Theory-driven role model stories improve palliative care knowledge among a diverse older population.

OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of theoretically driven role model video stories in improving knowledge of palliative care among a diverse sample of older adults. METHOD: We developed three 3-4 min long theoretically driven role model video stories. We then recruited cognitively intact, English-speaking adults aged 50 and older from senior centers, assisted living, and other community-based sites in the greater Los Angeles area. Using a pretest-posttest study design, we surveyed participants using the 13-item Palliative Care Knowledge Scale (PaCKS) and also asked participants about their intentions to enroll in palliative care should the need arise. Participants first completed the pretest, viewed the three videos, then completed the posttest comprised of the same set of questions. RESULTS: PaCKS score improved from an average of 4.5 at baseline to 10.0 following video screening (t(126) = 12.0, p < 0.001). Intentions to enroll oneself or a family member in palliative care rose by 103% (χ2 = 7.8, p < 0.01) and 110% (χ2 = 7.5, p < 0.01), respectively. Regression analysis revealed that participants who believed the role models are real people (ß = 2.6, SE = 1.2, p < 0.05) significantly predicted higher change in PaCKS score. Conversely, participants with prior knowledge of, or experience with, palliative care (ß = -5.9, SE = 0.8, p < 0.001), non-whites (ß = -3.6, SE = 0.9, p < 0.001), and widows (ß = -2.9, SE = 1.1, p < 0.01) significantly predicted lower changes in PaCKS score. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This study suggests that theoretically driven role model video stories may be an effective strategy to improve palliative care knowledge. Role model video stories of diverse palliative care patients provide one way to mitigate health literacy barriers to palliative care knowledge.

What Consumers Say About Nursing Homes in Online Reviews.

Background: Although patient-centered care is an expressed value of our healthcare system, no studies have examined what consumers say in online reviews about nursing homes (NHs). Insight into themes addressed in these reviews could inform improvement efforts that promote patient-centered NH care. Research Design and Methods: We analyzed nursing home (NH) Yelp reviews. From a list of all NHs in California, we drew a purposeful sample of 51 NHs, selecting facilities representing a range of geographical areas and occupancy rates. Two research teams analyzed the reviews using grounded theory to identify codes and tracked how frequently each code was mentioned. Results: We evaluated 264 reviews, identifying 24 codes, grouped under five categories: quality of staff care and staffing; physical facility and setting; resident safety and security; clinical care quality; and financial issues. More than half (53.41%) of Yelp reviewers posted comments related to staff attitude and caring and nearly a third (29.2%) posted comments related to staff responsiveness. Yelp reviewers also often posted about NHs' physical environment. Infrequently mentioned were the quality of health care provided and concerns about resident safety and security. Discussion and Implications: Our results are consistent with those from related studies. Yelp reviewers focus on NH aspects that are not evaluated in most other NH rating systems. The federal Nursing Home Compare website, for instance, does not report measures of staff attitudes or the NH's physical setting. Rather, it reports measures of staffing levels and clinical processes and outcomes. We recommend that NH consumers consult both types of rating systems because they provide complementary information.

Ratings game: an analysis of Nursing Home Compare and Yelp ratings.

BACKGROUND: Two strategies for rating the quality of nursing homes (NHs) in the USA are exemplified by the Nursing Home Compare (NHC) website, launched by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 1998, and Yelp.com, an online consumer review site that has grown in popularity since its founding in 2004. Both sites feature a 5-star rating system. While much is known about NHC ratings, little is known about NH Yelp ratings. This study examines Yelp ratings for NHs in California and compares these ratings with NHC ratings. Understanding how these ratings relate can inform efforts to empower consumers and enhance NH decision-making. METHODS: We collected NHC and Yelp ratings for all California NHs between September and November 2016. For each NH with a Yelp review, we recorded the star rating and the total number of reviews. We also recorded the NHC 5-star rating and NHC ratings for inspections, staffing and quality measures (QMs). We conducted descriptive statistics and frequencies for these variables. We conducted correlations and tested means to compare the ratings. RESULTS: A total of 675 NHs (68.1% of the total sample of 991 NHs) had both Yelp ratings and NHC ratings. Correlations between the Yelp and NHC ratings were relatively weak. The Yelp rating was significantly lower than the 5-star NHC rating and the NHC ratings for staffing and QMs. It was significantly higher than the NHC inspection rating. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that when consumers rate NHs on Yelp, their ratings differ considerably from NHC ratings, a finding in keeping with similar studies of NH quality measurement. Further research is needed to analyse the content of Yelp reviews and compare the themes and topics consumers identify with those reported on NHC.