functional Status Changes of Adults with New Cancer Discharged to Skilled Nursing Facilities. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2022;23(11):1854–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2022.02.010 [published Online First: 20220323]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  137. 137.↵
    Shi S, Olivieri-Mui B, Oh G, et al. Analysis of Functional Recovery in Older Adults Discharged to Skilled Nursing Facilities and Then Home. JAMA Netw Open 2022;5(8):e2225452. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.25452 [published Online First: 20220801]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  138. 138.↵
    Madrigal C, Kim J, Jiang L, et al. Delirium and Functional Recovery in Patients Discharged to Skilled Nursing Facilities After Hospitalization for Heart Failure. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4(3):e2037968. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37968 [published Online First: 20210301]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  139. 139.↵
    Kruse RL, Petroski GF, Mehr DR, et al. Activity of daily living trajectories surrounding acute hospitalization of long-stay nursing home residents. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2013;61(11):1909–18. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12511
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  140. 140.↵
    Talley KMC, Wyman JF, Savik K, et al. Restorative Care’s Effect on Activities of Daily Living Dependency in Long-stay Nursing Home Residents. The Gerontologist 2015;55 Suppl 1:S88–98. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnv011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  141. 141.↵
    Quigley PA, Campbell RR, Bulat T, et al. Incidence and cost of serious fall-related injuries in nursing homes. Clinical nursing research 2012;21(1):10–23. doi: 10.1177/1054773811414180
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  142. 142.
    Nazir A, Mueller C, Perkins A, et al. Falls and nursing home residents with cognitive impairment: new insights into quality measures and interventions. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2012;13(9):819.e1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2012.07.018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  143. 143.↵
    Leland NE, Gozalo P, Teno J, et al. Falls in newly admitted nursing home residents: a national study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2012;60(5):939–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.03931.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  144. 144.↵
    Shaw BH, Borrel D, Sabbaghan K, et al. Relationships between orthostatic hypotension, frailty, falling and mortality in elderly care home residents. BMC geriatrics 2019;19(1):80. doi: 10.1186/s12877-019-1082-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  145. 145.↵
    Zhang N, Lu SF, Zhou Y, et al. Body Mass Index, Falls, and Hip Fractures Among Nursing Home Residents. The journals of gerontology Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 2018;73(10):1403–09. doi: 10.1093/gerona/gly039
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  146. 146.↵
    Lapane KL, Jesdale BM, Dube CE, et al. Sulfonylureas and risk of falls and fractures among nursing home residents with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes research and clinical practice 2015;109(2):411–9. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2015.05.009
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  147. 147.↵
    Yang Y, Mackey DC, Liu-Ambrose T, et al. Risk factors for hip impact during real-life falls captured on video in long-term care. Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA 2016;27(2):537–47. doi: 10.1007/s00198-015-3268-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  148. 148.↵
    Teresi JA, Ramirez M, Remler D, et al. Comparative effectiveness of implementing evidence-based education and best practices in nursing homes: effects on falls, quality-of-life and societal costs. International journal of nursing studies 2013;50(4):448–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  149. 149.↵
    Marier A, Olsho LEW, Rhodes W, et al. Improving prediction of fall risk among nursing home residents using electronic medical records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 2016;23(2):276–82. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv061
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  150. 150.↵
    Ritter AZ, Kosar CM, White EM, et al. Incidence and Outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 in Post-Acute Skilled Nursing Facility Care. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2022;23(8):1269–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2022.05.014 [published Online First: 20220523]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  151. 151.
    Hege A, Lane S, Spaulding T, et al. County-Level Social Determinants of Health and COVID-19 in Nursing Homes, United States, June 1, 2020-January 31, 2021. Public Health Rep 2022;137(1):137–48. doi: 10.1177/00333549211053666 [published Online First: 20211117]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  152. 152.↵
    Barnett ML, Waken RJ, Zheng J, et al. Changes in Health and Quality of Life in US Skilled Nursing Facilities by COVID-19 Exposure Status in 2020. Jama 2022;328(10):941–50. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.15071
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  153. 153.
    McArthur C, Saari M, Heckman GA, et al. Evaluating the Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown on Long-Term Care Residents’ Mental Health: A Data-Driven Approach in New Brunswick. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2021;22(1):187–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.10.028
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  154. 154.
    Levere M, Rowan P, Wysocki A. The Adverse Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Nursing Home Resident Well-Being. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2021;22(5):948–54.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2021.03.010 [published Online First: 20210320]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  155. 155.
    Shi SM, Bakaev I, Chen H, et al. Risk Factors, Presentation, and Course of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in a Large, Academic Long-Term Care Facility. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2020;21(10):1378–83.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.08.027
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  156. 156.↵
    Ulyte A, Waken RJ, Epstein AM, et al. Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility Use and Spending Before and After Introduction of the Public Health Emergency Waiver During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Intern Med 2023;183(7):637–45. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.0770
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  157. 157.↵
    Tu W, Li R, Stump TE, et al. Age-specific rates of hospital transfers in long-stay nursing home residents. Age Ageing 2022;51(1) doi: 10.1093/ageing/afab232
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  158. 158.↵
    Aryal K, Mowbray F, Gruneir A, et al. Nursing Home Resident Admission Characteristics and Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Transfers. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2022;23(8):1291–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2021.11.020 [published Online First: 20211215]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  159. 159.↵
    Gracner T, Agarwal M, Murali KP, et al. Association of Infection-Related Hospitalization With Cognitive Impairment Among Nursing Home Residents. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4(4):e217528. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.7528 [published Online First: 20210401]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  160. 160.↵
    McArthur C, Rostami M, Saarela O, et al. Resident-Level Factors Associated with Hospitalization Rates for Newly Admitted Long-Term Care Residents in Canada: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Canadian journal on aging = La revue canadienne du vieillissement 2019;38(4):441–48. doi: 10.1017/S0714980818000715
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  161. 161.↵
    Middleton A, Downer B, Haas A, et al. Functional Status Is Associated With 30-Day Potentially Preventable Readmissions Following Skilled Nursing Facility Discharge Among Medicare Beneficiaries. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2018;19(4):348–54.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.12.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  162. 162.↵
    Rivera-Hernandez M, Rahman M, Mor V, et al. Racial Disparities in Readmission Rates among Patients Discharged to Skilled Nursing Facilities. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2019;67(8):1672–79. doi: 10.1111/jgs.15960
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  163. 163.↵
    Thomas KS, Rahman M, Mor V, et al. Influence of hospital and nursing home quality on hospital readmissions. The American journal of managed care 2014;20(11):e523–31.
    OpenUrl
  164. 164.↵
    Hirth RA, Grabowski DC, Feng Z, et al. Effect of nursing home ownership on hospitalization of long-stay residents: an instrumental variables approach. International journal of health care finance and economics 2014;14(1):1–18.
    OpenUrl
  165. 165.↵
    Zuo SW, Ackenbom MF, Harris J. Racial Differences in Urinary Catheter Use Among Female Nursing Home Residents. Urology 2023;172:105–10. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.11.026 [published Online First: 20221205]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  166. 166.
    Sura S, Shiozawa A, Ng D, et al. Higher Resource Utilization and Costs in Long-Term Nursing Home Residents With Overactive Bladder: A Retrospective Study of Medicare Beneficiaries. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.08.037
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  167. 167.
    Hacker ML, Tomaras MC, Sayce L, et al. Prevalence of Comorbid Spasticity and Urinary Incontinence in Residents of a Long-Term Care Facility. Journal of gerontological nursing 2020;46(10):35–42. doi: 10.3928/00989134-20200820-01
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  168. 168.
    Aparasu RR, Sura S, Earla JR, et al. Antimuscarinic Discontinuation in Patients with Overactive Bladder in Nursing Homes: A Retrospective Study of Medicare Beneficiaries. Advances in therapy 2020;37(8):3584–605. doi: 10.1007/s12325-020-01412-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  169. 169.
    Schumpf LF, Theill N, Scheiner DA, et al. Urinary incontinence and its association with functional physical and cognitive health among female nursing home residents in Switzerland. BMC geriatrics 2017;17(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s12877-017-0414-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  170. 170.↵
    Schluter PJ, Ward C, Arnold EP, et al. Urinary incontinence, but not fecal incontinence, is a risk factor for admission to aged residential care of older persons in New Zealand. Neurourol Urodyn 2017;36(6):1588–95. doi: 10.1002/nau.23160 [published Online First: 20161024]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  171. 171.
    Moga DC, Wu Q, Doshi P, et al. An investigation of factors predicting the type of bladder antimuscarinics initiated in Medicare nursing homes residents. BMC geriatrics 2017;17(1):295. doi: 10.1186/s12877-017-0690-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  172. 172.
    Bliss DZ, Gurvich OV, Eberly LE, et al. Racial disparities in primary prevention of incontinence among older adults at nursing home admission. Neurourology and urodynamics 2017;36(4):1124–30. doi: 10.1002/nau.23065
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  173. 173.
    Jerez-Roig J, Santos MM, Souza DLB, et al. Prevalence of urinary incontinence and associated factors in nursing home residents. Neurourology and urodynamics 2016;35(1):102–7. doi: 10.1002/nau.22675
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  174. 174.↵
    Blekken LE, Vinsnes AG, Gjeilo KH, et al. Exploring faecal incontinence in nursing home patients: a cross-sectional study of prevalence and associations derived from the Residents Assessment Instrument for Long-Term Care Facilities. Journal of advanced nursing 2016;72(7):1579–91. doi: 10.1111/jan.12932
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  175. 175.
    Zarowitz BJ, Allen C, O’Shea T, et al. Challenges in the Pharmacological Management of Nursing Home Residents with Overactive Bladder or Urinary Incontinence. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2015;63(11):2298–307. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13713
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  176. 176.
    Zarowitz BJ, Allen C, O’Shea T, et al. Clinical Burden and Nonpharmacologic Management of Nursing Facility Residents with Overactive Bladder and/or Urinary Incontinence. The Consultant pharmacist : the journal of the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists 2015;30(9):533–42. doi: 10.4140/TCP.n.2015.533
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  177. 177.↵
    Jerez-Roig J, Souza DL, Amaral FL, et al. Prevalence of fecal incontinence (FI) and associated factors in institutionalized older adults. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2015;60(3):425–30. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2015.02.003 [published Online First: 20150216]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  178. 178.
    Wu N, Marshall TS, Boulanger L, et al. Antimuscarinic use among individuals with urinary incontinence who reside in long-term care facilities. International urology and nephrology 2014;46(1):285–96. doi: 10.1007/s11255-013-0507-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  179. 179.
    Gorina Y, Schappert S, Bercovitz A, et al. Prevalence of incontinence among older americans. Vital & health statistics Series 3, Analytical and epidemiological studies 2014(36):1–33.
  180. 180.
    Xu D, Kane RL. Effect of urinary incontinence on older nursing home residents’ self-reported quality of life. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2013;61(9):1473–81. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12408
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  181. 181.
    Moga DC, Carnahan RM, Lund BC, et al. Risks and benefits of bladder antimuscarinics among elderly residents of Veterans Affairs Community Living Centers. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2013;14(10):749–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.03.008
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  182. 182.
    Bliss DZ, Harms S, Garrard JM, et al. Prevalence of incontinence by race and ethnicity of older people admitted to nursing homes. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013;14(6):451.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.03.007 [published Online First: 20130424]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  183. 183.↵
    Temkin-Greener H, Cai S, Zheng NT, et al. Nursing home work environment and the risk of pressure ulcers and incontinence. Health Serv Res 2012;47(3 Pt 1):1179–200. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01353.x [published Online First: 20111118]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  184. 184.↵
    Jockusch J, Riese F, Theill N, et al. Aspects of oral health and dementia among Swiss nursing home residents. Aspekte der Mundgesundheit und Demenz bei Schweizer Pflegeheimbewohnern 2020 doi: 10.1007/s00391-020-01739-w
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  185. 185.↵
    Raes S, Vandepitte S, De Smedt D, et al. The relationship of nursing home price and quality of life. BMC health services research 2020;20(1):987. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05833-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  186. 186.↵
    Pylypiv Shippee T, Parikh RR, Duan Y, et al. Measuring Nursing Home Quality of Life: Validated Measures Are Poorly Correlated With Proxies From MDS and Quality of Life Deficiency Citationsl. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2023;24(5):718–22.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2023.03.014 [published Online First: 20230405]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  187. 187.↵
    Shippee TP, Henning-Smith C, Kane RL, et al. Resident- and Facility-Level Predictors of Quality of Life in Long-Term Care. The Gerontologist 2015;55(4):643–55. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnt148
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  188. 188.↵
    Kehyayan V, Hirdes JP, Tyas SL, et al. Predictors of Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Self-Reported Quality of Life With Individual and Facility Characteristics in Canada. Journal of aging and health 2016;28(3):503–29. doi: 10.1177/0898264315594138
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  189. 189.↵
    Goodwin JS, Li S, Zhou J, et al. Comparison of methods to identify long term care nursing home residence with administrative data. BMC health services research 2017;17(1):376. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2318-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  190. 190.↵
    Burton JK, Marwick CA, Galloway J, et al. Identifying care-home residents in routine healthcare datasets: a diagnostic test accuracy study of five methods. Age and ageing 2019;48(1):114–21. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afy137 [published Online First: 2018/08/21]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  191. 191.↵
    Medeiros PAd, Fortunato AR, Viscardi AAdF, et al. [Instruments developed for the management and care of the elderly in long-stay care institutions: a systematic review]. Instrumentos desenvolvidos para o gerenciamento e cuidado de idosos em instituicoes de longa permanencia: uma revisao sistematica 2016;21(11):3597–610. doi: 10.1590/1413-812320152111.09912015
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  192. 192.↵
    Grebe C, Brandenburg H. [Resident assessment instrument. Application options and relevance for Germany]. Resident Assessment Instrument Anwendungsoptionen und Relevanz fur Deutschland 2015;48(2):105–13. doi: 10.1007/s00391-015-0855-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  193. 193.↵
    Sales AE, Bostrom A-M, Bucknall T, et al. The use of data for process and quality improvement in long term care and home care: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2012;13(2):103–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2011.01.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  194. 194.↵
    van Soest-Poortvliet MC, van der Steen JT, Zimmerman S, et al. Measuring the quality of dying and quality of care when dying in long-term care settings: a qualitative content analysis of available instruments. Journal of pain and symptom management 2011;42(6):852–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.02.018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  195. 195.↵
    Kelly S, Cowan A, Akdur G, et al. Outcome measures from international older adult care home intervention research: a scoping review. Age and Ageing 2023;52(5) doi: 10.1093/ageing/afad069
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  196. 196.↵
    Thomas KS, Wysocki A, Intrator O, et al. Finding Gertrude: The resident’s voice in Minimum Data Set 3.0. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2014;15(11):802–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.01.012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  197. 197.↵
    Gallant NL, Peckham A, Marchildon G, et al. Provincial legislative and regulatory standards for pain assessment and management in long-term care homes: a scoping review and in-depth case analysis. BMC geriatrics 2020;20(1):458. doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01758-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  198. 198.↵
    Onder G, Carpenter I, Finne-Soveri H, et al. Assessment of nursing home residents in Europe: the Services and Health for Elderly in Long TERm care (SHELTER) study. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:5. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-5 [published Online First: 20120109]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  199. 199.
    Foebel AD, Liperoti R, Gambassi G, et al. Prevalence and correlates of cardiovascular medication use among nursing home residents with ischemic heart disease: results from the SHELTER study. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2014;15(6):410–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.12.085
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  200. 200.
    Foebel AD, Liperoti R, Onder G, et al. Use of antipsychotic drugs among residents with dementia in European long-term care facilities: results from the SHELTER study. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2014;15(12):911–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.07.012
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  201. 201.
    Vetrano DL, Villani ER, Grande G, et al. Association of Polypharmacy With 1-Year Trajectories of Cognitive and Physical Function in Nursing Home Residents: Results From a Multicenter European Study. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2018;19(8):710–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2018.04.008
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  202. 202.
    Yamada Y, Denkinger MD, Onder G, et al. Dual Sensory Impairment and Cognitive Decline: The Results From the Shelter Study. The journals of gerontology Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 2016;71(1):117–23. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glv036
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  203. 203.
    Yamada Y, Denkinger MD, Onder G, et al. Joint Associations of Dual Sensory Impairment and No-Activity Involvement With 1-Year Mortality in Nursing Homes: Results From the SHELTER Study. The journals of gerontology Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 2016;71(5):643–8. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glv191
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  204. 204.
    Huang Y, Carpenter I. Identifying elderly depression using the Depression Rating Scale as part of comprehensive standardised care assessment in nursing homes. Aging Ment Health 2011;15(8):1045–51. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2011.583626 [published Online First:20110815]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  205. 205.↵
    Onder G, Liperoti R, Fialova D, et al. Polypharmacy in nursing home in Europe: results from the SHELTER study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2012;67(6):698–704. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glr233 [published Online First: 20120104]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  206. 206.
    Frijters DH, van der Roest HG, Carpenter IG, et al. The calculation of quality indicators for long term care facilities in 8 countries (SHELTER project). BMC Health Serv Res 2013;13:138. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-138 [published Online First: 20130415]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  207. 207.
    Frijters DHM, van der Roest HG, Carpenter IGI, et al. The calculation of quality indicators for long term care facilities in 8 countries (SHELTER project). BMC health services research 2013;13:138. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-138
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  208. 208.
    Lukas A, Mayer B, Fialová D, et al. Treatment of pain in European nursing homes: results from the Services and Health for Elderly in Long TERm Care (SHELTER) study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013;14(11):821–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.04.009 [published Online First: 20130606]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  209. 209.
    Lukas A, Mayer B, Fialová D, et al. Pain characteristics and pain control in European nursing homes: cross-sectional and longitudinal results from the Services and Health for Elderly in Long TERm care (SHELTER) study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013;14(6):421–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2012.12.010 [published Online First: 20130201]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  210. 210.
    Vetrano DL, Tosato M, Colloca G, et al. Polypharmacy in nursing home residents with severe cognitive impairment: results from the SHELTER Study. Alzheimers Dement 2013;9(5):587–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2012.09.009 [published Online First: 20121208]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  211. 211.
    Foebel AD, Liperoti R, Gambassi G, et al. Prevalence and correlates of cardiovascular medication use among nursing home residents with ischemic heart disease: results from the SHELTER study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2014;15(6):410–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.12.085 [published Online First: 20140220]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  212. 212.
    Gindin J, Shochat T, Chetrit A, et al. Insomnia in long-term care facilities: a comparison of seven European countries and Israel: the Services and Health for Elderly in Long TERm care study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2014;62(11):2033–9. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13099 [published Online First: 20141030]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  213. 213.
    Yamada Y, Vlachova M, Richter T, et al. Prevalence and correlates of hearing and visual impairments in European nursing homes: results from the SHELTER study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2014;15(10):738–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.05.012 [published Online First: 20140628]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  214. 214.
    Szczerbińska K, Topinková E, Brzyski P, et al. The characteristics of diabetic residents in European nursing homes: results from the SHELTER study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2015;16(4):334–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.11.009 [published Online First: 20141219]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  215. 215.
    Yamada Y, Denkinger MD, Onder G, et al. Joint Associations of Dual Sensory Impairment and No-Activity Involvement With 1-Year Mortality in Nursing Homes: Results From the SHELTER Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2016;71(5):643–8. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glv191 [published Online First: 20151118]
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  216. 216.↵
    Vetrano DL, Villani ER, Grande G, et al. Association of Polypharmacy With 1-Year Trajectories of Cognitive and Physical Function in Nursing Home Residents: Results From a Multicenter European Study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2018;19(8):710–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2018.04.008 [published Online First: 20180531]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  217. 217.↵
    Ten Koppel M, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Pasman HR, et al. Are older long term care residents accurately prognosticated and consequently informed about their prognosis? Results from SHELTER study data in 5 European countries. PLoS One 2018;13(7):e0200590. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200590 [published Online First: 2018/07/19]
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  218. 218.↵
    Gindin J, Shochat T, Chetrit A, et al. Insomnia in long-term care facilities: a comparison of seven European countries and Israel: the Services and Health for Elderly in Long TERm care study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2014;62(11):2033–9. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13099
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  219. 219.↵
    Cherubini A, Eusebi P, Dell’Aquila G, et al. Predictors of hospitalization in Italian nursing home residents: the U.L.I.S.S.E. project. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2012;13(1):84.e5-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2011.04.001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  220. 220.
    Cherubini A, Ruggiero C, Dell’Aquila G, et al. Underrecognition and undertreatment of dementia in Italian nursing homes. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2012;13(8):759.e7-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2012.05.015
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  221. 221.
    Fedecostante M, Dell’Aquila G, Eusebi P, et al. Predictors of Functional Changes in Italian Nursing Home Residents: The U.L.I.S.S.E. Study. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2016;17(4):306–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.11.004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  222. 222.↵
    Landi F, Lattanzio F, Dell’Aquila G, et al. Prevalence and potentially reversible factors associated with anorexia among older nursing home residents: results from the ULISSE project. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2013;14(2):119–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2012.10.022
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  223. 223.↵
    Musa MK, Akdur G, Brand S, et al. The uptake and use of a minimum data set (MDS) for older people living and dying in care homes: a realist review. BMC Geriatrics 2022;22(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12877-021-02705-w
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted June 24, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Application and content of minimum data sets for care homes: A mapping review
Barbara Hanratty, Gizdem Akdur, Jennifer Kirsty Burton, Vanessa Davey, Claire Goodman, Adam Lee Gordon, Anne Killett, Jenny Liddle, Stacey Rand, Karen Spilsbury, Ann-Marie Towers
medRxiv 2024.06.24.24309361; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.24.24309361
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area