Nursing Home Compare – Opportunity for Web 2.0?
March 17, 2009
The working life of a nursing home administrator can be a tough one. There are innumerable tasks that fill up the days (and nights), and one drawback of the job is that we often suffer under a woefully underdeveloped job description. In an effort to put out today’s fires, we can miss some pretty important pieces of information that come down the pike. For example, I only recently got around to reading the AAHSA (American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging) report that came out this past summer, “Broken Beyond Repair: Recommendations to Reform the Survey and Certification System.”
Life Services Network hosts a permanent link to the full report (here). If you, like me, have been too busy to read it, I recommend giving it a glance as soon as you can. Especially with the regulatory change winds blowing as hard as they have been in recent months, it is important for on-the-ground LNHAs to understand the issues involved so we can support the advocacy and lobby groups when they make their arguments.
At any rate, the report contains a number (31) of specific recommendations for improving the current certification and survey process (as well as its overall conclusion of OBRA ’87 needs to be completely revisited, and the surv/cert process overhauled). One in particular has caught my imagination. It reads as follows:
AAHSA should encourage CMS to revise the Nursing Home Compare Web site so its language is less pejorative and the data it presents is easier to understand and includes a full explanation of survey results. This can be accomplished by giving providers the opportunity to elaborate on the Statement of Deficiencies posted on Nursing Home Compare by adding specific facts related to its cited deficiencies in a standardized format established by CMS.
A major complaint I’ve heard from LNHA colleagues and read in the listserves w/r/t the Five Star Component to Nursing Home Compare is that the website does not offer enough explanation of the results, and that the results do not indicate true quality (i.e. how a resident is actually taken care of – – the compassion factor). The above recommendation could be an excellent step towards meeting this complaint.
Imagine if you were able to address the deficiency as noted now by a number of stars in a graph through a short narrative, properly formatted for consistency and ease of use. I know I would feel better about my facility’s star rating (even though already good) if I could directly address some of the viewer witha paragraph. Further, this sort of collaborative back and forth – – adversarial tension between Surveyor and facility – – could result in a dialogue with residents and their family members regarding the appropriateness of the survey results as reported on CMS Nursing Home Compare. Such a dialogue would help us get to a better regulatory tool (RE: Survey Process), which is the point of OBRA ’87 in the first place.
Indeed, it could go farther than just the facilities having the opportunity to comment on the Survey and Certification results as posted on Nursing Home Compare. Would it not be empowering to residents and their families if the CMS site allowed them to post their own comments for others to see? I think it is an idea worth exploring. If the regulators’ survey results, the facilities’ comments, and the residents and their families’ opinions were collected in the same place, I think the true relative worth and value of a nursing home would out – – rewarding the good and encouraging the bad to improve. What a lofty, but possible goal.