scholarly journals Quality of care in for-profit and not-for-profit nursing homes: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 339 (aug04 2) ◽  
pp. b2732-b2732 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. R Comondore ◽  
P J Devereaux ◽  
Q. Zhou ◽  
S. B Stone ◽  
J. W Busse ◽  
...  
2009 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Mark Clarfield ◽  
Gary Ginsberg ◽  
Iris Rasooly ◽  
Sara Levi ◽  
Jacob Gindin ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 002073142098068
Author(s):  
Samuel Dickman ◽  
Reza Mirza ◽  
Maryam Kandi ◽  
Michael A. Incze ◽  
Lorin Dodbiba ◽  
...  

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess differences in risk-adjusted mortality rates between for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) hemodialysis facilities. We searched 10 databases for studies published between January 2001 to December 2019 that compared mortality at private hemodialysis facilities. We included observational studies directly comparing adjusted mortality rates between FP and NFP private hemodialysis providers in any language or country. We excluded evaluations of dialysis facilities that changed their profit status, studies with overlapping data, and studies that failed to adjust for patient age and some measure of clinical severity. Pairs of reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts and the full text of potentially eligible studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias, resolving disagreement by discussion. We included nine observational studies of hemodialysis facilities representing 1,163,144 patient-years. In pooled random-effects meta-analysis, the odds ratio of mortality in FP relative to NFP facilities was 1.07 (95% CI 1.04–1.11). Patients at FP hemodialysis facilities have 7 percent greater odds of death annually than patients with similar risk profiles at NFP facilities. Approximately 3,800 excess deaths might be averted annually if U.S. FP hemodialysis operators matched NFP mortality rates.


2000 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-123
Author(s):  
D Himmelstein ◽  
S Woolbandler ◽  
I Hellander ◽  
S Wolfe

JAMA ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 289 (23) ◽  
pp. 3088-3088 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. S. Lyons

2005 ◽  
Vol 118 (12) ◽  
pp. 1392-1400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric C. Schneider ◽  
Alan M. Zaslavsky ◽  
Arnold M. Epstein

2020 ◽  
pp. 107755872093165
Author(s):  
R. Tamara Konetzka ◽  
Kevin Yan ◽  
Rachel M. Werner

Approximately two decades ago, federally mandated public reporting began for U.S. nursing homes through a system now known as Nursing Home Compare. The goals were to provide information to enable consumers to choose higher quality nursing homes and to incent providers to improve the quality of care delivered. We conduct a systematic review of the literature on responses to Nursing Home Compare and its effectiveness in meeting these goals. We find evidence of modest but meaningful response by both consumers and providers. However, we also find evidence that some improvement in scores does not reflect true quality improvement, that disparities by race and income have increased, that risk-adjustment of the measures is likely inadequate, and that several key domains of quality are not represented. Our results support moderate success of Nursing Home Compare in achieving intended goals but also reveal the need for continued refinement.


2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 383-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramona Backhaus ◽  
Hilde Verbeek ◽  
Erik van Rossum ◽  
Elizabeth Capezuti ◽  
Jan P.H. Hamers

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document