ArticleJournal of the American Medical Directors Association2025
Alignment of Minimum Data Set 3.0 Ratings With Staff Care Partner Reports of Symptoms of Distress for Nursing Home Residents.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe Minimum Data Set (MDS 3.0) for nursing home (NH) residents contains data collected at regular intervals that are vital to pragmatic research studies. However, there is evidence of discrepancies between MDS 3.0 data and staff perceptions of mood and behavioral symptoms. We examined the comparative endorsement of ratings of behavioral and emotional distress at one point in time for NH residents by staff care partners and on residents' most recent MDS 3.0.
designResidents living with dementia who were enrolled in a psychosocial intervention program due to expressions of behavioral or emotional distress had distress recorded at baseline in 2 ways: (1) by the staff as a targeted symptom, and (2) extracted from the residents' electronic medical records MDS 3.0 data. SETTING AND
participantsThe sample included 82 residents from 7 NHs owned or managed by a national long-term care provider.
methodsTo compare the endorsement of distress by direct staff care partners with endorsement of distress on the MDS 3.0 at baseline, we tabulated the count of residents who endorsed each symptom on each metric, the percentage of the sample for whom staff care partners endorsed a symptom of distress and this symptom was also endorsed on the MDS 3.0, and Cohen κ rating of agreement.
resultsThe percentage of alignment between direct staff care partner report and MDS 3.0 ranged from 39% to 60%; Cohen κ ranged from 0.07 to 0.37. The lowest alignment was for wandering and the highest was for depressive symptoms. Average level of alignment across symptoms was 50%. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The discrepancy between staff perceptions and MDS data being no better than a coin toss creates major barriers to pragmatic research in NHs. Results are interpreted in terms of implications for designing and implementing pragmatic interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.