Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32407503›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Comparison of Consumer Rankings With Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Five-Star Rankings of Nursing Homes.

Dana B Mukamel, David L Weimer, Yuxi Shi, Heather Ladd, Debra Saliba

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Dana B MukamelDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine.
David L WeimerLaFollette School of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
Yuxi ShiDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine.
Heather LaddDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine.
Debra SalibaThe Anna and Harry Borun Center for Gerontological Research, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.

Funding

Improving quality report cards through inclusion of consumers preferencesR01AG049705 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI MUKAMEL, DANA B · 2016 to 2018
$1.5M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG049705
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Five-Star measure for nursing homes is designed with input from expert panels about the importance of multiple quality indicators. Consumers may assign different values to these indicators, creating different 5-star ratings. Objective: To compare nursing homes' rankings based on the CMS Five-Star measure with rankings based on consumers' judgment about the importance of the same quality indicators. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this quality improvement study, CMS Five-Star data were linked with a measure calculated from CMS quality indicators and consumer values obtained from a national survey. Data covered the last quarter of 2016 and the first three quarters of 2017. The study included 10 676 nursing homes, comprising 69.8% of those with reported Five-Star measures. The national survey included adults, either nursing home residents or their family members who reported being familiar with the quality of care their relative received. Data analysis was performed from January 2019 to February 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The contingent valuation method was administered via the survey to obtain consumers' relative values of the quality indicators, and statistical analyses were used to create the contingent valuation measure. Agreement in nursing home rankings was assessed using the Five-Star measure, which is based on weights developed by expert panels, compared with rankings based on the contingent valuation measure. Results: Among 10 676 study nursing homes with a mean (SD) of 119.4 (59.4) beds, 7845 (73.5%) were for profit, 6424 (61.8%) were part of a chain, and 8009 (75.0%) were urban. The 4310 survey respondents (mean [SD] age, 39.9 [15.6] years; 1143 [26.5%] men; 3448 [80%] white) included mostly family members (3879 participants [90.0%]). The Pearson correlation coefficient (0.65) and weighted κ statistics (0.48) indicated only moderate agreement between ranking of nursing homes' performance by the 2 measures and disagreement on ranking for approximately one-half of the nursing homes. Conclusions and Relevance: Current nursing home report cards might not reflect consumers' values and the relative importance consumers place on each of the quality indicators that compose the overall Five-Star measure. Quality report cards might be more relevant to consumers by augmenting the Five-Star measure with a measure reflecting consumers' preferences. It is unknown whether these conclusions are generalizable to other report cards, such as Hospital and Home Health Compare, without conducting similar studies for these report cards.

Indexed as

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.Consumer BehaviorHumansNursing HomesQuality ImprovementQuality of Health CareUnited States

Identifiers

PMID32407503
PMCPMC7225897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.