↓ Skip to main content

Improving antipsychotic prescribing practices in nursing facilities: The role of surveyor methods and surveying agencies in upholding the Nursing Home Reform Act

Overview of attention for article published in Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Improving antipsychotic prescribing practices in nursing facilities: The role of surveyor methods and surveying agencies in upholding the Nursing Home Reform Act
Published in
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, April 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.sapharm.2015.04.006
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotics is a longstanding challenge to providing high quality care in nursing facilities. The 1987 Nursing Home Reform Act (NHRA) had an initial impact in reducing inappropriate prescribing, but rates returned to pre-NHRA levels. While the recent Partnership to Improve Dementia Care in Nursing Homes (Partnership) initiative has been successful in reducing the prescribing of antipsychotics in skilled nursing facilities/nursing facilities (NF), it is not known how this guidance initiative impacted prescribing practices and other care processes concerning NF residents with dementia. The objectives of this study were to explore surveyor observations of NF care practices subsequent to participation the Partnership guidance program and to use a social ecological framework to estimate how these observations were influenced by individual, organizational, and contextual factors. A total of 320 NF surveyors responded to a 49-item questionnaire designed in collaboration with CMS officials and state surveying agency personnel, and distributed by state agency directors. Three outcome variables: measuring improvements in clinical care, deficiencies in clinical care, and falsification of records in response to the Partnership initiative, were created from survey responses. A four-level social ecological framework describing the NF surveyor's environment was used to identify potential influences on surveyors' care observations. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between environment and outcome variables. Surveyors observed both improvements in clinical care, including 80.6% reporting nursing facility providers responding to consultant pharmacists' recommendations, and deficits in clinical care in response to the Partnership initiative. Furthermore, 39.7% of surveyors observed a new, but false, diagnosis of psychosis (as defined by the surveyor). Surveyor characteristics and methods and surveying agency and culture were found to substantially impact the success of the Partnership initiative. The most distal level of the framework evaluated in this study, state contextual effects, was found not to impact care observations. There is substantial variation in surveyor observations of changes to clinical care in response to the Partnership guidance initiative. Further investigation is needed into the type and severity of falsification of records observed by nursing facility surveyors. When constructing interventions to care for residents in NFs, policymakers must consider the environment in which surveyors operate.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Librarian 6 7%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 22 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 13%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 27 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2016.
All research outputs
#8,261,140
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy
#852
of 1,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,195
of 279,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy
#6
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,701 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,295 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.