Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26601799›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2016

The Green House Model of Nursing Home Care in Design and Implementation.

Lauren W Cohen, Sheryl Zimmerman, David Reed, Patrick Brown, Barbara J Bowers, Kimberly Nolet, Sandra Hudak, Susan Horn, THRIVE Research Collaborative

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. "Like a Prisoner": Stories From Evergreen Manor.Dementia (London, England) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Lauren W CohenCecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Sheryl ZimmermanCecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
David ReedCecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Patrick BrownISIS/ICOR, Salt Lake City, UT.
Barbara J BowersSchool of Nursing, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Kimberly NoletSchool of Nursing, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Sandra HudakSLH Clinical Consulting, Scottsdale, AZ.
Susan HornDepartment of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT.
THRIVE Research Collaborative

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe the Green House (GH) model of nursing home (NH) care, and examine how GH homes vary from the model, one another, and their founding (or legacy) NH. DATA SOURCES/STUDY

settingData include primary quantitative and qualitative data and secondary quantitative data, derived from 12 GH/legacy NH organizations February 2012-September 2014. STUDY

designThis mixed methods, cross-sectional study used structured interviews to obtain information about presence of, and variation in, GH-relevant structures and processes of care. Qualitative questions explored reasons for variation in model implementation. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION

methodsInterview data were analyzed using related-sample tests, and qualitative data were iteratively analyzed using a directed content approach. PRINCIPAL

findingsGH homes showed substantial variation in practices to support resident choice and decision making; neither GH nor legacy homes provided complete choice, and all GH homes excluded residents from some key decisions. GH homes were most consistent with the model and one another in elements to create a real home, such as private rooms and baths and open kitchens, and in staff-related elements, such as self-managed work teams and consistent, universal workers.

conclusionsAlthough variation in model implementation complicates evaluation, if expansion is to continue, it is essential to examine GH elements and their outcomes.

Indexed as

AgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Plan ImplementationHomes for the AgedHumansMaleNursing HomesOrganizational InnovationPatient-Centered CareCulture changeGreen House nursing homenursing homeperson-centered carestaff empowerment

Identifiers

PMID26601799
PMCPMC5338211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.