supportive living family experience survey report jan 2015
Post on 17-Jul-2016
9 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Promoting and improving patient safety and health service quality across Alberta.
SUPPORTIVE LIVINGFAMILY EXPERIENCESURVEY REPORT
January 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 1 2.0 REPORT ORGANIZATION ..................................................................................................... 5 3.0 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Continuing care streams ............................................................................................. 6 3.2 Supportive living surveys ............................................................................................ 7
4.0 SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 9 4.1 The survey instrument (Appendix A) ........................................................................... 9 4.2 Survey protocol ........................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Sampling ..................................................................................................................... 9 4.4 Quantitative analytical approach ............................................................................... 10 4.5 Qualitative analytical approach ................................................................................. 14
5.0 USING THE RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 15 6.0 OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................................... 16 7.0 FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE,
AND FOOD RATING SCALE ................................................................................................ 23 7.1 Global Overall Care rating ......................................................................................... 24 7.2 Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment Dimension of Care .......................... 29 7.3 Kindness and Respect Dimension of Care ................................................................ 34 7.4 Food Rating Scale..................................................................................................... 39 7.5 Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement Dimension of Care ...... 44 7.6 Meeting Basic Needs Dimension of Care .................................................................. 49
8.0 ADDITIONAL CARE QUESTIONS ........................................................................................ 54 9.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIMENSIONS OF CARE, FOOD RATING SCALE AND
GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING ..................................................................................... 70 9.1 Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment ........................................................ 70 9.2 Kindness and Respect .............................................................................................. 71 9.3 Food Rating Scale..................................................................................................... 71 9.4 Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement .................................... 72 9.5 Meeting Basic Needs ................................................................................................ 72
10.0 FACILITY-LEVEL EFFECTS: FACILITY SIZE AND OWNERSHIP TYPE ............................ 73 10.1 Facility size ............................................................................................................... 74 10.2 Facility ownership ...................................................................................................... 77
11.0 PROPENSITY TO RECOMMEND FACILITY........................................................................ 81 11.1 Propensity to recommend – provincial and zone results (Q49) ................................. 82 11.2 Propensity to recommend by Global Overall Care rating quartile ............................. 87 11.3 Propensity to recommend by facility size and ownership type .................................. 88
12.0 QUALITATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS .............................................................................. 90 12.1 Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment ........................................................ 92 12.2 Kindness and Respect .............................................................................................. 95 12.3 Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement .................................... 96 12.4 Meeting Basic Needs ................................................................................................ 98 12.5 Safety and Security ................................................................................................. 104 12.6 Other ....................................................................................................................... 106
13.0 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 108 13.1 Limitations of the quantitative analyses ................................................................... 108 13.2 Limitations of the qualitative analyses ..................................................................... 108
14.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION ................................................................ 110 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................. 115 APPENDIX A: Survey documents ....................................................................................... 117 APPENDIX B: Survey process and methodology ................................................................ 125 APPENDIX C: Respondent and resident characteristics ..................................................... 133 APPENDIX D: Criteria for inclusion in facility-level analyses .............................................. 150
APPENDIX E: Provincial and zone-level dimensions of care and food rating scale summary means and propensity to recommend ................................................................................. 155
APPENDIX F: Summary of provincial and zone level responses to individual survey questions ............................................................................................................................. 162
APPENDIX G: Global overall care rating regression models .............................................. 203 APPENDIX H: Qualitative analysis ...................................................................................... 205 APPENDIX I: Dimensions of care by overall care rating quartiles ....................................... 214 APPENDIX J: Facility size relative to global overall care ratings, dimension of care and food
rating scale .......................................................................................................................... 220 APPENDIX K: Question-level results by ownership type .................................................... 227 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................ 231 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... 234
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TheSupportiveLivingFamilyExperienceSurveywasconductedbytheHealthQualityCouncilofAlbertaincollaborationwithAlbertaHealthandAlbertaHealthServices(AHS).Theintentofthesurveyistoestablishabaselinemeasurementforsupportivelivingfamilyexperiences(familymembersofsupportivelivinglevel3and4residents)1thatcanbeusedforbenchmarkingandongoingmonitoringasmeasuredbytheGlobalOverallCarerating,fourDimensionsofCare,andtheFoodRatingScale.Thisreportpresentsanoverviewoffacilityperformanceacrosstheprovincefromthefamilymembers’perspectives.Thisinformationcanbeusedtoassessperformancerelativetopeers,toidentifyopportunitiesforimprovement,andtoidentifyhigherperformingfacilities.
Survey process and methodology
FamilymembersweresurveyedusingtheConsumerAssessmentofHealthcareProvidersandServices(CAHPS®)NursingHomeSurvey:FamilyMemberInstrument.Thisisa64‐questionself‐reportmeasurethatassessesafamilymember’soverallevaluationofthefacility,alongwithfourdimensionsofhealthcareservices:(1)Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment,(2)KindnessandRespect,(3)ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement,and(4)MeetingBasicNeeds.Inaddition,aFoodRatingScalewasincludedinthesurvey.
EligiblerespondentswereidentifiedusinginformationobtainedfromfacilitiesandAHS.Familymembershadtheoptionofeithersendingbackapaperquestionnaireorcompletingthesurveyon‐line.Theresponserateforthesurveywas66.7percent.
Results
Global Overall Care rating
TheGlobalOverallCareratingreflectsfamilymembers’overallevaluationofthesupportivelivingfacility.TheGlobalOverallCareratingfortheprovincewas8.4outof10.Therewasvariationamongthefacilitiesthroughouttheprovincewithindividualfacilityscoresrangingfrom6.5to9.9outof10.
Attheprovinciallevel,thefourDimensionsofCareandtheFoodRatingScalevaryintheirinfluenceonfamilyexperienceandfamily’soverallevaluationofthesupportivelivingfacility.ThegreatestgainsattheprovinciallevelmayberealizedbyfocusingonthestrongestinfluencersofGlobalOverallCare.Thesearelistedinorderofdecreasinginfluenceandinclude:
1. Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment
2. KindnessandRespect
3. Food
4. ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement
5. MeetingBasicNeeds
1Supportivelivinglevel3isforindividualswhosemedicalconditionisstableandappropriatelymanagedwithout24‐houron‐sitenursingstaff,butwhohavelimitedindependence.Supportivelivinglevel4isforindividualswithmorecomplexmedicalconditions.
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Inaddition,eachfacilityhastheirownuniqueareasoffocus,whichmaydifferfromthoseidentifiedfortheprovince.Thesearehighlightedinfacility‐levelreports,whichhavebeenprovidedtoeachfacilitythatparticipatedinthesurvey.
Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment
TheStaffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironmentDimensionofCarehasthestrongestinfluenceontheGlobalOverallCarerating.Thisdimensionreflectsfamilymembers’experienceswiththeavailabilityofstaff,thecleanlinessoftheresident’sroom,andwhethertheresident’sclothesorbelongingswerelost.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas78.3outof100.Therewasvariabilityamongthefacilitiesthroughouttheprovincewithscoresrangingfrom58.1to95.7outof100.TheStaffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironmentDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximately33percentofallfamilymembercomments.Familymembersmostfrequentlyprovidedcommentsrelatedtostaffinglevelsandspecifically,issuesregardinghighstaffturnoverandunderstaffing.
Kindness and Respect
TheKindnessandRespectDimensionofCarehasthesecondmostinfluenceontheGlobalOverallCarerating.Thisdimensionreflectsfamilymembers’experienceswiththecourteousness,kindness,politeness,andappropriatenessofemployeestowardsresidents.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas85.8outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom60.3to100outof100.TheKindnessandRespectDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelyfivepercentofallfamilymembercomments.Familymembersexpressedthattheywereappreciativeoffriendly,kind,andrespectfulstaffwhotookaninterestinresidents.Familymembersalsoexpressedconcernsthatwhenstaffdidnotpossessthesequalities,thisdisruptedtheresidents’abilitytoreceivecare,togettheircomplaintsandconcernsaddressedandtobetreatedfairlyandconsiderately.
Food Rating Scale
TheFoodRatingScalereflectsfamilymembers’opinionsaboutthefoodatthefacility.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisitemwas7.2outof10;facilityscoresrangedfrom5.3to9.7outof10.Withrespecttofoodandfoodrelatedissues,somefamilymemberscomplimentedthequalityofthefoodservedatfacilities.Otherfamilymembersexpressedconcernsaboutgeneralfoodquality:thatthefoodwasnotalwaysnutritiousanddidnotalwaysmeetresident’sdietaryneedsandhealthandwellnessgoals.
Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement
TheProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvementDimensionofCarereflectsfamilymembers’experienceswithbeinginformedaboutthecareandservicesthattheresidentisreceiving,aswellasinformationonpaymentsandexpenses.Inaddition,familymemberswereaskediftheyarecomfortableaskingquestionsandwhethertheyareeverdiscouragedfromaskingquestionsoftheemployeesatthefacility.Thescoreforthisdimensionfortheprovincewas84.6outof100.Thefacilityscoresrangedfrom69.6to98.4outof100.TheProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvementDimensionofCarecomprisedapproximately11percentofallfamilymembercomments.Mostofthecommentsfocusedontheflowofinformationbetweenstaffandfamilymembers,aswellasthedegreetowhichthefacilityincludedandinvolvedfamilymembersinresidentcare.
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Meeting Basic Needs
TheMeetingBasicNeedsDimensionofCarereflectsfamilymembers’experienceswithfacilitystaffhelpingtheresidentwitheating,drinking,ortoileting.Thescoreforthisdimensionfortheprovincewas95.8outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom74.7to100outof100.TheMeetingBasicNeedsDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximately31percentofallfamilymembercomments.Themostfrequentlyprovidedcommentsrelatedtotheavailabilityofcareandservicesinthefacility;however,familiesrecognizedthatthenumberandtypeofcareandservicesprovidedtoresidentswerelimitedbyfacilityresources,staffinglevels,andstaffingrequirements.Overall,familymemberssaidresidentswouldbenefitfromreceivingmoretimelycareandservicesandfromhavingaccesstoin‐househealthcare,hygiene,andgroomingservices.
Quartile analyses
Facilitiesthatwerecategorizedintheupperquartile(i.e.,upper25percentofscores)ontheirGlobalOverallCareratingwerealsoratedmorepositivelyineachofthefourDimensionsofCareandFoodRatingScalerelativetofacilitiesthatwerecategorizedinthelowerquartile(i.e.,lower25percentofscores).Thisanalysiswillassistlowerquartilefacilitiesindeterminingtheimportanceandfocusofqualityimprovementinitiatives.Facilitieswishingtoimprovecanlooktothoseupperquartileperformersforexamplesofhowtoachieveimprovedperformanceinvariousareas.Differencesinmeansbetweentheupperandlowerperformingfacilities,ineachofthefourDimensionsofCareandFoodRatingScaleare:
Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment:17.6outof100
KindnessandRespect:9.9outof100
Food:1.3outof10
ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement:10.4outof100
MeetingBasicNeeds:7.0outof100
Facility size
Overall,resultsshowedthatfacilitysizeisanimportantfactorthatinfluencesallDimensionsofCareandtheGlobalOverallCarerating.Asfacilitysizeincreases(i.e.,numberofbeds),theGlobalOverallCareratingandscoresforDimensionsofCaredecrease.Typically,smallerfacilities(i.e.,fewerbeds)havemorefavorableratingsthanlargerfacilities.ThisissimilartoafindingthatwaspreviouslyreportedbytheHealthQualityCouncilofAlbertaforthelongtermcaresector.2However,itwasnotedthattherewereafewlargefacilitiesthatreceivedrelativelyhighscoresandafewsmallfacilitiesthatreceivedrelativelylowscoresontheGlobalOverallCarerating.
2Forfurtherdetailspleasereferto:http://hqca.ca/surveys/continuing‐care‐experience/
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ownership type
Althoughthereweredifferencesamongownershiptypesforsomeoftheindividualquestionsinthesurvey,noevidencewasfoundtosuggestthattheGlobalOverallCare,DimensionsofCare,andtheFoodRatingScalescoresdifferedbyownershiptype(i.e.,AHS,privatelyowned,orvoluntaryowned).
Propensity to recommend
Provincially,92.0percentofrespondentsstatedthattheywouldrecommendthefacilitytheirfamilymemberlivedintoanotherfamilymemberorfriend.AgreaterpercentageofrespondentsfromfacilitiescategorizedintheupperquartileofGlobalOverallCareratingswouldrecommendtheirfacilityrelativetorespondentsfromlowerquartilefacilities(99.0%versus84.6%).
Conclusion
Resultspresentedinthisreportareintendedtoguidereflectiononperformancebyidentifyingthefactorsthatcontributetotheoverallevaluationofafacilityfromthefamilymembers’perspectives.Goingforward,resultsfromfacility‐levelreports,thisreport,andthe2014SupportiveLivingResidentExperienceSurveyReportprovideabenchmarkbywhichtocomparefuturesurveyresultsandtomeasureimprovementoutcomes.Inaddition,theongoingevaluationofafacilityagainstitself,anditspeers,willprovideopportunitiestoidentifyareasofsuccess,andtodeterminetheimportanceandfocusofqualityimprovementinitiatives.Thiscansupportacultureofcontinualqualityimprovementbasedonfamilyandresidentfeedback.
Ataprovinciallevel,thegreatestgainsmayberealizedbyfocusingonimprovementtothefollowing,inorderofdecreasingpriorityandinfluenceonGlobalOverallCarerating:
1. Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment
2. KindnessandRespect
3. Food
4. ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement
5. MeetingBasicNeeds
Eachindividualfacilityhastheirownuniqueareasforimprovement,whichmaydifferfromthoseidentifiedfortheprovince.Facilitiesshouldrefertotheirfacility‐levelreportstobetterdeterminewheretofocusqualityimprovementeffortstobestmeettheneedsoftheirresidentsandfamilymembers.
Familyexperiencedataaloneshouldnotbeusedtojudgefacilityperformanceintheabsenceofotherinformationsuchaslevel‐of‐needoftheresidentpopulation,servicesprovided,otherqualitymeasuressuchasthosederivedfromtheinterRAITMResidentAssessmentInstrument,complaintsandconcerns,andcompliancewithprovincialcontinuingcarestandards.
4
REPORT ORGANIZATION
2.0 REPORT ORGANIZATION
Theprovincialreportconsistsofthefollowingsections:
1. Executivesummary
2. Reportorganization:descriptionofthesectionsofthereport.
3. Background:descriptionofcontinuingcareinAlbertaandpurposeandobjectivesofthesupportivelivingfamilyexperiencesurvey.
4. Surveyprocessandmethodology:overviewofthesurveytoolsused,recruitmentprotocols,andanalyticalmethods.DetailscanbefoundinAppendixB.
5. Usingtheresults:purposeofthereportandalternativewaysofusingtheresults.
6. Overviewofsurveyresults:overviewoffacility‐levelresults.
7. FacilityresultsbyGlobalOverallCarerating,DimensionsofCare,andFoodRatingScale:detailedresultsoftheGlobalOverallCareratingquestion,thefourDimensionsofCare,andtheFoodRatingScaleareoutlinedinthissectionincludingfacilityresultsbyzoneandquartile(provincial).
8. Additionalcarequestions:descriptionofeightadditionalquestionsthatareindependentfromquestionsrelatedtothefourDimensionsofCare.
9. RelationshipbetweenDimensionsofCareandGlobalOverallCarerating:presentsresultsoflowerandupperquartilefacilitiesontheGlobalOverallCareratingforeachoftheDimensionsofCareandtheindividualcomponents(surveyquestions)thatcompriseeachDimensionofCare.
10. Facility‐leveleffects–Facilitysizeandownershiptype:informationaboutwhetherandhowfacilitycharacteristicssuchassize(i.e.,numberofbeds)andownershiptype(i.e.,private,public,andvoluntary)influenceGlobalOverallCareratingandratingsoftheDimensionsofCare.
11. Propensitytorecommendfacility:summaryresultsofquestion49:Ifsomeoneneededsupportivelivingfacilitycare,wouldyourecommendthissupportivelivingfacilitytothem?YesorNo?Thissectionprovidesfacilityresultswithineachzoneandprovinciallyforthepercentageofresidentswhowouldrecommendthefacility.
12. Qualitativeanalyticalresults:describesqualitativeanalyticalresultsforcommentsprovidedbyfamilies.
13. Limitations:describeslimitationstoconsiderwheninterpretingsurveyresults.
14. Summaryoffindingsandconclusion
5
BACKGROU
3.0 B
3.1 C
Alberta’spersonalcqualityofand/orlimthosestillrecognizinnursingh
Figure 1:
Supportivtooisolatesomeexteassessmeroominppubliclyfuotheroptinursesor
3Continuing4Designatedundercontra
UND
BACKGRO
Continuing
continuingcacare,andaccoflife.Therearmitations:holabletoliveingdifferentdomesetting.
: Streams of
velivingisanedintheirowent,individuantoftheirnepubliclyfundeunded,resideionalservicesregularlysch
CareStandards2AssistedLivingoractwithAHS.Indi
OUND
g care stre
aresystempromodationserethreestreamecare,suppndependentlydegreesofindThefocusoft
continuing c
optionforinwnhome,orhalscanchooseedsbyAlbertedDesignatedentsaregenes.Supportiveheduledvisits
2008:http://wwwrDesignatedSuppividualsareasses
eams
rovidesAlberervicestheynamsofcontinuportivelivingy;supportivedependence;athisreportis
are3
ndividualswhhavemorecoewhichsupptaHealthServdSupportiverallyresponslivingfacilitisbyphysician
w.health.alberta.cportiveLivingrefessedandplacedb
rtansofadvanneedtosuppouingcareinAg,andfacilityelivingisprovandfacilitylivonlevels3a
howantamaimplexneedsortivelivingovices(AHS),iLiving.4Althosibleforpayinesarenotreqns.
ca/documents/CoerstodesignatedbyAHSbasedona
ncedageordorttheirdailyAlbertatailoreliving(Figurvidedinashavingorlongtnd4ofthesu
intenance‐frethanthosepoptionisrighindividualsmoughservicesngfortheirroquiredtopro
ontinuing‐Care‐Sroomsinthesupanindividual’she
isabilitywithyactivities,inedtotheclienre1).Homecaaredaccomodtermcare,ispupportivelivi
eeenvironmerovidedforbhtforthem.Bmaybeeligiblesforassessedoom,meals,hovideonsite2
Standards‐2008.ppportivelivingstrealthcareneeds.
hthehealthcandependence,nts’levelofnareisprovidedationsettingprovidedinaingstream.
ent,feeltheyabyhomecare.asedonaneforaspacedcareneedsahousekeeping24‐hourregist
pdfreamthatareope
are,andneededtoga
areTo
oraaregandtered
erated
6
BACKGROUND
ThefourdefinedlevelsintheSupportiveLivingstream5are:
SupportiveLivingLevel1(SL1):thislevelofcareisalsoreferredtoasResidentialLivingandisdesignedforindividualswhoareindependent,canmanagemostdailytasks,andareresponsibleformakingdecisionsaroundtheirday‐to‐dayactivities.Publicallyfundedhomecaremaybeprovided,butthereisnoonsite24‐hourstaffing.
SupportiveLivingLevel2(SL2):thislevelofcareisalsoreferredtoasLodgeLivingandisdesignedforindividualswhoaregenerallyindependent(e.g.,canmanagesomedailytasks),andcanarrange,manage,and/ordirecttheirowncare.Publicallyfundedhomecaremaybecontinuallyprovided,butthereisnoonsite24‐hourstaffing.
SupportiveLivingLevel3(SL3):thislevelofcareisforindividualswhosemedicalconditionisstableandappropriatelymanagedwithout24‐houron‐sitenursingstaff,butwhohavelimitedindependence.Theseindividualsneedhelpwithmanytasksand/ordecision‐makinginday‐to‐dayactivities.Personalcareatthislevelisgenerallyprovidedwithinasetschedule;however,unscheduledpersonalassistancemayalsobeprovided.Publicallyfundedscheduledhomecareisprovidedandtrainedandcertifiedhealthcareaidestaffison‐siteona24‐hourbasis(registerednurseon‐call).
SupportiveLivingLevel4(SL4):thislevelofcareisalsoreferredtoasEnhancedAssistedLivingandisforindividualswithmorecomplexmedicalconditions.Theseindividualstendtohaveverylimitedindependence,havesignificantlimitations,andneedhelpwithmostoralltasks,aswellasdecisionsaboutday‐to‐dayactivities.Publicallyfundedscheduledhomecaremaybeprovidedandatrainedlicensedpracticalnurseand/orhealthcareaideison‐siteona24‐hourbasis.
SupportiveLivingLevel4Dementia(SL4‐D):thislevelofcareisasubsetofSL4andisdesignedforpersonswhohavesignificantlimitationsduetodementia.
3.2 Supportive living surveys
TheSupportiveLivingFamilyandResidentExperienceSurveyswereconductedbytheHealthQualityCouncilofAlberta(HQCA),incollaborationwithAHSandAlbertaHealth(AH).ThesurveysassistprovidersinmeetingtheContinuingCareHealthServiceStandardsthatrequireproviderstohaveprocessestogatherclientandfamilyexperiencefeedbackregardingthequalityofcareandserviceprovided.
3.2.1 Purpose
Theoverallpurposeofthissurveywastoobtainfeedbackfromfamilymembersofresidents,andlovedone’swholookaftertheresidents,aboutthequalityofcareandservicesreceivedatsupportivelivingfacilitiesacrossAlbertaandtoprovidesupportivelivingfacilitiesandotherstakeholderswithinformationthatcanbeusedforongoingqualitymonitoringandimprovement.Thisreportfocuseson
5Formoreinformation,seehttp://www.albertahealthservices.ca/Seniors/if‐sen‐living‐option‐guidelines.pdf
7
BACKGROUND
responsesfromfamiliesofresidentswhorequiremorethanminimalcareandliveinsupportivelivinglevels3and4.6
3.2.2 Objectives
Theobjectivesofthesurveywereto:
Establishabaselinemeasurementforsupportivelivingfamilymembers’evaluationandexperiencesthatcanbeusedforongoingbenchmarkingandmonitoring.
IdentifyandreportonimprovementopportunitiesandbestpracticesatsupportivelivingfacilitiesacrossAlbertatoinformqualityimprovementeffortsinvarioustopicsincluding:staffingandcareofresidentbelongings;facilityenvironment;employeerelationsandresponsivenesstoresidents;communicationbetweenresidentsandmanagement;mealsanddining;andqualityofcareandservicesingeneral.
6SL1and2residentsareexcludedbecausethosewhorequirepubliclyfundedcareservicesreceivethemfromHomeCare,notSupportiveLiving.
8
SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
4.0 SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 The survey instrument (Appendix A)
FamilymembersofsupportivelivingresidentsweresurveyedusingtheConsumerAssessmentofHealthcareProvidersandServices(CAHPS®)NursingHomeSurvey:FamilyMemberInstrument7(AppendixA).Thisisa64‐questionself‐reportmeasurethatassessesafamilymember’soverallevaluation(i.e.,GlobalOverallCarerating)ofthefacility,alongwithfourdimensionsofhealthcareservices:1)Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment,2)KindnessandRespect,3)ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement,and4)MeetingBasicNeeds.
4.1.1 Additional questions
Inadditiontotheaboveinformation,theCAHPS®NursingHomeSurvey:FamilyMemberInstrumentalsocomprisesquestionsthataddressthefollowingtopics:
Suggestionsonhowcareandservicesprovidedatthesupportivelivingfacilitycouldbeimproved.
Familymemberratingsoffacilityfood.
Willingnesstorecommendthesupportivelivingfacility.
Residentandrespondent(familymember)characteristics(AppendixC).
4.2 Survey protocol
EligiblerespondentswereidentifiedusingacompiledsupportivelivingdatabasethatwasconstructedusingdataobtainedfromfacilitiesandAHS.Eligibilitywasbasedonboththeresidentandfamilymemberinformation.Thefollowingindividualswereexcluded:
Contactsofnewresidents(thosewhohadresidedatthefacilityforaperiodoflessthanonemonth).
Residentswhohadnocontactperson(familymember),orwhosecontactpersonresidedoutsideofCanada.
Contactsofdeceasedresidentsupondatabaseconstruction.
Contactsofresidentswhowerelistedasapublicguardian.
Contactsofresidentswhowerenolongerlivingatthefacilitylistedinthedatabase.
4.3 Sampling
Thestudyemployedacontinuousrecruitmentstrategyandmailingsweresentoutinthreewaves:October2013,November2013,andJanuary2014.Withineachwave,thefollowingthree‐stagemailingprotocolwasusedtoensuremaximumparticipationrates:
Initialmailingofquestionnairepackages.
7ForfurtherdetailsonCAHPSpleasereferto:https://cahps.ahrq.gov/
9
SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
Postcardreminderstoallnon‐respondents.
Mailingofquestionnairepackagewithmodifiedcoverlettertoallnon‐respondents.
Familymembershadtheoptionofeithersendingbackapaperquestionnaire,orcompletingthesurveyon‐lineusingauniquesingle‐usesurveyaccesscodeprintedoneachquestionnairecoverpage.
Familymembersofresidentslivinginoneofthethreeownershipmodels(i.e.,thosewhichprovidepublicallyfundedsupportivelivingcareinAlberta)weresurveyed.ThethreeownershipcategorieswereidentifiedusingAHS2012data,andare:
Public–operatedbyorwhollyownedsubsidiaryofAHS(10facilities).
Private–ownedbyaprivateorganization(69facilities).
Voluntary–ownedbyanot‐for‐profitorfaith‐basedorganization(75facilities).
Theresponserateforthissurveywas66.7percent(2,869outofapossible4,303eligiblefamilymemberscompletedandreturnedthesurvey).Forabreakdownofsamplingbyzoneandbywave,seeAppendixB.
4.4 Quantitative analytical approach
Forthisreport,atestwasdeemedstatisticallysignificant(i.e.,differencesreferredtoassignificantthroughoutthereport)iftheprobabilityoftheeventoccurringbychancealonewaslessthanorequalto5percent(p<0.05).
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixD.
Toconservedatafromfacilitieswhichdidnotmeettheaboveinclusioncriteria,responsesfromallfacilities(withatleastonerespondent;N=128)wereincludedindescriptiveanalysesofzoneandprovincialresultswhereappropriate(analyseswhichincludedatafromallfacilitiesarelabelledthroughout).Unlessotherwisestated,allanalysesinthisreportarebasedonlyonthosefacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=107facilities).8
Othernotes:
Percentagesmaynotalwaysaddto100percentduetorounding.
Referencestozonesrefertotheresident’sfacilityzone.
Facility,zone,andprovincialresultsarepresentedingraphswhichinclude95percentconfidenceintervals(95%CI).Theseintervalsaremeanttoaidthereaderingauging
8Includedfacilitiesaccountfor96.3percentofallrespondents(2,764of2,869respondents)and94.4percentofalleligiblerespondents(4,063of4,303respondents).
10
SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
statisticallysignificantdifferencesinresults.Asageneralrule,intervalsthatdonotoverlapreflectsignificantdifferencesbetweenmeasures.Incontrast,intervalsthatdooverlapreflectnon‐significantdifferencesbetweenmeasures.
Lowerlimitsofthe95percentCIthatrangebelowzerowillbereportedaszero.Upperlimitsofthe95percentCIthatrangeabove100willbereportedas100.Thesechangeswillbemarkedwith†.
4.4.1 Global Overall Care rating
TheGlobalOverallCareratingreflectstherespondent’soverallevaluationofthesupportivelivingfacility.Thisisasingleitemmeasureintendedtoreflectarespondent’ssummativeopinionaboutthefacility.TheGlobalOverallCareratingquestionasks:Usinganynumberfrom0to10,where0istheworstand10isthebestcarepossible,whatnumberwouldyouusetoratethecareatthesupportivelivingfacility?
4.4.2 Dimensions of Care
TheCAHPS®NursingHomeSurvey:FamilyMemberInstrumentcollectsrespondentratingsfromfourDimensionsofCare.The21questionsusedtocomputethefourDimensionsofCarearedescribedbelow:
1. Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment
a) (Q11)Canfindanurseoraide
b) (Q50)Howoftenthereareenoughnursesandaides
c) (Q31)Resident’sroomlooksandsmellsclean
d) (Q22)Residentlooksandsmellsclean
e) (Q34)Publicareaslookandsmellclean
f) (Q36)Resident’smedicalbelongingslost
g) (Q38)Resident’sclotheslost
2. KindnessandRespect
a) (Q12)Nursesandaidestreatresidentwithrespect
b) (Q13)Nursesandaidestreatresidentwithkindness
c) (Q14)Nursesandaidesreallycaredaboutresident
d) (Q15)Nursesandaideswererudetoresident(reversescoring)
e) (Q24)Nursesandaideswereappropriatewithdifficultresident
3. ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement
a) (Q27)Nursesandaidesgiverespondentinformationaboutresident
b) (Q28)Nursesandaidesexplainthingsinanunderstandableway
c) (Q42)Residentstopsselffromcomplaining
d) (Q29)Nursesandaidesdiscouragerespondentquestions(reversescoring)
11
SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
e) (Q45)Respondentinvolvedindecisionsaboutcare
f) (Q59)Respondentgiveninfoaboutpaymentsandexpenses
4. MeetingBasicNeeds9
Eating
a) (Q16)Helpedfamilymemberwitheating?
b) (Q17)Helpedbecausestaffdidn’thelporresidentwaitedtoolongforhelpwitheating(reversescoring)
Drinking
a) (Q18)Helpedfamilymemberwithdrinking?
b) (Q19)Ifyes,helpedbecausestaffdidn’thelporresidentwaitedtoolongforhelpwithdrinking(reversescoring)
Toileting
a) (Q20)Helpedfamilymemberwithtoileting?
b) (Q21)Ifyes,helpedbecausestaffdidn’thelporresidentwaitedtoolongforhelpwithtoileting(reversescoring)
Foreachrespondent,ascoreoneachofthefourDimensionsofCarewascomputedasfollows:
1. MeanscoresforeachDimensionofCarewerecalculatedbyscalingtherelevantsurveyitems(i.e.,questions)toa0to100scale,wherezerowastheleastpositiveormostundesiredoutcome/responseand100wasthemostpositiveormostdesiredoutcome/response(formoreinformationonscalingprocedures,seeAppendixB).
2. DimensionscoreswerethencalculatedbysummingindividualscaledsurveyitemsanddividingthetotalscorebythenumberofitemswithineachDimensionofCare(meanoraveragescores).
ADimensionofCarescorewasgeneratedforallrespondentswhoansweredatleastonequestionwithintheDimensionofCare.Respondentswhomettheminimumcriterionhadmissingvaluesreplacedbythefacilitymeanforthatquestion.ScaledresponseswerethensummedanddividedbythenumberofitemswithineachDimensionofCaretoarriveatasummaryscore(seeAppendixBformoredetails).Weightsforeachquestionweredeterminedaccordingtofactorloadinginafactoranalysisusingapromaxrotation.
NOTE:FortheMeetingBasicNeedsDimensionofCare,meangenerationrequiredthecombinationoftwoquestionsforeachsub‐dimension(i.e.,eating,drinking,toileting).Ascoreof100wasassignedtoeachsetofquestionsiftherespondentindicatedthatthey:1)HadnothelpedtheirfamilymemberwiththatbasicneedOR2)Hadhelpedtheirfamilymemberbecausetheychosetohelpandnotbecausenursesoraideseitherdidn’thelpormadethefamilymemberwaittoolong.Ascoreof0wasassignedtoeachsetofquestions(eating,drinking,ortoileting)iftherespondentindicatedthatthey:Hadhelped
9AccordingtoCAHPS®datacleaninginstructions:Ifagatequestiona)wasanswered"NO"andsubsequentsurveyquestionscontrolledbythatgateb)containedvalidresponses,thevalidresponsesweresettomissing.Ifagatequestionwasmissing(blank,notascertained:a),andsubsequentsurveyquestionscontrolledbythatgatequestioncontainedvalidresponsesb),theresponsesforthosequestionswereretained.
12
SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
theirfamilymemberANDthattheydidthisbecausenursesoraideseitherdidn’thelpormadethefamilymemberwaittoolong.
Forcompletequestion‐levelresults,seethefollowingappendices:
AppendixC:Additionalrespondentandresidentcharacteristics:detailsofrespondentandresidentcharacteristicsincludingvisitationfrequency,gender,age,education,languageprimarilyspokenathome,timeatsupportivelivingfacility,sharedroom,memoryproblems,andcapabilityofmakingdecisions.
AppendixF:Summaryofprovincialandzonelevelresults:Includescompletequestion‐leveldetailsofthesurveytool.
4.4.3 Food Rating Scale
Thequestionrelatingtofoodasks:Usinganynumberfrom0to10where0,istheworstfoodpossibleand10isthebestfoodpossible,whatnumberwouldyouusetoratethefoodatthissupportivelivingfacility?Thismeasurereflectsanindividual’soverallevaluationofthefoodatasupportivelivingfacilityonascalefrom0(worst)to10(best).
4.4.4 Facility comparison to zone and provincial averages
Foreachfacility,scoresfortheGlobalOverallCareratingandeachofthefourDimensionsofCarewerecomparedtotheaverageforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurveywithintheirrespectiveAHSzoneandtheprovincialaverageasfollows:
Below/abovezonemean:Azonemeanwascreatedbyaddingthescoresforallfacilitieswithinazoneandthendividingbythenumberoffacilitieswithinthezone.Foreachfacility,thereportindicateswhetherthefacilityscorefellbeloworabovethezonemean.
Below/aboveprovincialmean:Aprovincialmeanwascreatedbyaddingthescoresforallfacilitieswithintheprovinceandthendividingbythenumberoffacilitieswithintheprovince(N=107).Foreachfacility,thereportindicateswhetherthefacilityscorefellbeloworabovetheprovincialmean.
4.4.5 Facility categorization by quartile
Facilities(N=107)werecategorizedintofourquartiles10basedontheirmeanGlobalOverallCarerating:
Upper(top25%offacilities)
Uppermiddle
Lowermiddle
Lower(bottom25%offacilities)
10Aquartilerepresentsfourequalgroups(subjecttoties)intowhichapopulationcanbedividedaccordingtothedistributionofvaluesofaparticularmeasure;eachgroupcomprises25percentofthedata.
13
SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
4.4.6 Modeling
AregressionmodelwasconstructedtoexaminetherelativeinfluenceoftheDimensionsofCareontheGlobalOverallCarerating.ThisanalysisshowedanassociationbetweenthefourCAHPS®DimensionsofCare,andFoodRatingScalewiththeGlobalOverallCarerating(fordetailedresultsofthisanalysis,seeAppendixG).DimensionsofcareoftheCAHPS®surveytoolarelistedinorderofdecreasingstrengthofassociationwiththeGlobalOverallCarerating:
1. Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment
2. KindnessandRespect
3. FoodRatingScale
4. ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement
5. MeetingBasicNeeds
Withinthisreport,resultsarepresentedinorderoftheirstrengthofassociationwiththeGlobalOverallCarerating.
4.5 Qualitative analytical approach
Attheendofthequestionnaire,familymemberswereaskedoneopen‐endedquestion:Doyouhaveanysuggestionsofhowcareandservicesatthissupportivelivingfacilitycouldbeimproved?Ifsoexplain.Responseswererecordedwithinthespaceprovided.Whilesomefamilymembersmadeapositivecomment,themajorityofcommentsincludedconstructivefeedbackandrecommendationsforchange.Intotal,1,736familymembersprovidedqualitativefeedback.
4.5.1 Method and analysis of comments
Open‐endedresponseswereexaminedformultiplethemesandideas.Analysesofthesecommentsweredesignedtoprovideinsightintothecurrentissuesinsupportivelivingfacilitiesandtoprovidedirectiontoresolvetheseissues.ThemeswerecategorizedintooneofthefourDimensionsofCare:(1)Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment,(2)KindnessandRespect,(3)ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement,(4)MeetingBasicNeeds.WhenathemecouldnotbecategorizedwithinanyofthefourDimensionsofCare,itwasretainedandcategorizedas‘Other’.Twothemesexistedwithinthe‘Other’category.ThesewereActivitiesandFunding.Inaddition,aSafetyandSecuritythemewasidentifiedandwashighlightedindependentlyofthefourDimensionsofCareandthe‘Other’category.EachDimensionofCareandadditionalthemewasdefinedbyalistofattributesthatguidedhowcommentswerecoded(seeTable88forcodingbyDimensionofCareandadditionalthemes).DetailedqualitativeresultscanbefoundinSection12andAppendixH.
14
USING THE RESULTS
5.0 USING THE RESULTS
Thefocusofthisreportistoestablishabaselinemeasurementforfamilymembersofsupportivelivingresidents’experiencesthatcanbeusedforongoingbenchmarkingandmonitoring.ThereportpresentsfactorsthatdrivetheGlobalOverallCarerating,representedbythefourDimensionsofCare,whichcansubsequentlybeusedtoidentifyimprovementopportunitiesandbestpracticesatsupportivelivingfacilitiesacrossAlberta.
Readersshouldbeawarethatmanyadditionalfactorsmaycontributetoboththeresidents’andfamilymembers’experienceofafacility.Ultimately,facility‐levelresultsareintendedtoguidereflectiononperformanceandidentifyqualityimprovementopportunitiesatthefacilitylevel.Familyexperiencedataaloneshouldnotbeusedtojudgefacilityperformanceintheabsenceofotherinformation,suchaslevel‐of‐needoftheresidentpopulation,andotherqualitymeasures,suchasthosederivedfromtheinterRAITMResidentAssessmentInstrument(RAI),complaintsandconcerns,andcompliancewithprovincialcontinuingcarestandards.
Thisreportexaminesfacility‐levelresultsandprovidesasingleperspectiveofseveralpossibleinterpretationsofthesefindings.Facilitiesandotherstakeholdersmaychoosetoexamineandinterpretthefindingsdifferently.Examplesmayinclude:
Provincial‐levelcomparisonsonly
OneDimensionofCare(orquestionswithin)overothers,irrespectiveofprovincialorpeergroupcomparisons
OneormoreDimensionsofCareirrespectiveofhowthefacilityscored
Iffacilitiesandotherstakeholdersaremindfulofthelimitationsofthedata,thereareanumberofwaystheresultscanbeinterpretedandused.
15
OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS
6.0 OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS
Table2providesacomprehensivesummaryoffacility‐levelresultsbasedonthefourDimensionsofCare(Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment;KindnessandRespect;ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement;andMeetingBasicNeeds),FoodRatingScale,andthemeanGlobalOverallCareratingforeachfacility.Itincorporatesinformationfromallareasofcareandservicesmeasuredinthesurveyandprovidesthemostcompleterepresentationofoverallfacilityperformance.
Criteriaemphasizewithin‐zonefacilitycomparisons.11DetailedresultsoftheGlobalOverallCareratingandindividualDimensionsofCareareprovidedinSection7.Facilitiesareorderedaccordingtothefollowingcriteria.Criteriaarelistedinorderofpriority.Intheeventofatieononelevel,thenextsortinglevelwasused:
1. ThenumberofinstancesinwhichafacilityhadaDimensionofCarescorelowerthanitsassociatedzoneaverage,orderedfromlowesttohighest.
2. ThenumberofinstancesinwhichafacilityhadaDimensionofCarescorelowerthantheprovincialmean,orderedfromlowesttohighest.
3. ThenumberofinstancesinwhichafacilitywasinthelowerquartileoffacilitiesonaDimensionofCare,orderedfromlowesttohighest.
4. ThefacilitymeanGlobalOverallCareratingfromhighesttolowest.
Othervariablesincludedinthistablearethenumberofsurveyscollectedandfacilitysize.Facilitysizewasmeasuredbythetotalnumberofbedsatthefacility(e.g.,includinglongtermcare).12Facilitiesaregroupedbyquintilewherethefirstquintilerepresentsthe20percentoffacilitieswiththesmallestnumberofbeds,andthefifthquintilerepresentsthe20percentoffacilitieswiththelargestnumberofbeds(Table1).
Table 1: Facility size quintile groupings
Quintile (# facilities out of 107) Number of beds reported as of March 2012
1 (11) 0 to 19 beds
2 (24) 20 to 31 beds
3 (21) 32 to 50 beds
4 (26) 51 to 84 beds
5 (25) 85+ beds
11Itwasdeterminedthatthemostrelevantcomparisonsarebetweenpeers(facilitieswithinthesamezones)andthereforethecriteriaemphasizewithin‐zonefacilitycomparisons.Itisimportanttonotesomereadersmaywanttoemphasizeacomparisontoprovincialresult.Inthiscase,theabsolutevaluesofthecriteriacolumnscanbeexaminedontheirown.12InformationonthenumberofbedswasretrievedfromAHSusingcurrentdataasofMarch2012,datafromwhichtheoriginalsamplesizewasestimatedfrom.Itisrecognizedthatthereisacertaindegreeofuncertaintyinthebedcount,forexample,downsizingandupsizingofsomefacilitiesthroughoutthestudyperiod.However,itisbelievedthat,ingeneral,bednumbersreflectareasonableestimateofthesizeofthefacility.
16
Tabl
e 2:
Com
preh
ensi
ve s
umm
ary
of fa
cilit
y re
sults
Ord
erin
g cr
iterio
n
Crit
erio
n 1
Crit
erio
n 2
Crit
erio
n 3
Crit
erio
n 4
Dim
ensi
ons
of C
are
mea
ns a
nd F
ood
Rat
ing
Scal
e #
out o
f 5 D
imen
sion
s of
Car
e an
d Fo
od
Rat
ing
Sca
le
whe
re fa
cilit
y is
:
Ord
er
Cal
gary
(N
= 1
3 fa
cilit
ies)
Faci
lity
size
qu
intil
e
Res
pond
ents
(N
)
Staf
fing,
C
are
of
Bel
ongi
ngs,
an
d En
viro
nmen
t (0
to 1
00)
Kin
dnes
ss
and
Rep
ect
(0 to
100
)
Food
R
atin
g Sc
ale
(0 to
10
)
Prov
idin
g In
form
atio
n an
d Fa
mily
In
volv
emen
t (0
to 1
00)
Mee
ting
Bas
ic
Nee
ds
(0 to
10
0)
Bel
ow Z
one
mea
n on
a
dim
ensi
on
and
food
Bel
ow
prov
inci
al
mea
n on
a
dim
ensi
on
and
food
At l
ower
qu
artil
e of
pr
ovin
cial
m
ean
on a
di
men
sion
an
d fo
od
Faci
lity
mea
n G
loba
l O
vera
ll C
are
ratin
g (0
to 1
0)
1 M
illris
e P
lace
3
18
82.6
92
.3
8.5
92.9
10
0.0
0 0
0 9.
2
2 A
spen
Rid
ge L
odge
2
19
84.6
90
.9
7.7
86.9
99
.0
0 0
0 9.
0
3 P
rince
of P
eace
Man
or
3 19
84
.3
91.0
7.
8 82
.2
98.9
1
1 0
9.1
4 W
hite
horn
Vill
age
4 18
86
.6
93.1
6.
4 89
.1
100.
0 1
1 1
9.0
5 S
ilver
Will
ow L
odge
3
27
82.3
87
.3
7.8
83.2
96
.1
2 1
0 8.
8
6 M
cKen
zie
Tow
ne
Ret
irem
ent R
esid
ence
3
19
74.5
88
.7
7.3
90.0
96
.5
2 1
0 8.
5
7 S
agew
ood
Sup
porti
ve
Livi
ng
4 33
77
.8
89.4
7.
4 88
.4
95.7
2
2 0
8.4
8 E
au C
laire
Ret
irem
ent
Res
iden
ce
4 41
75
.0
84.5
7.
5 85
.3
95.9
3
2 0
8.4
9 C
arew
est C
olon
el B
elch
er
5 19
79
.1
84.7
7.
4 77
.5
96.9
4
2 1
8.4
10
Wal
den
Sup
porti
ve L
ivin
g C
omm
unity
5
52
84.1
85
.9
6.9
84.0
95
.5
4 3
0 8.
8
11
Wen
twor
th M
anor
/The
R
esid
ence
and
The
Cou
rt 5
24
74.3
81
.5
6.5
80.9
99
.1
4 4
2 8.
3
12
Sce
nic
Acr
es R
etire
men
t R
esid
ence
2
6 74
.1
80.3
6.
8 74
.4
96.7
5
4 2
8.2
13
Mon
tere
y P
lace
5
56
72.0
81
.4
6.2
80.0
97
.0
5 4
4 7.
5
OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS
17
Ord
er
Cen
tral
(N
= 2
6 fa
cilit
ies)
Faci
lity
size
qu
intil
e
Res
pond
ents
(N
)
Staf
fing,
C
are
of
Bel
ongi
ngs,
an
d En
viro
nmen
t (0
to 1
00)
Kin
dnes
ss
and
Rep
ect
(0 to
100
)
Food
R
atin
g Sc
ale
(0 to
10
)
Prov
idin
g In
form
atio
n an
d Fa
mily
In
volv
emen
t (0
to 1
00)
Mee
ting
Bas
ic
Nee
ds
(0 to
10
0)
Bel
ow Z
one
mea
n on
a
dim
ensi
on
and
food
Bel
ow
prov
inci
al
mea
n on
a
dim
ensi
on
and
food
At l
ower
qu
artil
e of
pr
ovin
cial
m
ean
on a
di
men
sion
an
d fo
od
Faci
lity
mea
n G
loba
l O
vera
ll C
are
ratin
g (0
to 1
0)
1 S
eren
ity H
ouse
1
6 93
.7
88.3
9.
3 88
.8
100.
0 0
0 0
9.8
2 Is
lay
Ass
iste
d Li
ving
2
10
94.9
89
.0
8.7
95.2
10
0.0
0 0
0 9.
6
3 S
unris
e V
illag
e W
etas
kiw
in
2 7
84.1
94
.2
7.9
95.6
10
0.0
0 0
0 9.
4
4 W
est P
ark
Lodg
e 3
22
87.0
93
.3
8.1
91.8
98
.1
0 0
0 9.
4
5 V
erm
illio
n V
alle
y Lo
dge
3 15
88
.2
91.2
8.
1 89
.4
100.
0 0
0 0
9.3
6 Fa
ith H
ouse
2
14
89.9
96
.7
7.9
93.5
10
0.0
0 0
0 9.
3
7 P
ines
Lod
ge
2 8
84.4
91
.8
7.4
89.6
10
0.0
1 0
0 8.
6
8 P
rovi
denc
e P
lace
1
6 90
.8
84.7
9.
2 95
.2
100.
0 1
1 0
9.4
9 H
illvi
ew L
odge
3
19
88.2
84
.2
7.9
91.0
97
.9
1 1
0 9.
2
10
Poi
nts
Wes
t Liv
ing
Lloy
dmin
ster
4
34
81.2
89
.7
7.9
82.9
97
.6
1 1
0 8.
7
11
Sun
rise
Vill
age
Old
s 2
9 80
.3
88.9
8.
1 84
.4
97.8
2
1 0
8.9
12
Cor
onat
ion
Hos
pita
l and
C
are
Cen
tre
3 8
82.4
88
.8
5.9
83.9
10
0.0
2 2
1 8.
5
13
Goo
d S
amar
itan
Goo
d S
heph
erd
Luth
eran
Hom
e 4
36
70.7
89
.2
7.1
87.6
97
.6
2 2
1 8.
1
14
Cha
teau
Thr
ee H
ills
1 8
72.4
93
.6
7.9
91.5
95
.0
2 2
1 7.
3
15
Eck
ville
Man
or H
ouse
1
6 86
.2
79.8
7.
8 79
.4
100.
0 2
2 2
9.2
16
Man
or a
t Roy
al O
ak
2 27
76
.3
93.5
7.
2 85
.1
99.3
3
2 0
8.5
17
Sun
rise
Vill
age
(Pon
oka)
2
11
84.1
86
.0
7.2
94.8
90
.9
3 2
1 8.
6
18
Bet
hany
Syl
van
Lake
4
13
76.1
73
.7
6.4
87.7
98
.3
3 3
2 8.
2
19
Her
itage
Hou
se
2 18
79
.8
86.5
6.
4 83
.1
98.9
4
2 1
8.2
20
Sun
set M
anor
4
65
78.9
89
.9
6.8
81.2
93
.7
4 3
1 8.
2
21
Sun
rise
Vill
age
Cam
rose
4
54
69.3
83
.2
7.6
84.3
90
.3
4 4
2 7.
6
22
Bet
hany
Mea
dow
s 5
21
78.9
76
.0
6.2
86.6
96
.2
5 2
2 8.
6
OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS
18
Ord
er
Cen
tral
(N
= 2
6 fa
cilit
ies)
Faci
lity
size
qu
intil
e
Res
pond
ents
(N
)
Staf
fing,
C
are
of
Bel
ongi
ngs,
an
d En
viro
nmen
t (0
to 1
00)
Kin
dnes
ss
and
Rep
ect
(0 to
100
)
Food
R
atin
g Sc
ale
(0 to
10
)
Prov
idin
g In
form
atio
n an
d Fa
mily
In
volv
emen
t (0
to 1
00)
Mee
ting
Bas
ic
Nee
ds
(0 to
10
0)
Bel
ow Z
one
mea
n on
a
dim
ensi
on
and
food
Bel
ow
prov
inci
al
mea
n on
a
dim
ensi
on
and
food
At l
ower
qu
artil
e of
pr
ovin
cial
m
ean
on a
di
men
sion
an
d fo
od
Faci
lity
mea
n G
loba
l O
vera
ll C
are
ratin
g (0
to 1
0)
23
Poi
nts
Wes
t Liv
ing
Cen
tury
Par
k 3
24
77.8
86
.5
7.0
82.1
95
.0
5 4
0 8.
5
24
Poi
nts
Wes
t Liv
ing
Wai
nwrig
ht
4 33
73
.5
86.2
6.
7 81
.7
95.7
5
4 1
7.8
25
Ext
endi
care
Mic
hene
r Hill
5
41
72.5
77
.5
5.7
81.4
90
.9
5 5
4 7.
3
26
Cle
arw
ater
Cen
tre
4 13
62
.3
80.9
6.
6 75
.9
77.0
5
5 5
6.5
Ord
er
Edm
onto
n (N
= 3
5 fa
cilit
ies)
Faci
lity
size
qu
intil
e
Res
pond
ents
(N
)
Staf
fing,
C
are
of
Bel
ongi
ngs,
an
d En
viro
nmen
t (0
to 1
00)
Kin
dnes
ss
and
Rep
ect
(0 to
100
)
Food
R
atin
g Sc
ale
(0 to
10
)
Prov
idin
g In
form
atio
n an
d Fa
mily
In
volv
emen
t (0
to 1
00)
Mee
ting
Bas
ic
Nee
ds
(0 to
10
0)
Bel
ow Z
one
mea
n on
a
dim
ensi
on
and
food
Bel
ow
prov
inci
al
mea
n on
a
dim
ensi
on
and
food
At l
ower
qu
artil
e of
pr
ovin
cial
m
ean
on a
di
men
sion
an
d fo
od
Faci
lity
mea
n G
loba
l O
vera
ll C
are
ratin
g (0
to 1
0)
1 G
ood
Sam
arita
n G
eorg
e H
enni
g P
lace
2
16
86.9
92
.9
8.1
94.3
10
0.0
0 0
0 9.
1
2 P
lace
Bea
usej
our
3 16
87
.5
95.7
8.
1 89
.3
98.8
0
0 0
9.1
3 E
mm
anue
l Hom
e 1
8 87
.6
86.7
8.
6 90
.2
100.
0 0
0 0
9.1
4 Li
feS
tyle
Opt
ions
Ter
ra
Losa
4
20
84.3
92
.1
8.3
92.2
98
.9
0 0
0 8.
8
5 S
heph
erd’
s C
are
Gre
enfie
ld
2 13
82
.8
96.1
8.
3 95
.5
100.
0 0
0 0
8.8
6 C
itade
l Mew
s W
est
4 30
85
.9
91.6
7.
5 85
.8
98.6
0
0 0
8.8
7 G
last
onbu
ry V
illag
e 4
23
85.3
89
.5
7.8
87.7
96
.4
0 0
0 8.
5
8 G
ood
Sam
arita
n S
pruc
e G
rove
Cen
tre
2 15
93
.0
86.2
8.
2 92
.9
100.
0 1
0 0
8.6
9 Li
feS
tyle
Opt
ions
Led
uc
4 33
79
.3
89.4
7.
5 84
.9
96.0
1
0 0
8.2
10
Wes
t Cou
ntry
Hea
rth
1 10
85
.3
96.1
7.
6 85
.0
94.0
1
1 0
9.7
11
Cou
ntry
Cot
tage
Sen
iors
R
esid
ence
2
8 89
.8
85.0
8.
6 91
.1
100.
0 1
1 0
9.4
12
Ros
edal
e S
t. A
lber
t 4
40
85.7
89
.8
7.5
83.2
97
.0
1 1
0 8.
7
13
Goo
d S
amar
itan
Wed
man
4
32
80.8
88
.6
7.2
86.9
98
.6
1 1
0 8.
4
OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS 19
Hou
se/V
illag
e
14
She
pher
d’s
Gar
dens
3
23
79.4
94
.4
6.6
87.8
10
0.0
1 1
1 8.
7
Ord
er
Edm
onto
n (N
= 3
5 fa
cilit
ies)
Faci
lity
size
qu
intil
e
Res
pond
ents
(N
)
Staf
fing,
C
are
of
Bel
ongi
ngs,
an
d En
viro
nmen
t (0
to 1
00)
Kin
dnes
ss
and
Rep
ect
(0 to
100
)
Food
R
atin
g Sc
ale
(0 to
10
)
Prov
idin
g In
form
atio
n an
d Fa
mily
In
volv
emen
t (0
to 1
00)
Mee
ting
Bas
ic
Nee
ds
(0 to
10
0)
Bel
ow Z
one
mea
n on
a
dim
ensi
on
and
food
Bel
ow
prov
inci
al
mea
n on
a
dim
ensi
on
and
food
At l
ower
qu
artil
e of
pr
ovin
cial
m
ean
on a
di
men
sion
an
d fo
od
Faci
lity
mea
n G
loba
l O
vera
ll C
are
ratin
g (0
to 1
0)
15
She
pher
d’s
Car
e K
ensi
ngto
n 5
22
79.1
91
.1
6.6
88.3
98
.2
1 1
1 8.
4
16
Ros
edal
e E
stat
es
3 19
80
.8
84.8
7.
4 84
.5
100.
0 1
2 0
8.6
17
She
pher
d’s
Car
e V
angu
ard
5 37
76
.5
87.4
7.
2 86
.8
98.4
1
2 0
8.2
18
Ros
edal
e at
Grie
sbac
h 5
44
78.7
87
.5
7.0
83.7
98
.1
2 2
0 8.
1
19
Dev
onsh
ire M
anor
4
24
83.1
88
.9
6.1
81.9
98
.3
2 2
1 8.
4
20
Gra
nd M
anor
4
11
74.5
86
.9
7.1
81.3
10
0.0
3 3
0 8.
2
21
Life
Sty
le O
ptio
ns
Riv
erbe
nd
2 8
80.8
77
.8
7.8
69.6
91
.8
3 3
3 8.
4
22
Cap
italC
are
Stra
thco
na
5 51
69
.4
86.4
6.
7 84
.5
91.4
3
4 3
8.1
23
Gar
neau
Hal
l 3
11
76.6
89
.6
6.9
76.9
96
.0
4 3
1 7.
9
24
Inno
vativ
e H
ousi
ng -
Vill
a M
argu
erite
5
109
72.7
83
.5
6.9
81.2
97
.3
4 4
1 7.
8
25
Sum
mer
woo
d V
illag
e R
etire
men
t Res
iden
ce
4 46
63
.7
84.5
7.
5 82
.8
94.7
4
4 1
7.5
26
Wild
Ros
e C
otta
ge
2 14
74
.6
81.7
7.
2 77
.0
98.5
4
4 2
8.3
27
Sai
nt T
hom
as A
ssis
ted
Livi
ng C
entre
5
32
77.5
82
.6
6.4
79.9
98
.1
4 4
2 7.
9
28
Cap
italC
are
Laur
ier
Hou
se L
ynnw
ood
4 56
73
.4
78.7
6.
0 84
.1
79.5
4
5 3
8.1
29
Asp
en H
ouse
3
42
76.0
85
.8
7.0
82.6
95
.2
5 5
0 8.
3
30
Sal
vatio
n A
rmy
Gra
ce
Man
or
4 36
74
.3
83.5
6.
5 82
.1
91.0
5
5 2
8.0
31
Tuoi
Hac
- G
olde
n A
ge
Man
or
5 33
75
.5
75.2
6.
2 72
.5
95.0
5
5 3
7.5
32
Riv
erbe
nd R
etire
men
t R
esid
ence
3
16
68.6
85
.3
5.9
80.3
94
.7
5 5
3 6.
8
33
Chu
rchi
ll R
etire
men
t C
omm
unity
3
19
61.2
72
.4
7.1
73.7
88
.4
5 5
4 6.
7
34
Rut
herfo
rd H
eigh
ts
5 40
61
.2
75.7
6.
4 75
.1
88.4
5
5 5
7.0
OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS
20
Ret
irem
ent R
esid
ence
35
Bal
win
Vill
a 5
32
67.2
75
.3
6.4
79.5
90
.5
5 5
5 6.
9
Ord
er
Nor
th
(N =
6 fa
cilit
ies)
Faci
lity
size
qu
intil
e
Res
pond
ents
(N
)
Staf
fing,
C
are
of
Bel
ongi
ngs,
an
d En
viro
nmen
t (0
to 1
00)
Kin
dnes
ss
and
Rep
ect
(0 to
100
)
Food
R
atin
g Sc
ale
(0 to
10
)
Prov
idin
g In
form
atio
n an
d Fa
mily
In
volv
emen
t (0
to 1
00)
Mee
ting
Bas
ic
Nee
ds
(0 to
10
0)
Bel
ow Z
one
mea
n on
a
dim
ensi
on
and
food
Bel
ow
prov
inci
al
mea
n on
a
dim
ensi
on
and
food
At l
ower
qu
artil
e of
pr
ovin
cial
m
ean
on a
di
men
sion
an
d fo
od
Faci
lity
mea
n G
loba
l O
vera
ll C
are
ratin
g (0
to 1
0)
1 V
ilna
Vill
a 1
7 86
.3
96.9
8.
7 83
.4
100.
0 0
1 0
9.1
2 H
eim
stae
d Lo
dge
4 40
71
.4
81.3
7.
6 79
.5
90.7
2
4 4
8.3
3 P
oint
s W
est L
ivin
g G
rand
e P
rairi
e 5
41
65.7
77
.6
6.9
79.0
93
.2
2 5
4 7.
4
4 M
anoi
r du
Lac
3 19
65
.1
78.1
5.
8 80
.7
98.7
3
4 4
7.9
5 M
ount
ain
Vie
w C
entre
4
21
58.1
80
.3
5.3
74.0
93
.9
4 5
4 6.
8
6 G
rand
e P
rairi
e C
are
Cen
tre
4 27
62
.7
75.2
6.
7 73
.8
74.7
5
5 4
6.8
Ord
er
Sout
h (N
= 2
7 fa
cilit
ies)
Faci
lity
size
qu
intil
e
Res
pond
ents
(N
)
Staf
fing,
C
are
of
Bel
ongi
ngs,
an
d En
viro
nmen
t (0
to 1
00)
Kin
dnes
ss
and
Rep
ect
(0 to
100
)
Food
R
atin
g Sc
ale
(0 to
10)
Prov
idin
g In
form
atio
n an
d Fa
mily
In
volv
emen
t (0
to 1
00)
Mee
ting
Bas
ic
Nee
ds
(0 to
10
0)
Bel
ow Z
one
mea
n on
a
dim
ensi
on
and
food
Bel
ow
prov
inci
al
mea
n on
a
dim
ensi
on
and
food
At l
ower
qu
artil
e of
pr
ovin
cial
m
ean
on a
di
men
sion
an
d fo
od
Faci
lity
mea
n G
loba
l O
vera
ll C
are
ratin
g (0
to 1
0)
1 C
lear
view
Lod
ge
2 9
95.7
10
0.0
9.7
98.4
97
.8
0 0
0 9.
9
2 M
acLe
od P
ione
er L
odge
1
5 80
.2
94.9
7.
6 85
.7
100.
0 0
0 0
9.0
3 C
hino
ok L
odge
2
5 85
.0
86.4
7.
0 97
.9
100.
0 1
1 0
9.4
4 O
rcha
rd M
anor
2
13
91.0
97
.5
6.7
96.6
10
0.0
1 1
0 9.
2
5 G
ood
Sam
arita
n V
ista
V
illag
e 4
36
79.6
87
.6
7.1
89.3
97
.0
1 1
0 8.
5
6 G
olde
n A
cres
Lod
ge
3 14
80
.3
89.2
7.
3 81
.7
98.6
1
1 0
8.4
7 Le
isur
e W
ay
1 7
79.6
91
.5
7.8
94.4
91
.5
1 1
1 9.
0
8 P
iyam
i Lod
ge
2 11
82
.9
71.6
7.
3 90
.0
100.
0 1
1 1
8.6
9 S
unny
Sou
th L
odge
2
18
82.3
90
.6
7.6
85.6
93
.3
1 1
1 8.
6
10
Hav
en o
f Res
t - S
outh
C
ount
ry V
illag
e 5
11
86.0
83
.2
7.0
94.0
98
.2
2 2
0 9.
5
11
Ple
asan
t Vie
w L
odge
S
outh
2
7 90
.3
83.6
8.
5 82
.9
100.
0 2
2 0
9.0
12
Yor
k C
reek
Lod
ge
2 7
77.7
81
.2
6.7
86.5
97
.2
2 3
1 8.
4
OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS
21
13
Cyp
ress
Vie
w F
ound
atio
n 2
18
80.1
82
.2
7.9
82.7
93
.0
3 3
1 8.
5
14
Mea
dow
Lan
ds
1 6
77.2
60
.3
7.8
83.5
10
0.0
3 3
1 8.
0
Ord
er
Sout
h (N
= 2
7 fa
cilit
ies)
Faci
lity
size
qu
intil
e
Res
pond
ents
(N
)
Staf
fing,
C
are
of
Bel
ongi
ngs,
an
d En
viro
nmen
t (0
to 1
00)
Kin
dnes
ss
and
Rep
ect
(0 to
100
)
Food
R
atin
g Sc
ale
(0 to
10)
Prov
idin
g In
form
atio
n an
d Fa
mily
In
volv
emen
t (0
to 1
00)
Mee
ting
Bas
ic
Nee
ds
(0 to
10
0)
Bel
ow Z
one
mea
n on
a
dim
ensi
on
and
food
Bel
ow
prov
inci
al
mea
n on
a
dim
ensi
on
and
food
At l
ower
qu
artil
e of
pr
ovin
cial
m
ean
on a
di
men
sion
an
d fo
od
Faci
lity
mea
n G
loba
l O
vera
ll C
are
ratin
g (0
to 1
0)
15
Piy
ami P
lace
1
6 72
.0
79.6
7.
5 77
.3
96.7
3
3 3
8.2
16
The
Wel
lingt
on
Ret
irem
ent R
esid
ence
3
33
73.5
84
.0
7.9
79.9
94
.8
3 4
1 8.
0
17
Goo
d S
amar
itan
Lind
en
Vie
w
5 49
70
.4
85.4
6.
7 86
.5
92.2
3
4 2
8.0
18
Lega
cy L
odge
5
62
69.5
85
.4
7.4
77.4
85
.2
3 4
3 7.
9
19
Goo
d S
amar
itan
Wes
t H
ighl
ands
5
62
71.6
85
.2
6.4
78.8
95
.3
3 5
3 8.
0
20
Goo
d S
amar
itan
Pra
irie
Rid
ge
5 15
73
.6
92.6
6.
9 81
.8
93.4
4
4 1
8.3
21
Goo
d S
amar
itan
Gar
den
Vis
ta
3 15
79
.6
82.7
7.
1 79
.2
88.1
4
4 2
8.6
22
St.
Ther
ese
Vill
a - S
t. M
icha
els
Hea
lth C
entre
5
92
70.5
85
.1
7.1
80.2
90
.7
4 5
3 8.
1
23
Goo
d S
amar
itan
Lee
Cre
st
5 37
67
.5
76.6
5.
9 72
.3
95.0
4
5 4
7.7
24
Goo
d S
amar
itan
Par
k M
eado
ws
Vill
age
5 66
73
.7
84.1
7.
0 81
.9
91.5
5
5 1
8.0
25
Ext
endi
care
Fai
rmon
t P
ark
5 81
71
.0
83.2
6.
8 83
.6
92.5
5
5 2
8.0
26
Col
umbi
a A
ssis
ted
Livi
ng
3 19
67
.2
78.6
6.
7 82
.1
89.2
5
5 3
7.4
27
Sun
rise
Gar
dens
4
37
67.0
80
.1
6.1
79.8
86
.1
5 5
5 7.
5
Not
e: C
ateg
oric
al d
ecis
ion
rule
s bas
ed o
n th
e m
ean
exte
nd b
eyon
d th
e fir
st d
ecim
al p
lace
.
OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS
22
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
7.0 FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
ThefollowingsectionprovidesdetailedresultsoftheGlobalOverallCareratingandindividualDimensionsofCareforeachfacility.
GlobalOverallCareratingsarepresentedfirstandreflecttherespondents’overallevaluationofthesupportivelivingfacility.Thisisasingleitemmeasureintendedtoreflectarespondent’ssummativeopinionaboutthefacility.GlobalOverallCareratingasks:Usinganynumberfrom0to10where,0istheworstand10isthebestcarepossible,whatnumberwouldyouusetoratethecareatthesupportivelivingfacility?
DimensionsofCareandFoodRatingsarepresentedinorderoftheirinfluenceontheGlobalOverallCarerating,asdeterminedthrougharegressionmodel(seeAppendixG).
DimensionsofCareandFoodRatingsarepresentedasfollows:
1. Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironmentDimensionofCare
2. KindnessandRespectDimensionofCare
3. FoodRatingScale
4. ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvementDimensionofCare
5. MeetingBasicNeedsDimensionofCare
DetailedzoneanalysesofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixF.
23
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
7.1 Global Overall Care rating
ThefamilymemberGlobalOverallCareratingfortheprovincewas8.4outof10.Table4summarizestheGlobalOverallCareratingsforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanfacilityGlobalOverallCareratingandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:
Beloworabovezonemean:Whetherthefacility’saverageGlobalOverallCareratingisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheassociatedzone.
Beloworaboveprovincialmean:Whetherthefacility’saverageGlobalOverallCareratingisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.
Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheGlobalOverallCarerating(seeTable3foradescriptionofthecategories).
Table 3: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (107 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
8.9-10.0
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 8.4-8.9
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 8.0-8.4
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-8.0
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixF.
24
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=107facilities).
Table 4: Summary of facility mean Global Overall Care ratings by zone
Calgary
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 13 facilities)
Below/above provincial mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
8.6 8.4
Millrise Place 18 9.2 8.9 9.6 Above Above Upper
Prince of Peace Manor 18 9.1 8.6 9.5 Above Above Upper
Aspen Ridge Lodge 19 9.0 8.7 9.3 Above Above Upper
Whitehorn Village 17 9.0 8.5 9.5 Above Above Upper
Walden Supportive Living Community
50 8.8 8.5 9.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Silver Willow Lodge 25 8.8 8.4 9.2 Above Above Up. Mid
McKenzie Towne Retirement Residence
17 8.5 7.9 9.0 Below Above Up. Mid
Carewest Colonel Belcher 19 8.4 7.8 9.0 Below Above Up. Mid
Eau Claire Retirement Residence
40 8.4 8.0 8.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Sagewood Supportive Living 33 8.4 7.9 8.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court
23 8.3 7.8 8.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence
6 8.2 7.2 9.1 Below Below Low. Mid.
Monterey Place 55 7.5 7.1 7.8 Below Below Lower
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 26 facilities)
Below/above provincial mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
8.6 8.4
Serenity House 6 9.8 9.5 10.0† Above Above Upper
Islay Assisted Living 10 9.6 9.2 10.0 Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 7 9.4 9.0 9.8 Above Above Upper
Providence Place 5 9.4 8.6 10.0† Above Above Upper
West Park Lodge 21 9.4 9.1 9.7 Above Above Upper
Vermillion Valley Lodge 15 9.3 8.8 9.8 Above Above Upper
Faith House 13 9.3 8.9 9.7 Above Above Upper
Eckville Manor House 5 9.2 8.5 9.9 Above Above Upper
Hillview Lodge 19 9.2 8.8 9.5 Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Olds 9 8.9 7.8 9.9 Above Above Upper
Points West Living Lloydminster
33 8.7 8.2 9.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Sunrise Village (Ponoka) 11 8.6 7.8 9.5 Above Above Up. Mid
Pines Lodge 8 8.6 7.9 9.4 Above Above Up. Mid
25
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 26 facilities)
Below/above provincial mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
8.6 8.4
Bethany Meadows 21 8.6 7.9 9.2 Above Above Up. Mid
Points West Living Century Park
23 8.5 7.9 9.1 Below Above Up. Mid
Manor at Royal Oak 27 8.5 8.1 9.0 Below Above Up. Mid
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre
8 8.5 7.8 9.2 Below Above Up. Mid
Heritage House 18 8.2 7.6 8.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Bethany Sylvan Lake 12 8.2 7.5 8.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Sunset Manor 64 8.2 7.8 8.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
33 8.1 7.7 8.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Points West Living Wainwright
30 7.8 6.9 8.7 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Camrose 50 7.6 7.1 8.1 Below Below Lower
Extendicare Michener Hill 40 7.3 6.7 7.8 Below Below Lower
Chateau Three Hills 8 7.3 5.8 8.7 Below Below Lower
Clearwater Centre 13 6.5 5.1 7.8 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 35 facilities)
Below/above provincial mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
8.2 8.4
West Country Hearth 10 9.7 9.4 10.0 Above Above Upper
Country Cottage Seniors Residence
8 9.4 8.9 9.9 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place
15 9.1 8.7 9.6 Above Above Upper
Place Beausejour 16 9.1 8.8 9.5 Above Above Upper
Emmanuel Home 8 9.1 8.1 10.0† Above Above Upper
LifeStyle Options Terra Losa 17 8.8 8.3 9.4 Above Above Up. Mid
Shepherd’s Care Greenfield 11 8.8 7.9 9.8 Above Above Up. Mid
Citadel Mews West 28 8.8 8.4 9.2 Above Above Up. Mid
Shepherd’s Gardens 22 8.7 8.3 9.2 Above Above Up. Mid
Rosedale St. Albert 40 8.7 8.4 9.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre
14 8.6 7.9 9.3 Above Above Up. Mid
Rosedale Estates 17 8.6 8.2 9.0 Above Above Up. Mid
Glastonbury Village 22 8.5 7.8 9.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village
30 8.4 7.9 8.9 Above Above Up. Mid
Shepherd’s Care Kensington 21 8.4 7.8 8.9 Above Below Low. Mid.
Devonshire Manor 24 8.4 7.9 8.8 Above Below Low. Mid.
26
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 35 facilities)
Below/above provincial mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
8.2 8.4
LifeStyle Options Riverbend 8 8.4 7.6 9.2 Above Below Low. Mid.
Aspen House 40 8.3 7.8 8.8 Above Below Low. Mid.
Wild Rose Cottage 12 8.3 7.3 9.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 36 8.2 7.8 8.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
LifeStyle Options Leduc 30 8.2 7.6 8.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Grand Manor 11 8.2 7.4 9.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood
55 8.1 7.8 8.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Rosedale at Griesbach 41 8.1 7.7 8.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
CapitalCare Strathcona 49 8.1 7.7 8.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Salvation Army Grace Manor 31 8.0 7.3 8.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
Garneau Hall 10 7.9 6.9 8.9 Below Below Lower
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre
30 7.9 7.2 8.5 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite
95 7.8 7.5 8.2 Below Below Lower
Tuoi Hac - Golden Age Manor 32 7.5 6.9 8.2 Below Below Lower
Summerwood Village Retirement Residence
46 7.5 7.0 8.0 Below Below Lower
Rutherford Heights Retirement Residence
40 7.0 6.4 7.6 Below Below Lower
Balwin Villa 30 6.9 6.1 7.6 Below Below Lower
Riverbend Retirement Residence
16 6.8 5.4 8.1 Below Below Lower
Churchill Retirement Community
19 6.7 6.1 7.4 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 6 facilities)
Below/above provincial mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
7.7 8.4
Vilna Villa 7 9.1 8.4 9.9 Above Above Upper
Heimstaed Lodge 38 8.3 7.7 8.8 Above Below Low. Mid.
Manoir du Lac 14 7.9 7.3 8.5 Above Below Lower
Points West Living Grande Prairie
39 7.4 6.8 8.0 Below Below Lower
Mountain View Centre 18 6.8 5.9 7.7 Below Below Lower
Grande Prairie Care Centre 26 6.8 5.9 7.7 Below Below Lower
27
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 27 facilities)
Below/above provincial mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
8.4 8.4
Clearview Lodge 9 9.9 9.7 10.0† Above Above Upper
Haven of Rest - South Country Village
11 9.5 8.8 10.0† Above Above Upper
Chinook Lodge 5 9.4 8.6 10.0† Above Above Upper
Orchard Manor 13 9.2 8.8 9.7 Above Above Upper
Pleasant View Lodge South 7 9.0 8.6 9.4 Above Above Upper
Leisure Way 6 9.0 8.3 9.7 Above Above Upper
MacLeod Pioneer Lodge 5 9.0 8.1 9.9 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Garden Vista 14 8.6 8.0 9.3 Above Above Up. Mid
Piyami Lodge 11 8.6 8.2 9.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Sunny South Lodge 18 8.6 8.0 9.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Vista Village 35 8.5 8.0 9.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Cypress View Foundation 17 8.5 7.7 9.3 Above Above Up. Mid
Golden Acres Lodge 14 8.4 7.8 9.1 Below Above Up. Mid
York Creek Lodge 7 8.4 7.7 9.2 Below Above Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Prairie Ridge 15 8.3 7.7 8.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Piyami Place 6 8.2 6.6 9.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
St. Therese Villa – St. Michaels Health Centre
90 8.1 7.8 8.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
The Wellington Retirement Residence
31 8.0 7.5 8.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan West Highlands
57 8.0 7.6 8.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Meadow Lands 4 8.0 7.2 8.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Extendicare Fairmont Park 76 8.0 7.6 8.3 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village
62 8.0 7.6 8.4 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Linden View 45 8.0 7.4 8.5 Below Below Lower
Legacy Lodge 60 7.9 7.5 8.2 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Lee Crest 33 7.7 7.1 8.4 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Gardens 36 7.5 7.0 8.0 Below Below Lower
Columbia Assisted Living 19 7.4 6.8 8.0 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.Intheeventofatie,thelowerlimitoftheconfidenceintervalwasusedasasortingcriterion.
28
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
7.2 Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment Dimension of Care
TheStaffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironmentDimensionofCareiscomprisedofthefollowingquestions(detailedzoneresultsofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixF):
(Q10andQ11)Canfindanurseoraide?
(Q50)Howoftenthereareenoughnursesoraides?
(Q31)Resident’sroomlooksandsmellsclean?
(Q22)Residentlooksandsmellsclean?
(Q34)Publicarealooksandsmellsclean?
(Q36)Resident’smedicalbelongingslost?
(Q37andQ38)Resident’sclotheslost?
Table6summarizestheStaffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironmentDimensionofCareforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresonStaffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironmentandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:
Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageStaffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironmentscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.
Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageStaffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironmentscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.
Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheStaffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironmentDimensionofCare(seeTable5foradescriptionofthecategories).
Table 5: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (107 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
84.3-100.0
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 79.1-84.3
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 72.7-79.1
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-72.7
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
29
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixF.
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=107facilities).
Table 6: Summary of facility means for Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment
Calgary
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 13 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
79.3 78.3
Whitehorn Village 18 86.6 81.1 92.1 Above Above Upper
Aspen Ridge Lodge 19 84.6 80.2 89.0 Above Above Upper
Prince of Peace Manor 18 84.3 79.8 88.8 Above Above Up. Mid
Walden Supportive Living Community
50 84.1 81.1 87.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Millrise Place 18 82.6 78.1 87.2 Above Above Up. Mid
Silver Willow Lodge 26 82.3 77.3 87.3 Above Above Up. Mid
Carewest Colonel Belcher 19 79.1 73.9 84.2 Below Above Low. Mid.
Sagewood Supportive Living 33 77.8 72.9 82.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Eau Claire Retirement Residence 40 75.0 70.7 79.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
McKenzie Towne Retirement Residence
17 74.5 67.2 81.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court
23 74.3 68.9 79.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence
6 74.1 65.2 83.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Monterey Place 55 72.0 68.7 75.2 Below Below Lower
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 26 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
80.9 78.3
Islay Assisted Living 10 94.9 91.8 98.1 Above Above Upper
Serenity House 6 93.7 88.6 98.9 Above Above Upper
Providence Place 5 90.8 82.1 99.5 Above Above Upper
Faith House 13 89.9 86.6 93.2 Above Above Upper
Hillview Lodge 19 88.2 84.5 92.0 Above Above Upper
30
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 26 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
80.9 78.3
Vermillion Valley Lodge 15 88.2 83.9 92.4 Above Above Upper
West Park Lodge 22 87.0 82.4 91.5 Above Above Upper
Eckville Manor House 5 86.2 76.4 96.1 Above Above Upper
Pines Lodge 8 84.4 78.2 90.6 Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 7 84.1 75.5 92.6 Above Above Up. Mid
Sunrise Village (Ponoka) 11 84.1 77.0 91.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre
8 82.4 79.1 85.7 Above Above Up. Mid
Points West Living Lloydminster 33 81.2 77.4 85.0 Above Above Up. Mid
Sunrise Village Olds 9 80.3 71.4 89.3 Below Above Up. Mid
Heritage House 18 79.8 74.7 85.0 Below Above Up. Mid
Sunset Manor 65 78.9 75.5 82.4 Below Above Low. Mid.
Bethany Meadows 21 78.9 73.1 84.7 Below Above Low. Mid.
Points West Living Century Park 24 77.8 72.2 83.3 Below Below Low. Mid.
Manor at Royal Oak 27 76.3 70.8 81.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
Bethany Sylvan Lake 12 76.1 71.7 80.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Points West Living Wainwright 33 73.5 67.0 79.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Extendicare Michener Hill 40 72.5 67.7 77.3 Below Below Lower
Chateau Three Hills 8 72.4 62.5 82.2 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
34 70.7 66.7 74.6 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Camrose 52 69.3 64.7 73.9 Below Below Lower
Clearwater Centre 13 62.3 50.3 74.4 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 35 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean (N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
78.3 78.3
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre
14 93.0 89.3 96.8 Above Above Upper
Country Cottage Seniors Residence
8 89.8 79.4 100.0† Above Above Upper
Emmanuel Home 8 87.6 79.6 95.7 Above Above Upper
Place Beausejour 16 87.5 83.6 91.4 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place
15 86.9 82.2 91.6 Above Above Upper
Citadel Mews West 29 85.9 81.6 90.1 Above Above Upper
Rosedale St. Albert 40 85.7 82.4 88.9 Above Above Upper
West Country Hearth 10 85.3 78.5 92.2 Above Above Upper
Glastonbury Village 23 85.3 79.8 90.9 Above Above Upper
31
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 35 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean (N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
78.3 78.3
LifeStyle Options Terra Losa 18 84.3 78.7 89.9 Above Above Up. Mid
Devonshire Manor 24 83.1 78.9 87.4 Above Above Up. Mid
Shepherd’s Care Greenfield 11 82.8 74.0 91.7 Above Above Up. Mid
Rosedale Estates 17 80.8 75.3 86.4 Above Above Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village
30 80.8 76.0 85.6 Above Above Up. Mid
LifeStyle Options Riverbend 8 80.8 73.6 88.0 Above Above Up. Mid
Shepherd’s Gardens 23 79.4 74.5 84.3 Above Above Up. Mid
LifeStyle Options Leduc 31 79.3 74.6 84.0 Above Above Up. Mid
Shepherd’s Care Kensington 22 79.1 74.6 83.6 Above Above Up. Mid
Rosedale at Griesbach 42 78.7 74.5 82.9 Above Above Low. Mid.
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre
31 77.5 72.9 82.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
Garneau Hall 11 76.6 67.7 85.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 37 76.5 72.0 81.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Aspen House 41 76.0 71.4 80.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Tuoi Hac - Golden Age Manor 32 75.5 69.2 81.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
Wild Rose Cottage 13 74.6 65.6 83.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Grand Manor 11 74.5 64.2 84.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Salvation Army Grace Manor 31 74.3 67.1 81.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood
56 73.4 69.5 77.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite
98 72.7 69.9 75.5 Below Below Lower
CapitalCare Strathcona 50 69.4 65.7 73.0 Below Below Lower
Riverbend Retirement Residence 16 68.6 60.8 76.3 Below Below Lower
Balwin Villa 30 67.2 61.6 72.8 Below Below Lower
Summerwood Village Retirement Residence
46 63.7 58.6 68.9 Below Below Lower
Rutherford Heights Retirement Residence
40 61.2 55.5 67.0 Below Below Lower
Churchill Retirement Community 19 61.2 54.3 68.0 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 6 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
68.2 78.3
Vilna Villa 7 86.3 79.1 93.4 Above Above Upper
Heimstaed Lodge 39 71.4 66.1 76.7 Above Below Lower
Points West Living Grande Prairie 40 65.7 60.1 71.3 Below Below Lower
32
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 6 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
68.2 78.3
Manoir du Lac 15 65.1 58.4 71.9 Below Below Lower
Grande Prairie Care Centre 26 62.7 55.7 69.7 Below Below Lower
Mountain View Centre 20 58.1 50.6 65.6 Below Below Lower
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 27 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean (N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
77.6 78.3
Clearview Lodge 9 95.7 93.3 98.1 Above Above Upper
Orchard Manor 13 91.0 86.3 95.7 Above Above Upper
Pleasant View Lodge South 7 90.3 82.8 97.9 Above Above Upper
Haven of Rest - South Country Village
11 86.0 78.3 93.7 Above Above Upper
Chinook Lodge 5 85.0 77.7 92.3 Above Above Upper
Piyami Lodge 11 82.9 78.1 87.6 Above Above Up. Mid
Sunny South Lodge 18 82.3 75.9 88.7 Above Above Up. Mid
Golden Acres Lodge 14 80.3 71.7 88.8 Above Above Up. Mid
MacLeod Pioneer Lodge 5 80.2 75.9 84.5 Above Above Up. Mid
Cypress View Foundation 17 80.1 74.3 86.0 Above Above Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Garden Vista 14 79.6 73.3 85.9 Above Above Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Vista Village 35 79.6 75.0 84.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Leisure Way 7 79.6 67.9 91.3 Above Above Up. Mid
York Creek Lodge 7 77.7 68.4 87.0 Above Below Low. Mid.
Meadow Lands 4 77.2 66.5 88.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village
62 73.7 69.9 77.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Prairie Ridge 15 73.6 66.1 81.1 Below Below Low. Mid.
The Wellington Retirement Residence
31 73.5 67.3 79.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Piyami Place 6 72.0 62.1 81.8 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan West Highlands 58 71.6 67.8 75.3 Below Below Lower
Extendicare Fairmont Park 77 71.0 67.8 74.2 Below Below Lower
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre
91 70.5 67.2 73.8 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Linden View 46 70.4 65.5 75.3 Below Below Lower
Legacy Lodge 61 69.5 65.7 73.3 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Lee Crest 37 67.5 62.0 73.0 Below Below Lower
Columbia Assisted Living 19 67.2 61.0 73.3 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Gardens 36 67.0 62.4 71.6 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
33
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
7.3 Kindness and Respect Dimension of Care
TheKindnessandRespectDimensionofCareiscomprisedofthefollowingquestions(detailedzoneresultsofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixF):
(Q12)Nursesandaidestreatresidentwithcourtesyandrespect?
(Q13)Nursesandaidestreatresidentwithkindness?
(Q14)Nursesandaidesreallycareaboutresident?
(Q15;reversescoring)Nursesandaideswererudetoresidents?
(Q23andQ24)Nursesandaideswereappropriatewithdifficultresidents?
Table8summarizestheKindnessandRespectDimensionofCareforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresonKindnessandRespectandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:
Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageKindnessandRespectscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.
Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageKindnessandRespectscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.
Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheKindnessandRespectDimensionofCare(seeTable7foradescriptionofthecategories).
Table 7: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (107 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
89.9-100.0
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 86.2-89.9
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 81.7-86.2
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-81.7
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.Formoredetailsonthe
34
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
determinationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixF.
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=107facilities).
Table 8: Summary of facility means for Kindness and Respect
Calgary
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 13 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
87.0 85.8
Whitehorn Village 18 93.1 87.7 98.4 Above Above Upper
Millrise Place 18 92.3 86.4 98.3 Above Above Upper
Prince of Peace Manor 18 91.0 85.8 96.3 Above Above Upper
Aspen Ridge Lodge 19 90.9 85.0 96.7 Above Above Upper
Sagewood Supportive Living 33 89.4 84.3 94.6 Above Above Up. Mid
McKenzie Towne Retirement Residence 17 88.7 83.7 93.7 Above Above Up. Mid
Silver Willow Lodge 26 87.3 83.2 91.4 Above Above Up. Mid
Walden Supportive Living Community 50 85.9 82.4 89.5 Below Above Low. Mid.
Carewest Colonel Belcher 19 84.7 76.6 92.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Eau Claire Retirement Residence 40 84.5 79.8 89.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court 23 81.5 76.1 87.0 Below Below Lower
Monterey Place 54 81.4 77.6 85.3 Below Below Lower
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence 6 80.3 64.6 95.9 Below Below Lower
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 26 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
87.1 85.8
Faith House 13 96.7 93.9 99.6 Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 7 94.2 89.3 99.0 Above Above Upper
Chateau Three Hills 8 93.6 86.8 100.0† Above Above Upper
Manor at Royal Oak 27 93.5 89.7 97.3 Above Above Upper
West Park Lodge 21 93.3 88.3 98.4 Above Above Upper
Pines Lodge 8 91.8 86.4 97.2 Above Above Upper
Vermillion Valley Lodge 15 91.2 85.2 97.3 Above Above Upper
Sunset Manor 65 89.9 87.0 92.8 Above Above Up. Mid
Points West Living Lloydminster 33 89.7 84.6 94.8 Above Above Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home 33 89.2 84.4 94.1 Above Above Up. Mid
35
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 26 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
87.1 85.8
Islay Assisted Living 10 89.0 87.4 90.6 Above Above Up. Mid
Sunrise Village Olds 9 88.9 87.1 90.7 Above Above Up. Mid
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre 8 88.8 86.7 90.8 Above Above Up. Mid
Serenity House 6 88.3 85.4 91.3 Above Above Up. Mid
Heritage House 18 86.5 80.8 92.3 Below Above Up. Mid
Points West Living Century Park 24 86.5 80.3 92.7 Below Above Up. Mid
Points West Living Wainwright 33 86.2 79.9 92.6 Below Above Low. Mid.
Sunrise Village (Ponoka) 11 86.0 82.5 89.5 Below Above Low. Mid.
Providence Place 5 84.7 74.7 94.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
Hillview Lodge 19 84.2 80.7 87.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
Sunrise Village Camrose 52 83.2 79.1 87.3 Below Below Low. Mid.
Clearwater Centre 13 80.9 67.8 93.9 Below Below Lower
Eckville Manor House 5 79.8 63.9 95.7 Below Below Lower
Extendicare Michener Hill 40 77.5 71.7 83.3 Below Below Lower
Bethany Meadows 21 76.0 67.5 84.5 Below Below Lower
Bethany Sylvan Lake 12 73.7 62.1 85.4 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 35 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
86.3 85.8
West Country Hearth 10 96.1 88.5 100.0† Above Above Upper
Shepherd’s Care Greenfield 11 96.1 90.9 100.0† Above Above Upper
Place Beausejour 16 95.7 92.0 99.5 Above Above Upper
Shepherd’s Gardens 23 94.4 89.8 99.1 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place 15 92.9 87.4 98.4 Above Above Upper
LifeStyle Options Terra Losa 18 92.1 85.8 98.4 Above Above Upper
Citadel Mews West 29 91.6 88.2 95.0 Above Above Upper
Shepherd’s Care Kensington 22 91.1 86.6 95.7 Above Above Upper
Rosedale St. Albert 40 89.8 85.4 94.2 Above Above Up. Mid
Garneau Hall 11 89.6 82.5 96.7 Above Above Up. Mid
Glastonbury Village 23 89.5 82.1 96.9 Above Above Up. Mid
LifeStyle Options Leduc 31 89.4 83.8 94.9 Above Above Up. Mid
Devonshire Manor 24 88.9 83.9 94.0 Above Above Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village 30 88.6 83.2 94.0 Above Above Up. Mid
36
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 35 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
86.3 85.8
Rosedale at Griesbach 42 87.5 83.3 91.7 Above Above Up. Mid
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 36 87.4 82.1 92.6 Above Above Up. Mid
Grand Manor 11 86.9 78.4 95.4 Above Above Up. Mid
Emmanuel Home 8 86.7 83.8 89.7 Above Above Up. Mid
CapitalCare Strathcona 50 86.4 82.0 90.9 Above Above Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre 14 86.2 82.5 90.0 Below Above Up. Mid
Aspen House 41 85.8 80.6 91.1 Below Below Low. Mid.
Riverbend Retirement Residence 15 85.3 76.0 94.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Country Cottage Seniors Residence 8 85.0 75.4 94.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Rosedale Estates 17 84.8 77.8 91.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
Summerwood Village Retirement Residence 46 84.5 79.3 89.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
Salvation Army Grace Manor 31 83.5 75.4 91.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite 96 83.5 80.1 86.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre 31 82.6 75.5 89.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Wild Rose Cottage 13 81.7 73.4 90.0 Below Below Lower
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood 56 78.7 75.0 82.5 Below Below Lower
LifeStyle Options Riverbend 8 77.8 68.1 87.4 Below Below Lower
Rutherford Heights Retirement Residence 40 75.7 69.2 82.2 Below Below Lower
Balwin Villa 29 75.3 67.5 83.1 Below Below Lower
Tuoi Hac - Golden Age Manor 32 75.2 68.2 82.3 Below Below Lower
Churchill Retirement Community 19 72.4 64.3 80.5 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 6 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
81.6 85.8
Vilna Villa 7 96.9 92.8 100.0† Above Above Upper
Heimstaed Lodge 38 81.3 74.7 87.8 Below Below Lower
Mountain View Centre 20 80.3 72.4 88.1 Below Below Lower
Manoir du Lac 15 78.1 70.4 85.7 Below Below Lower
Points West Living Grande Prairie 40 77.6 71.9 83.4 Below Below Lower
Grande Prairie Care Centre 26 75.2 68.1 82.2 Below Below Lower
37
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 27 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
84.5 85.8
Clearview Lodge 9 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Orchard Manor 13 97.5 94.6 100.0† Above Above Upper
MacLeod Pioneer Lodge 5 94.9 88.1 100.0† Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Prairie Ridge 15 92.6 88.4 96.9 Above Above Upper
Leisure Way 7 91.5 84.2 98.7 Above Above Upper
Sunny South Lodge 18 90.6 85.0 96.2 Above Above Upper
Golden Acres Lodge 14 89.2 83.2 95.2 Above Above Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Vista Village 35 87.6 81.1 94.2 Above Above Up. Mid
Chinook Lodge 5 86.4 79.6 93.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Legacy Lodge 61 85.4 81.8 89.1 Above Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Linden View 46 85.4 80.5 90.3 Above Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan West Highlands 58 85.2 80.9 89.5 Above Below Low. Mid.
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre 90 85.1 81.6 88.5 Above Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village 62 84.1 79.7 88.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
The Wellington Retirement Residence 31 84.0 77.4 90.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
Pleasant View Lodge South 7 83.6 76.6 90.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Haven of Rest - South Country Village 11 83.2 77.4 89.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Extendicare Fairmont Park 77 83.2 79.6 86.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Garden Vista 14 82.7 73.8 91.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Cypress View Foundation 17 82.2 71.2 93.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
York Creek Lodge 7 81.2 73.9 88.6 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Gardens 36 80.1 74.2 86.0 Below Below Lower
Piyami Place 6 79.6 61.1 98.1 Below Below Lower
Columbia Assisted Living 19 78.6 72.3 84.9 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Lee Crest 37 76.6 70.3 82.9 Below Below Lower
Piyami Lodge 11 71.6 62.6 80.6 Below Below Lower
Meadow Lands 4 60.3 38.4 82.2 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
38
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
7.4 Food Rating Scale13
TheFoodratingiscomprisedofthefollowingquestion:Usinganynumberfrom0to10,where0istheworstfoodpossibleand10isthebestfoodpossible,whatnumberwouldyouusetoratethefoodatthissupportivelivingfacility?
Table10summarizestheFoodRatingScaleforeachfacilitythatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresontheFoodRatingScaleandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:
Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageFoodRatingScalescoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.
Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageFoodRatingScalescoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingoftheprovince.
Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovince,ontheFoodRatingScale(seeTable9forabriefdescriptionofthecategories).
Table 9: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (107 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
7.8-10.0
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 7.2-7.8
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 6.7-7.2
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-6.7
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixF.
13Itisimportanttonotethatresidentsatsupportivelivingfacilitiesarenotlimitedtothemealsservedonsite.Someroomsareequippedwithstovesand/ormicrowavestohelpresidentspreparetheirownmeals.Therefore,therelevanceofsomequestionsmaydifferbyfacility.ThequestionsinthisDimensionwereaskedwithoutcapturingwhethertheseaspectswereapplicable.
39
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=107facilities).
Table 10: Summary of facility means for Food Rating Scale
Calgary
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 13 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
7.2 7.2
Millrise Place 17 8.5 8.0 9.1 Above Above Upper
Silver Willow Lodge 25 7.8 7.2 8.3 Above Above Up. Mid
Prince of Peace Manor 16 7.8 7.1 8.4 Above Above Up. Mid
Aspen Ridge Lodge 18 7.7 7.2 8.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Eau Claire Retirement Residence 38 7.5 7.0 8.0 Above Above Up. Mid
Carewest Colonel Belcher 19 7.4 6.6 8.2 Above Above Up. Mid
Sagewood Supportive Living 31 7.4 6.7 8.1 Above Above Up. Mid
McKenzie Towne Retirement Residence 16 7.3 6.4 8.2 Above Above Up. Mid
Walden Supportive Living Community 49 6.9 6.2 7.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence 6 6.8 5.6 8.1 Below Below Low. Mid.
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court 21 6.5 5.5 7.5 Below Below Lower
Whitehorn Village 17 6.4 5.2 7.6 Below Below Lower
Monterey Place 53 6.2 5.7 6.7 Below Below Lower
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 26 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
7.4 7.2
Serenity House 6 9.3 8.5 10.0† Above Above Upper
Providence Place 5 9.2 8.2 10.0† Above Above Upper
Islay Assisted Living 10 8.7 7.3 10.0† Above Above Upper
Vermillion Valley Lodge 14 8.1 7.4 8.9 Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Olds 9 8.1 6.3 10.0 Above Above Upper
West Park Lodge 21 8.1 7.6 8.6 Above Above Upper
Faith House 12 7.9 6.9 8.9 Above Above Upper
Points West Living Lloydminster 30 7.9 7.3 8.5 Above Above Upper
Hillview Lodge 18 7.9 7.2 8.6 Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 7 7.9 6.9 8.9 Above Above Upper
Chateau Three Hills 7 7.9 7.1 8.6 Above Above Upper
Eckville Manor House 5 7.8 6.1 9.5 Above Above Up. Mid
Sunrise Village Camrose 48 7.6 7.2 8.1 Above Above Up. Mid
40
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 26 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
7.4 7.2
Pines Lodge 8 7.4 6.9 7.9 Below Above Up. Mid
Sunrise Village (Ponoka) 11 7.2 6.4 8.0 Below Below Up. Mid
Manor at Royal Oak 26 7.2 6.2 8.1 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home 33 7.1 6.6 7.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Points West Living Century Park 22 7.0 6.1 7.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Sunset Manor 63 6.8 6.4 7.3 Below Below Low. Mid.
Points West Living Wainwright 29 6.7 5.6 7.7 Below Below Lower
Clearwater Centre 12 6.6 5.5 7.7 Below Below Lower
Bethany Sylvan Lake 12 6.4 5.4 7.4 Below Below Lower
Heritage House 17 6.4 5.2 7.5 Below Below Lower
Bethany Meadows 21 6.2 5.3 7.1 Below Below Lower
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre 8 5.9 4.5 7.2 Below Below Lower
Extendicare Michener Hill 38 5.7 5.0 6.3 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 35 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
7.2 7.2
Country Cottage Seniors Residence 8 8.6 7.6 9.7 Above Above Upper
Emmanuel Home 8 8.6 7.7 9.5 Above Above Upper
Shepherd’s Care Greenfield 11 8.3 7.2 9.4 Above Above Upper
LifeStyle Options Terra Losa 16 8.3 7.7 8.8 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre 14 8.2 7.4 9.0 Above Above Upper
Place Beausejour 16 8.1 7.7 8.6 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place 14 8.1 7.1 9.0 Above Above Upper
Glastonbury Village 21 7.8 7.2 8.5 Above Above Upper
LifeStyle Options Riverbend 8 7.8 6.8 8.7 Above Above Up. Mid
West Country Hearth 10 7.6 6.7 8.5 Above Above Up. Mid
LifeStyle Options Leduc 27 7.5 7.0 8.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Summerwood Village Retirement Residence 45 7.5 7.0 8.0 Above Above Up. Mid
Citadel Mews West 28 7.5 7.0 8.0 Above Above Up. Mid
Rosedale St. Albert 38 7.5 6.9 8.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Rosedale Estates 17 7.4 6.6 8.1 Above Above Up. Mid
41
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 35 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
7.2 7.2
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 33 7.2 6.6 7.9 Above Below Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village 29 7.2 6.4 7.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Wild Rose Cottage 13 7.2 6.6 7.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
Grand Manor 10 7.1 5.6 8.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Churchill Retirement Community 18 7.1 6.3 7.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Rosedale at Griesbach 41 7.0 6.4 7.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
Aspen House 40 7.0 6.3 7.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Garneau Hall 10 6.9 5.9 7.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite 82 6.9 6.4 7.3 Below Below Low. Mid.
CapitalCare Strathcona 49 6.7 6.2 7.1 Below Below Lower
Shepherd’s Gardens 22 6.6 5.9 7.3 Below Below Lower
Shepherd’s Care Kensington 21 6.6 5.8 7.3 Below Below Lower
Salvation Army Grace Manor 29 6.5 5.6 7.4 Below Below Lower
Balwin Villa 27 6.4 5.5 7.3 Below Below Lower
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre 30 6.4 5.7 7.1 Below Below Lower
Rutherford Heights Retirement Residence 39 6.4 5.7 7.1 Below Below Lower
Tuoi Hac - Golden Age Manor 31 6.2 5.3 7.1 Below Below Lower
Devonshire Manor 24 6.1 5.2 7.0 Below Below Lower
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood 56 6.0 5.4 6.6 Below Below Lower
Riverbend Retirement Residence 14 5.9 4.7 7.2 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 6 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
6.8 7.2
Vilna Villa 7 8.7 7.7 9.7 Above Above Upper
Heimstaed Lodge 37 7.6 7.1 8.2 Above Above Up. Mid
Points West Living Grande Prairie 38 6.9 6.3 7.5 Above Below Low. Mid.
Grande Prairie Care Centre 26 6.7 6.1 7.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Manoir du Lac 15 5.8 4.6 7.0 Below Below Lower
Mountain View Centre 19 5.3 4.2 6.4 Below Below Lower
42
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 27 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
7.2 7.2
Clearview Lodge 9 9.7 9.2 10.0† Above Above Upper
Pleasant View Lodge South 6 8.5 7.5 9.5 Above Above Upper
Cypress View Foundation 17 7.9 7.3 8.6 Above Above Upper
The Wellington Retirement Residence 31 7.9 7.3 8.5 Above Above Upper
Leisure Way 6 7.8 6.7 9.0 Above Above Upper
Meadow Lands 4 7.8 7.3 8.2 Above Above Up. Mid
Sunny South Lodge 18 7.6 6.8 8.4 Above Above Up. Mid
MacLeod Pioneer Lodge 5 7.6 6.0 9.2 Above Above Up. Mid
Piyami Place 6 7.5 5.9 9.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Legacy Lodge 60 7.4 7.0 7.9 Above Above Up. Mid
Golden Acres Lodge 14 7.3 6.4 8.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Piyami Lodge 11 7.3 6.0 8.5 Above Above Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Vista Village 34 7.1 6.5 7.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre 87 7.1 6.6 7.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Garden Vista 13 7.1 6.0 8.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village 59 7.0 6.6 7.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Haven of Rest - South Country Village 11 7.0 5.9 8.1 Below Below Low. Mid.
Chinook Lodge 5 7.0 5.5 8.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Prairie Ridge 14 6.9 5.9 7.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Extendicare Fairmont Park 74 6.8 6.3 7.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
Columbia Assisted Living 19 6.7 5.9 7.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
York Creek Lodge 7 6.7 5.1 8.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Linden View 44 6.7 5.9 7.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Orchard Manor 13 6.7 5.6 7.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan West Highlands 53 6.4 5.6 7.1 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Gardens 34 6.1 5.4 6.8 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Lee Crest 34 5.9 5.0 6.7 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.Intheeventofatie,facilitiesarepresentedbytheirGlobalOverallCareratingsfromhighesttolowest.
43
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
7.5 Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement Dimension of Care
TheProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvementDimensionofCareiscomprisedofthefollowingquestions(detailedzoneresultsofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixF):
(Q26andQ27)Nursesandaidesgivesfamilymemberinformationaboutresident?
(Q28)Nursesandaidesexplainthingsinanunderstandableway?
(Q29)Nursesandaidesdiscouragerespondentquestions?
(Q42)Respondentstopsselffromcomplaining?
(Q44andQ45)Respondentinvolvedindecisionsaboutcare?
(Q58andQ59)Respondentgiveninfoaboutpaymentsandexpensesassoonastheywanted?
Table12summarizestheProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvementDimensionofCareforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresonProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvementandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:
Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvementscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.
Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvementscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.
Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvementDimensionofCare(seeTable11foradescriptionofthecategories).
Table 11: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (107 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
89.1-100.0
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 83.9-89.1
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 80.7-83.9
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-80.7
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
44
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixF.
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=107facilities).
Table 12: Summary of facility means for Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement
Calgary
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 13 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
84.2 84.6
Millrise Place 18 92.9 88.9 96.9 Above Above Upper
McKenzie Towne Retirement Residence 17 90.0 85.2 94.8 Above Above Upper
Whitehorn Village 18 89.1 84.7 93.6 Above Above Upper
Sagewood Supportive Living 33 88.4 85.0 91.8 Above Above Up. Mid
Aspen Ridge Lodge 19 86.9 82.7 91.0 Above Above Up. Mid
Eau Claire Retirement Residence 40 85.3 81.1 89.5 Above Above Up. Mid
Walden Supportive Living Community 50 84.0 80.7 87.2 Below Below Up. Mid
Silver Willow Lodge 26 83.2 78.5 87.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Prince of Peace Manor 18 82.2 76.2 88.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court 23 80.9 76.8 85.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Monterey Place 55 80.0 76.8 83.2 Below Below Lower
Carewest Colonel Belcher 19 77.5 72.9 82.0 Below Below Lower
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence 6 74.4 63.3 85.5 Below Below Lower
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(26 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
87.1 84.6
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 7 95.6 91.1 100.0 Above Above Upper
Providence Place 5 95.2 89.8 100.0† Above Above Upper
Islay Assisted Living 10 95.2 92.0 98.3 Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village (Ponoka) 11 94.8 92.2 97.4 Above Above Upper
Faith House 13 93.5 90.0 97.1 Above Above Upper
West Park Lodge 21 91.8 89.0 94.6 Above Above Upper
45
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(26 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
87.1 84.6
Chateau Three Hills 8 91.5 85.5 97.5 Above Above Upper
Hillview Lodge 19 91.0 87.5 94.4 Above Above Upper
Pines Lodge 8 89.6 83.4 95.8 Above Above Upper
Vermillion Valley Lodge 15 89.4 83.4 95.3 Above Above Upper
Serenity House 6 88.8 86.1 91.4 Above Above Up. Mid
Bethany Sylvan Lake 12 87.7 81.4 94.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home 34 87.6 83.9 91.3 Above Above Up. Mid
Bethany Meadows 21 86.6 82.0 91.3 Below Above Up. Mid
Manor at Royal Oak 27 85.1 80.8 89.4 Below Above Up. Mid
Sunrise Village Olds 9 84.4 80.1 88.8 Below Below Up. Mid
Sunrise Village Camrose 52 84.3 80.8 87.8 Below Below Up. Mid
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre 8 83.9 77.3 90.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Heritage House 18 83.1 76.9 89.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Points West Living Lloydminster 33 82.9 79.0 86.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Points West Living Century Park 24 82.1 78.4 85.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Points West Living Wainwright 33 81.7 75.6 87.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Extendicare Michener Hill 40 81.4 76.4 86.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Sunset Manor 65 81.2 78.2 84.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
Eckville Manor House 5 79.4 72.8 86.0 Below Below Lower
Clearwater Centre 13 75.9 66.8 85.0 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 35 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
83.9 84.6
Shepherd’s Care Greenfield 11 95.5 90.0 100.0† Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place 15 94.3 91.6 97.0 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre 14 92.9 90.4 95.5 Above Above Upper
LifeStyle Options Terra Losa 18 92.2 89.0 95.5 Above Above Upper
Country Cottage Seniors Residence 8 91.1 86.3 96.0 Above Above Upper
Emmanuel Home 8 90.2 83.4 97.0 Above Above Upper
Place Beausejour 16 89.3 84.6 94.1 Above Above Upper
Shepherd’s Care Kensington 21 88.3 84.5 92.1 Above Above Up. Mid
Shepherd’s Gardens 23 87.8 83.9 91.6 Above Above Up. Mid
Glastonbury Village 23 87.7 82.0 93.3 Above Above Up. Mid
46
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 35 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
83.9 84.6
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village 30 86.9 83.1 90.7 Above Above Up. Mid
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 37 86.8 83.0 90.6 Above Above Up. Mid
Citadel Mews West 29 85.8 81.5 90.2 Above Above Up. Mid
West Country Hearth 10 85.0 79.3 90.6 Above Above Up. Mid
LifeStyle Options Leduc 31 84.9 81.0 88.8 Above Above Up. Mid
CapitalCare Strathcona 50 84.5 81.8 87.2 Above Below Up. Mid
Rosedale Estates 17 84.5 77.1 91.9 Above Below Up. Mid
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood 56 84.1 80.7 87.5 Above Below Up. Mid
Rosedale at Griesbach 40 83.7 80.2 87.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
Rosedale St. Albert 40 83.2 79.4 87.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Summerwood Village Retirement Residence 46 82.8 78.7 86.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Aspen House 41 82.6 77.4 87.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Salvation Army Grace Manor 31 82.1 76.2 88.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Devonshire Manor 24 81.9 78.1 85.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
Grand Manor 11 81.3 73.5 89.1 Below Below Low. Mid.
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite 98 81.2 78.4 84.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Riverbend Retirement Residence 16 80.3 73.0 87.5 Below Below Lower
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre 31 79.9 75.1 84.8 Below Below Lower
Balwin Villa 30 79.5 74.4 84.6 Below Below Lower
Wild Rose Cottage 13 77.0 69.2 84.8 Below Below Lower
Garneau Hall 10 76.9 69.6 84.2 Below Below Lower
Rutherford Heights Retirement Residence 40 75.1 69.3 80.8 Below Below Lower
Churchill Retirement Community 19 73.7 67.6 79.8 Below Below Lower
Tuoi Hac - Golden Age Manor 32 72.5 66.6 78.5 Below Below Lower
LifeStyle Options Riverbend 8 69.6 64.4 74.7 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 6 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
78.4 84.6
Vilna Villa 7 83.4 79.9 86.9 Above Below Low. Mid.
Manoir du Lac 15 80.7 73.6 87.9 Above Below Lower
Heimstaed Lodge 39 79.5 74.4 84.6 Above Below Lower
47
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 6 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
78.4 84.6
Points West Living Grande Prairie 40 79.0 74.4 83.6 Above Below Lower
Mountain View Centre 20 74.0 65.7 82.3 Below Below Lower
Grande Prairie Care Centre 26 73.8 67.3 80.2 Below Below Lower
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 27 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
84.8 84.6
Clearview Lodge 9 98.4 96.8 99.9 Above Above Upper
Chinook Lodge 5 97.9 94.8 100.0† Above Above Upper
Orchard Manor 13 96.6 94.7 98.5 Above Above Upper
Leisure Way 7 94.4 88.3 100.0† Above Above Upper
Haven of Rest - South Country Village 11 94.0 90.6 97.5 Above Above Upper
Piyami Lodge 11 90.0 84.3 95.7 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Vista Village 35 89.3 84.7 93.9 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Linden View 46 86.5 83.0 90.0 Above Above Up. Mid
York Creek Lodge 7 86.5 82.6 90.3 Above Above Up. Mid
MacLeod Pioneer Lodge 5 85.7 82.0 89.4 Above Above Up. Mid
Sunny South Lodge 18 85.6 80.7 90.6 Above Above Up. Mid
Extendicare Fairmont Park 77 83.6 81.1 86.1 Below Below Low. Mid.
Meadow Lands 4 83.5 79.0 88.1 Below Below Low. Mid.
Pleasant View Lodge South 7 82.9 74.5 91.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Cypress View Foundation 17 82.7 77.8 87.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Columbia Assisted Living 19 82.1 76.8 87.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village 62 81.9 77.9 85.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Prairie Ridge 15 81.8 74.5 89.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
Golden Acres Lodge 14 81.7 77.1 86.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre 91 80.2 76.6 83.7 Below Below Lower
The Wellington Retirement Residence 31 79.9 75.5 84.4 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Gardens 36 79.8 75.0 84.5 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Garden Vista 14 79.2 71.1 87.4 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan West Highlands 58 78.8 75.4 82.2 Below Below Lower
Legacy Lodge 61 77.4 73.6 81.2 Below Below Lower
Piyami Place 6 77.3 67.9 86.8 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Lee Crest 36 72.3 67.2 77.4 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
48
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
7.6 Meeting Basic Needs Dimension of Care
TheMeetingBasicNeedsDimensionofCareiscomprisedofthefollowingquestions(detailedzoneresultsofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixF):
(Q16andQ17)Helpedbecausestaffdidn’thelporresidentwaitedtoolongforhelpwitheating?
(Q18andQ19)Helpedbecausestaffdidn’thelporresidentwaitedtoolongforhelpwithdrinking?
(Q20andQ21)Helpedbecausestaffdidn’thelporresidentwaitedtoolongforhelpwithtoileting?
Table14summarizestheMeetingBasicNeedsDimensionofCareforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresonMeetingBasicNeedsandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:
Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageMeetingBasicNeedsscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.
Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageMeetingBasicNeedsscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.
Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheMeetingBasicNeedsDimensionofCare(seeTable13foradescriptionofthecategories).
Table 13: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (107 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
99.3-100.0
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 97.0-99.3
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 93.7-97.0
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-93.7
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.Formoredetailsonthe
49
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
determinationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixF.
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=107facilities).
Table 14: Summary of facility means for Meeting Basic Needs
Calgary
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 13 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
97.5 95.8
Millrise Place 18 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Whitehorn Village 18 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court 23 99.1 97.4 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Aspen Ridge Lodge 19 99.0 96.9 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Prince of Peace Manor 18 98.9 96.7 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Monterey Place 55 97.0 93.7 100.0† Below Above Low. Mid.
Carewest Colonel Belcher 19 96.9 92.4 100.0† Below Above Low. Mid.
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence 6 96.7 90.2 100.0† Below Above Low. Mid.
McKenzie Towne Retirement Residence 17 96.5 91.5 100.0† Below Above Low. Mid.
Silver Willow Lodge 26 96.1 92.4 99.9 Below Above Low. Mid.
Eau Claire Retirement Residence 40 95.9 90.5 100.0† Below Above Low. Mid.
Sagewood Supportive Living 33 95.7 90.6 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
Walden Supportive Living Community 50 95.5 92.0 99.1 Below Below Low. Mid.
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 26 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
96.5 95.8
Serenity House 6 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Islay Assisted Living 10 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 7 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Providence Place 5 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Vermillion Valley Lodge 15 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Faith House 13 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Eckville Manor House 5 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Pines Lodge 8 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre 8 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Manor at Royal Oak 27 99.3 97.8 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
50
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 26 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
96.5 95.8
Heritage House 18 98.9 96.7 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Bethany Sylvan Lake 12 98.3 95.1 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
West Park Lodge 21 98.1 95.6 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Hillview Lodge 19 97.9 93.7 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Sunrise Village Olds 9 97.8 93.5 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
34 97.6 94.4 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Points West Living Lloydminster 33 97.6 93.9 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Bethany Meadows 21 96.2 91.9 100.0† Below Above Low. Mid.
Points West Living Wainwright 33 95.7 92.0 99.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Chateau Three Hills 8 95.0 85.3 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
Points West Living Century Park 24 95.0 86.8 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
Sunset Manor 64 93.7 88.6 98.8 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village (Ponoka) 11 90.9 73.1 100.0† Below Below Lower
Extendicare Michener Hill 40 90.9 83.0 98.8 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Camrose 52 90.3 82.8 97.8 Below Below Lower
Clearwater Centre 13 77.0 57.7 96.3 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 35 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
96.1 95.8
Country Cottage Seniors Residence 8 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place 15 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Emmanuel Home 8 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Shepherd’s Care Greenfield 11 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Shepherd’s Gardens 23 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre 14 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Rosedale Estates 17 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Grand Manor 11 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
LifeStyle Options Terra Losa 18 98.9 96.7 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Place Beausejour 16 98.8 96.3 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Citadel Mews West 29 98.6 96.8 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village 30 98.6 96.8 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Wild Rose Cottage 13 98.5 95.5 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
51
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 35 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
96.1 95.8
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 37 98.4 96.6 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Devonshire Manor 24 98.3 96.1 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Shepherd’s Care Kensington 22 98.2 94.6 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Rosedale at Griesbach 42 98.1 95.9 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre 31 98.1 95.3 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite 98 97.3 94.5 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Rosedale St. Albert 40 97.0 94.0 100.0 Above Above Low. Mid.
Glastonbury Village 23 96.4 91.7 100.0† Above Above Low. Mid.
LifeStyle Options Leduc 31 96.0 90.7 100.0† Below Above Low. Mid.
Garneau Hall 10 96.0 88.2 100.0† Below Above Low. Mid.
Aspen House 41 95.2 90.7 99.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Tuoi Hac - Golden Age Manor 32 95.0 89.2 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
Summerwood Village Retirement Residence 46 94.7 89.8 99.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
Riverbend Retirement Residence 15 94.7 84.2 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
West Country Hearth 10 94.0 85.7 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
LifeStyle Options Riverbend 8 91.8 81.8 100.0† Below Below Lower
CapitalCare Strathcona 50 91.4 85.4 97.5 Below Below Lower
Salvation Army Grace Manor 30 91.0 81.5 100.0† Below Below Lower
Balwin Villa 30 90.5 82.0 99.0 Below Below Lower
Churchill Retirement Community 19 88.4 74.3 100.0† Below Below Lower
Rutherford Heights Retirement Residence 40 88.4 79.5 97.4 Below Below Lower
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood 56 79.5 71.6 87.5 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 6 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
91.8 95.8
Vilna Villa 7 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Manoir du Lac 15 98.7 96.1 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Mountain View Centre 20 93.9 84.0 100.0† Above Below Low. Mid.
Points West Living Grande Prairie 40 93.2 87.3 99.0 Above Below Lower
Heimstaed Lodge 39 90.7 83.5 97.9 Below Below Lower
Grande Prairie Care Centre 26 74.7 60.2 89.2 Below Below Lower
52
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING, DIMENSIONS OF CARE, AND FOOD RATING SCALE
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 27 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 107 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
94.7 95.8
Chinook Lodge 5 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Orchard Manor 13 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Pleasant View Lodge South 7 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
MacLeod Pioneer Lodge 5 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Piyami Lodge 11 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Meadow Lands 4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Golden Acres Lodge 14 98.6 95.8 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Haven of Rest - South Country Village 11 98.2 94.7 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Clearview Lodge 9 97.8 93.5 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
York Creek Lodge 7 97.2 91.6 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid
Good Samaritan Vista Village 35 97.0 92.4 100.0† Above Above Low. Mid.
Piyami Place 6 96.7 90.2 100.0† Above Above Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan West Highlands 58 95.3 91.7 98.9 Above Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Lee Crest 37 95.0 90.9 99.1 Above Below Low. Mid.
The Wellington Retirement Residence 31 94.8 88.3 100.0† Above Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Prairie Ridge 15 93.4 87.2 99.6 Below Below Lower
Sunny South Lodge 18 93.3 85.6 100.0† Below Below Lower
Cypress View Foundation 17 93.0 81.3 100.0† Below Below Lower
Extendicare Fairmont Park 77 92.5 88.5 96.6 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Linden View 45 92.2 86.9 97.6 Below Below Lower
Leisure Way 7 91.5 79.9 100.0† Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village 62 91.5 85.9 97.0 Below Below Lower
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre
91 90.7 86.2 95.2 Below Below Lower
Columbia Assisted Living 19 89.2 78.3 100.0† Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Garden Vista 14 88.1 75.8 100.0† Below Below Lower
Sunrise Gardens 36 86.1 76.4 95.8 Below Below Lower
Legacy Lodge 61 85.2 77.7 92.6 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.Intheeventofatie,facilitiesarepresentedbytheirGlobalOverallCareratingsfromhighesttolowest.
53
ADDITIONAL CARE QUESTIONS
8.0 ADDITIONAL CARE QUESTIONS
ThefollowingquestionswerenotincludedinthecalculationsoftheDimensionsofCare.Nonetheless,theyprovideimportantinformationonthecareandservicesprovidedbysupportivelivingfacilitiesintheprovince.Thesequestionsassesstheacceptabilityofthequalityandcostofclinicalcareprovidedatsupportivelivingfacilities.Theadditionalcarequestionsare:
(Q25)Inthelastsixmonths,howoftendidthenursesandaidestreatyou[therespondent]withcourtesyandrespect?
(Q30)Inthelastsixmonths,howoftenisyourfamilymembercaredforbythesameteamofstaff?
(Q32)Inthelastsixmonths,howoftenwasthenoiselevelaroundyourfamilymember'sroomacceptabletoyou?
(Q33)Inthelastsixmonths,howoftenwereyouabletofindplacestotalktoyourfamilymemberinprivate?
(Q35)Inthelastsixmonths,didyoueverseethenursesandaidesfailtoprotectanyresident'sprivacywhiletheresidentwasdressing,showering,bathing,orinapublicarea?
(Q39)Atanytimeduringthelastsixmonths,wereyoueverunhappywiththecareyourfamilymemberreceivedatthesupportivelivingfacility?
(Q41)Howoftenwereyousatisfiedwiththewaythesupportivelivingfacilitystaffhandledtheseproblems?
(Q43)Inyouropinion,istheoverallcostoflivingatthisfacilityreasonable?
(Q46)Inthelast12months,haveyoubeenpartofacareconference,eitherinpersonorbyphone?
(Q47)Amongthosewhodidnotparticipateinacareconference(Question46),wereyougiventheopportunitytobepartofacareconferenceinthelast12monthseitherinpersonorbyphone?
(Q51)Inthelastsixmonths,didyouhelpwiththecareofyourfamilymemberwhenyouvisited?
(Q52)Doyoufeelthatsupportivelivingfacilitystaffexpectsyoutohelpwiththecareofyourfamilymemberwhenyouvisit?
(Q54)Inthelastsixmonths,howoftendidyourfamilymemberreceiveallofthemedicalservicesandtreatmentstheyneeded?
(Q55)Inthelastsixmonths,howoftendidyouhaveconcernsaboutyourfamilymember'smedication?
(Q57)Inthelastsixmonths,howoftenwereyourconcernsaboutyourfamilymember’smedicationresolved?
54
ADDITIONAL CARE QUESTIONS
Table15summarizestheabovequestionsforeachfacilitythatparticipatedinthesurvey.Facilitiesaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.TheresultsaresortedbyGlobalOverallCareratingfromhighesttolowest.Foreaseofinterpretation,responseswerecollapsedintotwocategoriesandTable15presentstheresultsforoneoftheseresponsecategories.14
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10pecentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixF.
Thefollowingtableincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=107facilities).
14Thefourresponseoptionsforquestions25,30,32,33,41,54,55,and57wereAlways,Usually,Sometimes,Never,whichweresubsequentlycollapsedinto%Always/Usuallyand%Sometimes/Never.Responseoptionsforquestions35,39,46,47,51,and52wereYes/No.Theresponseoptionsforquestion43wereYes,No,Dont’know,andNotapplicable,whichweresubsequentlycollapsedinto%Yesand%No/Don’tknow/Notapplicable.Theunreportedresponsecategorycanbedeterminedbysubtractingthereportedresultfrom100.Fordetailsonallresponseoptions,seeAppendixF.
55
AD
DIT
ION
AL
CA
RE
QU
ES
TIO
NS
Tab
le 1
5: A
dditi
onal
que
stio
ns
Cal
gar
y
Q2
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id th
e n
urs
es a
nd
aid
es
tre
at y
ou
[th
e
resp
onde
nt]
with
co
urte
sy a
nd
resp
ect?
Q3
0: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
is
your
fam
ily m
embe
r ca
red
for
by
the
sa
me
tea
m o
f sta
ff?
Q3
2: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
as
the
noi
se le
vel
aro
und
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber's
roo
m
acc
ept
able
to
you
?
Q3
3: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u a
ble
to
find
pla
ces
to t
alk
to
your
fam
ily m
embe
r in
pri
vate
?
Q
35
: In
the
last
6
mo
nth
s, d
id y
ou
e
ver
see
the
nur
ses
an
d a
ides
fail
to
pro
tect
an
y re
side
nt's
pri
vacy
w
hile
the
re
side
nt
wa
s d
ress
ing
, sh
ow
erin
g, b
ath
ing
, o
r in
a p
ubl
ic a
rea?
Q3
9:
At a
ny
time
d
urin
g th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
we
re y
ou
e
ver
unh
app
y w
ith
the
care
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber
rece
ived
at
the
sup
port
ive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y?
Q4
1:
Ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u s
atis
fied
with
th
e w
ay
the
su
ppor
tive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y st
aff h
and
led
th
ese
pro
ble
ms?
Q4
3: I
n y
ou
r o
pin
ion
, is
the
o
vera
ll co
st o
f liv
ing
a
t th
is fa
cilit
y re
ason
able
?
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Yes
Mill
rise
Pla
ce
18
10
0.0
18
10
0.0
18
10
0.0
18
10
0.0
17
94
.1
18
88
.9
2
10
0.0
18
88
.9
Pri
nce
of
Pea
ce M
an
or
18
10
0.0
18
77
.8
18
94
.4
18
10
0.0
18
10
0.0
17
88
.2
2
0.0
1
8 7
7.8
Asp
en R
idg
e Lo
dge
19
10
0.0
18
77
.8
19
94
.7
18
10
0.0
18
10
0.0
19
78
.9
3
66
.7
19
89
.5
Whi
teh
orn
Vill
age
18
10
0.0
15
93
.3
18
10
0.0
18
10
0.0
16
10
0.0
18
10
0.0
0
--
18
72
.2
Wal
den
Su
ppo
rtiv
e
Livi
ng C
om
mun
ity
50
10
0.0
46
76
.1
49
95
.9
49
98
.0
47
10
0.0
50
74
.0
11
45
.5
46
69
.6
Silv
er
Will
ow
Lo
dge
2
6 1
00.
0 2
4 8
3.3
2
5 1
00.
0 2
5 9
2.0
2
4 1
00.
0 2
6 7
6.9
4
5
0.0
2
6 7
6.9
McK
en
zie
To
wn
e
Re
tire
me
nt R
esid
en
ce
17
10
0.0
17
82
.4
16
93
.8
17
94
.1
17
94
.1
17
82
.4
3
66
.7
17
76
.5
Ca
rew
est
Co
lon
el
Be
lche
r 1
9 1
00.
0 1
7 1
00.
0 1
9 9
4.7
1
9 1
00.
0 1
8 1
00.
0 1
9 8
4.2
2
0
.0
19
73
.7
Ea
u C
lair
e R
etir
eme
nt
Re
side
nce
40
10
0.0
36
86
.1
40
10
0.0
40
10
0.0
40
10
0.0
40
72
.5
11
63
.6
38
73
.7
Sa
ge
wo
od
Su
ppor
tive
L
ivin
g
33
97
.0
32
84
.4
32
10
0.0
33
10
0.0
32
96
.9
33
75
.8
7
71
.4
33
66
.7
Wen
two
rth
Man
or/T
he
R
esi
denc
e an
d T
he
Co
urt
2
3 1
00.
0 2
0 7
5.0
2
3 1
00.
0 2
2 9
5.5
2
3 9
5.7
2
2 5
4.5
1
0 8
0.0
2
3 7
8.3
Sce
nic
Acr
es
Re
tire
me
nt R
esid
en
ce
6
10
0.0
6
66
.7
6
83
.3
5
10
0.0
5
80
.0
6
50
.0
3
33
.3
6
50
.0
Mo
nte
rey
Pla
ce
54
10
0.0
51
66
.7
55
92
.7
54
98
.1
50
98
.0
52
51
.9
25
56
.0
51
66
.7
56
AD
DIT
ION
AL
CA
RE
QU
ES
TIO
NS
Cen
tral
Q2
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id th
e n
urs
es a
nd
aid
es
tre
at y
ou
[th
e
resp
onde
nt]
with
co
urte
sy a
nd
resp
ect?
Q3
0: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
is
your
fam
ily m
embe
r ca
red
for
by
the
sa
me
tea
m o
f sta
ff?
Q3
2: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
as
the
noi
se le
vel
aro
und
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber's
roo
m
acc
ept
able
to
you
?
Q3
3: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u a
ble
to
find
pla
ces
to t
alk
to
your
fam
ily m
embe
r in
pri
vate
?
Q
35
: In
the
last
6
mo
nth
s, d
id y
ou
e
ver
see
the
nur
ses
an
d a
ides
fail
to
pro
tect
an
y re
side
nt's
pri
vacy
w
hile
the
re
side
nt
wa
s d
ress
ing
, sh
ow
erin
g, b
ath
ing
, o
r in
a p
ubl
ic a
rea?
Q3
9:
At a
ny
time
d
urin
g th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
we
re y
ou
e
ver
unh
app
y w
ith
the
care
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber
rece
ived
at
the
sup
port
ive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y?
Q4
1:
Ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u s
atis
fied
with
th
e w
ay
the
su
ppor
tive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y st
aff h
and
led
th
ese
pro
ble
ms?
Q4
3: I
n y
ou
r o
pin
ion
, is
the
o
vera
ll co
st o
f liv
ing
a
t th
is fa
cilit
y re
ason
able
?
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Yes
Se
reni
ty H
ou
se
6
10
0.0
6
83
.3
6
10
0.0
6
10
0.0
6
10
0.0
6
83
.3
1
10
0.0
5
10
0.0
Isla
y A
ssis
ted
Liv
ing
1
0 1
00.
0 1
0 1
00.
0 1
0 1
00.
0 9
1
00.
0 1
0 1
00.
0 1
0 1
00.
0 0
--
1
0 7
0.0
Su
nris
e V
illag
e W
etas
kiw
in
7
10
0.0
7
10
0.0
7
10
0.0
7
10
0.0
7
10
0.0
7
85
.7
1
10
0.0
7
57
.1
Pro
vid
en
ce P
lace
5
1
00.
0 5
1
00.
0 5
8
0.0
5
1
00.
0 4
7
5.0
5
8
0.0
1
1
00.
0 5
8
0.0
Wes
t Pa
rk L
odg
e 2
1 1
00.
0 1
9 9
4.7
2
1 1
00.
0 2
1 1
00.
0 2
0 1
00.
0 2
1 9
5.2
1
1
00.
0 2
1 9
5.2
Ve
rmill
ion
Va
lley
Lo
dge
15
10
0.0
15
10
0.0
15
10
0.0
15
93
.3
15
10
0.0
15
73
.3
3
10
0.0
14
92
.9
Fa
ith H
ous
e 1
3 1
00.
0 1
1 1
00.
0 1
3 1
00.
0 1
3 1
00.
0 1
3 1
00.
0 1
2 1
00.
0 0
--
1
2 7
5.0
Eck
ville
Man
or
Hou
se
5
10
0.0
4
10
0.0
5
10
0.0
5
10
0.0
5
10
0.0
5
10
0.0
0
--
4
10
0.0
Hill
vie
w L
odg
e 1
9 1
00.
0 1
7 1
00.
0 1
9 9
4.7
1
9 1
00.
0 1
9 1
00.
0 1
9 8
9.5
2
1
00.
0 1
7 8
2.4
Su
nris
e V
illag
e O
lds
9
10
0.0
8
10
0.0
9
10
0.0
9
10
0.0
9
10
0.0
9
88
.9
1
0.0
9
5
5.6
Po
ints
Wes
t Liv
ing
L
loyd
min
ste
r 3
2 1
00.
0 3
2 9
6.9
3
2 1
00.
0 3
2 1
00.
0 3
2 9
6.9
3
2 8
1.3
5
4
0.0
3
0 7
6.7
Su
nris
e V
illag
e (P
on
oka)
1
1 1
00.
0 1
0 1
00.
0 1
1 1
00.
0 1
1 9
0.9
1
0 1
00.
0 1
1 1
00.
0 0
--
1
0 9
0.0
Pin
es
Lodg
e 8
1
00.
0 8
1
00.
0 8
1
00.
0 8
1
00.
0 8
1
00.
0 8
7
5.0
1
1
00.
0 8
8
7.5
Be
than
y M
ea
do
ws
21
10
0.0
18
83
.3
20
10
0.0
20
10
0.0
19
10
0.0
20
85
.0
3
33
.3
17
52
.9
Po
ints
Wes
t Liv
ing
C
en
tury
Pa
rk
24
10
0.0
22
90
.9
23
10
0.0
23
10
0.0
23
10
0.0
24
75
.0
5
60
.0
23
52
.2
Ma
nor
at
Ro
yal O
ak
27
10
0.0
25
80
.0
27
10
0.0
27
10
0.0
26
10
0.0
25
64
.0
9
66
.7
25
84
.0
Co
ron
atio
n H
osp
ital a
nd
Ca
re C
en
tre
8
10
0.0
8
10
0.0
8
87
.5
8
10
0.0
8
10
0.0
8
10
0.0
0
--
8
62
.5
He
rita
ge H
ouse
1
8 1
00.
0 1
6 8
1.3
1
8 1
00.
0 1
7 1
00.
0 1
7 1
00.
0 1
8 6
6.7
5
2
0.0
1
6 4
3.8
Be
than
y S
ylva
n L
ake
1
2 1
00.
0 1
0 8
0.0
1
2 1
00.
0 1
2 1
00.
0 1
2 1
00.
0 1
2 1
00.
0 0
--
1
2 7
5.0
57
AD
DIT
ION
AL
CA
RE
QU
ES
TIO
NS
Cen
tral
Q2
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id th
e n
urs
es a
nd
aid
es
tre
at y
ou
[th
e
resp
onde
nt]
with
co
urte
sy a
nd
resp
ect?
Q3
0: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
is
your
fam
ily m
embe
r ca
red
for
by
the
sa
me
tea
m o
f sta
ff?
Q3
2: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
as
the
noi
se le
vel
aro
und
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber's
roo
m
acc
ept
able
to
you
?
Q3
3: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u a
ble
to
find
pla
ces
to t
alk
to
your
fam
ily m
embe
r in
pri
vate
?
Q
35
: In
the
last
6
mo
nth
s, d
id y
ou
e
ver
see
the
nur
ses
an
d a
ides
fail
to
pro
tect
an
y re
side
nt's
pri
vacy
w
hile
the
re
side
nt
wa
s d
ress
ing
, sh
ow
erin
g, b
ath
ing
, o
r in
a p
ubl
ic a
rea?
Q3
9:
At a
ny
time
d
urin
g th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
we
re y
ou
e
ver
unh
app
y w
ith
the
care
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber
rece
ived
at
the
sup
port
ive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y?
Q4
1:
Ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u s
atis
fied
with
th
e w
ay
the
su
ppor
tive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y st
aff h
and
led
th
ese
pro
ble
ms?
Q4
3: I
n y
ou
r o
pin
ion
, is
the
o
vera
ll co
st o
f liv
ing
a
t th
is fa
cilit
y re
ason
able
?
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Yes
Su
nse
t M
anor
6
4 1
00.
0 5
6 7
8.6
6
5 9
8.5
6
5 9
8.5
6
3 9
5.2
6
2 8
0.6
1
0 7
0.0
6
3 6
0.3
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Go
od
S
he
phe
rd L
uth
eran
H
om
e 3
3 9
7.0
3
1 7
1.0
3
3 1
00.
0 3
2 1
00.
0 3
2 1
00.
0 3
3 7
2.7
8
6
2.5
3
0 6
3.3
Po
ints
Wes
t Liv
ing
W
ain
wri
ght
33
93
.9
31
83
.9
33
10
0.0
32
96
.9
31
96
.8
32
68
.8
9
22
.2
32
53
.1
Su
nris
e V
illag
e C
am
rose
5
2 1
00.
0 4
6 6
0.9
5
2 9
8.1
5
2 9
8.1
5
2 9
8.1
5
2 5
3.8
2
1 5
7.1
4
9 6
7.3
Ext
en
dic
are
Mic
hen
er
Hill
4
0 9
2.5
3
9 6
9.2
4
0 9
2.5
3
9 9
4.9
3
9 9
4.9
3
9 5
3.8
1
6 4
3.8
4
0 6
5.0
Ch
ate
au
Th
ree
Hill
s 8
1
00.
0 7
7
1.4
8
1
00.
0 8
1
00.
0 7
1
00.
0 8
6
2.5
2
5
0.0
6
3
3.3
Cle
arw
ate
r C
entr
e 1
3 9
2.3
1
3 4
6.2
1
3 1
00.
0 1
3 1
00.
0 1
3 9
2.3
1
3 3
8.5
8
1
2.5
1
2 5
0.0
Ed
mo
nto
n
Q2
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id th
e n
urs
es a
nd
aid
es
tre
at y
ou
[th
e
resp
onde
nt]
with
co
urte
sy a
nd
resp
ect?
Q3
0: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
is
your
fam
ily m
embe
r ca
red
for
by
the
sa
me
tea
m o
f sta
ff?
Q3
2: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
as
the
noi
se le
vel
aro
und
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber's
roo
m
acc
ept
able
to
you
?
Q3
3: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u a
ble
to
find
pla
ces
to t
alk
to
your
fam
ily m
embe
r in
pri
vate
?
Q
35
: In
the
last
6
mo
nth
s, d
id y
ou
e
ver
see
the
nur
ses
an
d a
ides
fail
to
pro
tect
an
y re
side
nt's
pri
vacy
w
hile
the
re
side
nt
wa
s d
ress
ing
, sh
ow
erin
g, b
ath
ing
, o
r in
a p
ubl
ic a
rea?
Q3
9:
At a
ny
time
d
urin
g th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
we
re y
ou
e
ver
unh
app
y w
ith
the
care
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber
rece
ived
at
the
sup
port
ive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y?
Q4
1:
Ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u s
atis
fied
with
th
e w
ay
the
su
ppor
tive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y st
aff h
and
led
th
ese
pro
ble
ms?
Q4
3: I
n y
ou
r o
pin
ion
, is
the
o
vera
ll co
st o
f liv
ing
a
t th
is fa
cilit
y re
ason
able
?
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Yes
Wes
t Co
untr
y H
ear
th
10
10
0.0
10
80
.0
10
10
0.0
10
10
0.0
10
10
0.0
10
80
.0
2
10
0.0
10
80
.0
Co
un
try
Co
tta
ge
Se
nio
rs R
esi
den
ce
8
10
0.0
8
10
0.0
8
10
0.0
8
10
0.0
7
10
0.0
8
87
.5
0
--
7
42
.9
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
G
eo
rge
He
nnig
Pla
ce
15
10
0.0
15
10
0.0
15
10
0.0
15
10
0.0
15
10
0.0
15
93
.3
1
0.0
1
3 6
9.2
Pla
ce B
eau
sejo
ur
16
10
0.0
16
81
.3
16
10
0.0
16
10
0.0
16
10
0.0
16
87
.5
2
10
0.0
16
10
0.0
Em
ma
nu
el H
om
e 8
1
00.
0 7
1
00.
0 8
1
00.
0 8
1
00.
0 7
8
5.7
8
8
7.5
1
1
00.
0 8
7
5.0
58
AD
DIT
ION
AL
CA
RE
QU
ES
TIO
NS
Ed
mo
nto
n
Q2
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id th
e n
urs
es a
nd
aid
es
tre
at y
ou
[th
e
resp
onde
nt]
with
co
urte
sy a
nd
resp
ect?
Q3
0: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
is
your
fam
ily m
embe
r ca
red
for
by
the
sa
me
tea
m o
f sta
ff?
Q3
2: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
as
the
noi
se le
vel
aro
und
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber's
roo
m
acc
ept
able
to
you
?
Q3
3: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u a
ble
to
find
pla
ces
to t
alk
to
your
fam
ily m
embe
r in
pri
vate
?
Q
35
: In
the
last
6
mo
nth
s, d
id y
ou
e
ver
see
the
nur
ses
an
d a
ides
fail
to
pro
tect
an
y re
side
nt's
pri
vacy
w
hile
the
re
side
nt
wa
s d
ress
ing
, sh
ow
erin
g, b
ath
ing
, o
r in
a p
ubl
ic a
rea?
Q3
9:
At a
ny
time
d
urin
g th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
we
re y
ou
e
ver
unh
app
y w
ith
the
care
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber
rece
ived
at
the
sup
port
ive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y?
Q4
1:
Ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u s
atis
fied
with
th
e w
ay
the
su
ppor
tive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y st
aff h
and
led
th
ese
pro
ble
ms?
Q4
3: I
n y
ou
r o
pin
ion
, is
the
o
vera
ll co
st o
f liv
ing
a
t th
is fa
cilit
y re
ason
able
?
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Yes
Life
Sty
le O
ptio
ns
Te
rra
Lo
sa
18
10
0.0
16
10
0.0
18
10
0.0
18
10
0.0
18
10
0.0
17
94
.1
1
10
0.0
17
82
.4
Sh
eph
erd
’s C
are
G
reen
field
1
1 1
00.
0 1
1 1
00.
0 1
1 1
00.
0 1
1 9
0.9
1
1 1
00.
0 1
1 9
0.9
1
1
00.
0 1
0 8
0.0
Cita
del M
ew
s W
est
29
96
.6
29
82
.8
29
96
.6
29
10
0.0
28
10
0.0
29
79
.3
4
10
0.0
29
48
.3
Sh
eph
erd
’s G
arde
ns
23
10
0.0
22
95
.5
23
10
0.0
23
95
.7
23
10
0.0
23
87
.0
3
66
.7
23
56
.5
Ro
sed
ale
St.
Alb
ert
40
10
0.0
40
97
.5
40
10
0.0
40
10
0.0
39
97
.4
39
84
.6
6
66
.7
39
76
.9
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Sp
ruce
G
rove
Ce
ntr
e 1
4 1
00.
0 1
4 1
00.
0 1
4 1
00.
0 1
4 1
00.
0 1
4 1
00.
0 1
4 7
8.6
2
5
0.0
1
3 7
6.9
Ro
sed
ale
Est
ate
s 1
7 1
00.
0 1
6 9
3.8
1
7 1
00.
0 1
7 1
00.
0 1
7 1
00.
0 1
7 8
8.2
2
5
0.0
1
6 5
0.0
Gla
sto
nbur
y V
illag
e
23
95
.7
19
94
.7
23
10
0.0
23
10
0.0
23
10
0.0
22
59
.1
6
83
.3
23
65
.2
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
W
edm
an H
ouse
/Vill
age
30
10
0.0
27
85
.2
30
96
.7
30
10
0.0
29
96
.6
30
76
.7
7
42
.9
30
70
.0
Sh
eph
erd
’s C
are
K
en
sin
gton
2
1 1
00.
0 2
1 8
1.0
2
1 1
00.
0 2
1 1
00.
0 2
1 1
00.
0 2
1 7
6.2
3
1
00.
0 2
1 7
1.4
De
von
shire
Man
or
24
10
0.0
23
78
.3
24
10
0.0
24
10
0.0
24
95
.8
24
70
.8
4
75
.0
23
56
.5
Life
Sty
le O
ptio
ns
Riv
erb
end
7
10
0.0
8
75
.0
8
10
0.0
8
10
0.0
8
75
.0
8
75
.0
2
0.0
8
3
7.5
Asp
en H
ouse
4
0 9
5.0
3
9 8
4.6
4
1 1
00.
0 4
1 1
00.
0 4
1 9
7.6
3
9 7
4.4
8
5
0.0
4
0 9
7.5
Wild
Ros
e C
otta
ge
13
10
0.0
13
92
.3
13
92
.3
12
10
0.0
13
10
0.0
13
61
.5
4
50
.0
12
50
.0
Sh
eph
erd
’s C
are
V
an
gua
rd
37
97
.3
35
88
.6
36
94
.4
36
10
0.0
33
10
0.0
36
80
.6
6
33
.3
36
72
.2
Life
Sty
le O
ptio
ns
Le
duc
30
96
.7
30
90
.0
31
93
.5
30
96
.7
30
96
.7
30
73
.3
8
62
.5
30
83
.3
Gra
nd M
anor
1
1 1
00.
0 1
1 9
0.9
1
1 1
00.
0 1
1 1
00.
0 1
1 1
00.
0 1
1 5
4.5
5
1
00.
0 1
1 5
4.5
Ca
pita
lCar
e L
aurie
r H
ou
se L
ynn
wo
od
56
10
0.0
54
61
.1
56
10
0.0
56
10
0.0
54
96
.3
55
40
.0
27
70
.4
53
81
.1
Ro
sed
ale
at
Grie
sba
ch
42
10
0.0
38
89
.5
42
97
.6
42
10
0.0
41
10
0.0
42
69
.0
11
72
.7
42
57
.1
Ca
pita
lCar
e S
tra
thco
na
50
98
.0
49
65
.3
50
98
.0
49
98
.0
47
97
.9
49
57
.1
18
55
.6
49
81
.6
59
AD
DIT
ION
AL
CA
RE
QU
ES
TIO
NS
Ed
mo
nto
n
Q2
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id th
e n
urs
es a
nd
aid
es
tre
at y
ou
[th
e
resp
onde
nt]
with
co
urte
sy a
nd
resp
ect?
Q3
0: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
is
your
fam
ily m
embe
r ca
red
for
by
the
sa
me
tea
m o
f sta
ff?
Q3
2: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
as
the
noi
se le
vel
aro
und
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber's
roo
m
acc
ept
able
to
you
?
Q3
3: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u a
ble
to
find
pla
ces
to t
alk
to
your
fam
ily m
embe
r in
pri
vate
?
Q
35
: In
the
last
6
mo
nth
s, d
id y
ou
e
ver
see
the
nur
ses
an
d a
ides
fail
to
pro
tect
an
y re
side
nt's
pri
vacy
w
hile
the
re
side
nt
wa
s d
ress
ing
, sh
ow
erin
g, b
ath
ing
, o
r in
a p
ubl
ic a
rea?
Q3
9:
At a
ny
time
d
urin
g th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
we
re y
ou
e
ver
unh
app
y w
ith
the
care
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber
rece
ived
at
the
sup
port
ive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y?
Q4
1:
Ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u s
atis
fied
with
th
e w
ay
the
su
ppor
tive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y st
aff h
and
led
th
ese
pro
ble
ms?
Q4
3: I
n y
ou
r o
pin
ion
, is
the
o
vera
ll co
st o
f liv
ing
a
t th
is fa
cilit
y re
ason
able
?
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Yes
Sa
lva
tion
Arm
y G
race
M
an
or
31
93
.5
26
84
.6
31
90
.3
31
93
.5
29
96
.6
31
77
.4
7
57
.1
31
74
.2
Ga
rne
au H
all
10
10
0.0
10
60
.0
10
10
0.0
10
90
.0
10
10
0.0
10
90
.0
1
0.0
1
0 7
0.0
Sa
int
Th
om
as A
ssis
ted
L
ivin
g C
ent
re
31
96
.8
28
89
.3
31
96
.8
30
93
.3
31
10
0.0
30
66
.7
8
62
.5
30
66
.7
Inno
vativ
e H
ou
sing
-
Vill
a M
argu
erite
9
3 9
7.8
8
4 7
2.6
9
5 9
6.8
9
6 9
7.9
9
3 9
8.9
9
6 7
0.8
2
5 5
6.0
9
4 6
0.6
Tu
oi H
ac -
Go
lden
Ag
e
Ma
nor
3
0 9
0.0
3
0 6
6.7
3
2 8
7.5
3
2 1
00.
0 3
1 9
6.8
3
1 6
7.7
1
0 5
0.0
3
0 5
0.0
Su
mm
erw
oo
d V
illa
ge
Re
tire
me
nt R
esid
en
ce
46
97
.8
45
71
.1
46
10
0.0
45
97
.8
45
97
.8
45
53
.3
21
42
.9
43
62
.8
Ru
ther
ford
He
igh
ts
Re
tire
me
nt R
esid
en
ce
38
94
.7
38
84
.2
39
92
.3
40
97
.5
40
95
.0
40
45
.0
18
50
.0
40
62
.5
Bal
win
Vill
a 3
0 9
6.7
2
9 5
5.2
3
0 1
00.
0 3
0 9
6.7
3
0 9
6.7
3
0 6
0.0
1
2 4
1.7
3
0 3
6.7
Riv
erb
end
Re
tirem
en
t R
esi
denc
e 1
5 9
3.3
1
3 8
4.6
1
6 8
7.5
1
6 1
00.
0 1
6 8
7.5
1
6 6
2.5
6
3
3.3
1
4 6
4.3
Ch
urc
hill
Ret
irem
en
t C
om
mun
ity
19
94
.7
18
77
.8
19
94
.7
19
94
.7
19
10
0.0
19
42
.1
11
18
.2
19
84
.2
No
rth
Q2
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id th
e n
urs
es a
nd
aid
es
tre
at y
ou
[th
e
resp
onde
nt]
with
co
urte
sy a
nd
resp
ect?
Q3
0: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
is
your
fam
ily m
embe
r ca
red
for
by
the
sa
me
tea
m o
f sta
ff?
Q3
2: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
as
the
noi
se le
vel
aro
und
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber's
roo
m
acc
ept
able
to
you
?
Q3
3: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u a
ble
to
find
pla
ces
to t
alk
to
your
fam
ily m
embe
r in
pri
vate
?
Q
35
: In
the
last
6
mo
nth
s, d
id y
ou
e
ver
see
the
nur
ses
an
d a
ides
fail
to
pro
tect
an
y re
side
nt's
pri
vacy
w
hile
the
re
side
nt
wa
s d
ress
ing
, sh
ow
erin
g, b
ath
ing
, o
r in
a p
ubl
ic a
rea?
Q3
9:
At a
ny
time
d
urin
g th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
we
re y
ou
e
ver
unh
app
y w
ith
the
care
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber
rece
ived
at
the
sup
port
ive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y?
Q4
1:
Ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u s
atis
fied
with
th
e w
ay
the
su
ppor
tive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y st
aff h
and
led
th
ese
pro
ble
ms?
Q4
3: I
n y
ou
r o
pin
ion
, is
the
o
vera
ll co
st o
f liv
ing
a
t th
is fa
cilit
y re
ason
able
?
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Yes
Viln
a V
illa
7
10
0.0
7
85
.7
7
10
0.0
7
10
0.0
7
10
0.0
7
10
0.0
0
--
6
10
0.0
He
imst
aed
Lo
dge
37
97
.3
36
77
.8
38
94
.7
35
97
.1
38
97
.4
36
72
.2
8
37
.5
34
47
.1
60
AD
DIT
ION
AL
CA
RE
QU
ES
TIO
NS
No
rth
Q2
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id th
e n
urs
es a
nd
aid
es
tre
at y
ou
[th
e
resp
onde
nt]
with
co
urte
sy a
nd
resp
ect?
Q3
0: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
is
your
fam
ily m
embe
r ca
red
for
by
the
sa
me
tea
m o
f sta
ff?
Q3
2: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
as
the
noi
se le
vel
aro
und
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber's
roo
m
acc
ept
able
to
you
?
Q3
3: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u a
ble
to
find
pla
ces
to t
alk
to
your
fam
ily m
embe
r in
pri
vate
?
Q
35
: In
the
last
6
mo
nth
s, d
id y
ou
e
ver
see
the
nur
ses
an
d a
ides
fail
to
pro
tect
an
y re
side
nt's
pri
vacy
w
hile
the
re
side
nt
wa
s d
ress
ing
, sh
ow
erin
g, b
ath
ing
, o
r in
a p
ubl
ic a
rea?
Q3
9:
At a
ny
time
d
urin
g th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
we
re y
ou
e
ver
unh
app
y w
ith
the
care
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber
rece
ived
at
the
sup
port
ive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y?
Q4
1:
Ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u s
atis
fied
with
th
e w
ay
the
su
ppor
tive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y st
aff h
and
led
th
ese
pro
ble
ms?
Q4
3: I
n y
ou
r o
pin
ion
, is
the
o
vera
ll co
st o
f liv
ing
a
t th
is fa
cilit
y re
ason
able
?
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Yes
Ma
noi
r d
u L
ac
15
93
.3
13
69
.2
15
86
.7
15
10
0.0
15
93
.3
13
76
.9
2
50
.0
13
53
.8
Po
ints
Wes
t Liv
ing
G
rand
e P
rairi
e 4
0 9
7.5
3
9 9
2.3
4
0 9
5.0
3
9 1
00.
0 4
0 9
7.5
3
8 5
0.0
1
7 4
1.2
3
8 5
5.3
Mo
unt
ain
Vie
w C
entr
e 2
0 9
5.0
1
9 6
8.4
1
9 9
4.7
1
9 1
00.
0 1
9 9
4.7
1
9 4
2.1
1
0 3
0.0
1
9 4
7.4
Gra
nde
Pra
irie
Car
e
Ce
ntr
e 2
6 1
00.
0 2
5 3
6.0
2
5 9
2.0
2
5 9
6.0
2
4 7
9.2
2
5 4
8.0
1
2 2
5.0
2
3 5
2.2
So
uth
Q2
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id th
e n
urs
es a
nd
aid
es
tre
at y
ou
[th
e
resp
onde
nt]
with
co
urte
sy a
nd
resp
ect?
Q3
0: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
is
your
fam
ily m
embe
r ca
red
for
by
the
sa
me
tea
m o
f sta
ff?
Q3
2: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
as
the
noi
se le
vel
aro
und
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber's
roo
m
acc
ept
able
to
you
?
Q3
3: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u a
ble
to
find
pla
ces
to t
alk
to
your
fam
ily m
embe
r in
pri
vate
?
Q
35
: In
the
last
6
mo
nth
s, d
id y
ou
e
ver
see
the
nur
ses
an
d a
ides
fail
to
pro
tect
an
y re
side
nt's
pri
vacy
w
hile
the
re
side
nt
wa
s d
ress
ing
, sh
ow
erin
g, b
ath
ing
, o
r in
a p
ubl
ic a
rea?
Q3
9:
At a
ny
time
d
urin
g th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
we
re y
ou
e
ver
unh
app
y w
ith
the
care
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber
rece
ived
at
the
sup
port
ive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y?
Q4
1:
Ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u s
atis
fied
with
th
e w
ay
the
su
ppor
tive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y st
aff h
and
led
th
ese
pro
ble
ms?
Q4
3: I
n y
ou
r o
pin
ion
, is
the
o
vera
ll co
st o
f liv
ing
a
t th
is fa
cilit
y re
ason
able
?
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Yes
Cle
arv
iew
Lo
dge
9
1
00.
0 9
8
8.9
9
8
8.9
9
1
00.
0 9
1
00.
0 9
1
00.
0 0
--
9
1
00.
0
Ha
ven
of
Res
t - S
ou
th
Co
un
try
Vill
ag
e 1
1 1
00.
0 1
0 9
0.0
1
1 9
0.9
1
1 1
00.
0 1
1 9
0.9
1
1 9
0.9
1
1
00.
0 1
1 8
1.8
Ch
inoo
k Lo
dge
5
10
0.0
5
10
0.0
5
10
0.0
5
10
0.0
5
10
0.0
5
80
.0
1
10
0.0
5
60
.0
Orc
hard
Man
or
13
10
0.0
13
10
0.0
13
10
0.0
13
10
0.0
13
10
0.0
13
10
0.0
0
--
13
92
.3
Ple
asa
nt V
iew
Lod
ge
So
uth
7
1
00.
0 7
8
5.7
7
1
00.
0 7
8
5.7
7
1
00.
0 7
5
7.1
3
6
6.7
7
8
5.7
Le
isur
e W
ay
7
10
0.0
7
10
0.0
7
10
0.0
7
85
.7
7
10
0.0
7
85
.7
1
10
0.0
7
42
.9
Ma
cLe
od P
ion
eer
Lo
dge
5
10
0.0
5
80
.0
5
10
0.0
5
10
0.0
5
10
0.0
5
10
0.0
0
--
5
80
.0
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
G
ard
en
Vis
ta
14
10
0.0
14
92
.9
14
92
.9
14
10
0.0
13
10
0.0
14
78
.6
3
66
.7
13
61
.5
61
AD
DIT
ION
AL
CA
RE
QU
ES
TIO
NS
So
uth
Q2
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id th
e n
urs
es a
nd
aid
es
tre
at y
ou
[th
e
resp
onde
nt]
with
co
urte
sy a
nd
resp
ect?
Q3
0: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
is
your
fam
ily m
embe
r ca
red
for
by
the
sa
me
tea
m o
f sta
ff?
Q3
2: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
as
the
noi
se le
vel
aro
und
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber's
roo
m
acc
ept
able
to
you
?
Q3
3: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u a
ble
to
find
pla
ces
to t
alk
to
your
fam
ily m
embe
r in
pri
vate
?
Q
35
: In
the
last
6
mo
nth
s, d
id y
ou
e
ver
see
the
nur
ses
an
d a
ides
fail
to
pro
tect
an
y re
side
nt's
pri
vacy
w
hile
the
re
side
nt
wa
s d
ress
ing
, sh
ow
erin
g, b
ath
ing
, o
r in
a p
ubl
ic a
rea?
Q3
9:
At a
ny
time
d
urin
g th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
we
re y
ou
e
ver
unh
app
y w
ith
the
care
yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber
rece
ived
at
the
sup
port
ive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y?
Q4
1:
Ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
u s
atis
fied
with
th
e w
ay
the
su
ppor
tive
livi
ng
fa
cilit
y st
aff h
and
led
th
ese
pro
ble
ms?
Q4
3: I
n y
ou
r o
pin
ion
, is
the
o
vera
ll co
st o
f liv
ing
a
t th
is fa
cilit
y re
ason
able
?
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Alw
ays
/ U
sual
ly
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Yes
Piy
am
i Lod
ge
11
81
.8
11
90
.9
11
10
0.0
11
10
0.0
11
10
0.0
11
72
.7
3
66
.7
11
81
.8
Su
nn
y S
ou
th L
odg
e 1
8 1
00.
0 1
8 8
8.9
1
8 1
00.
0 1
8 1
00.
0 1
8 9
4.4
1
8 7
7.8
3
6
6.7
1
8 6
1.1
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Vis
ta
Vill
age
35
97
.1
35
94
.3
35
94
.3
35
97
.1
34
94
.1
35
85
.7
4
75
.0
34
73
.5
Cyp
ress
Vie
w
Fo
und
atio
n 1
7 9
4.1
1
7 8
8.2
1
7 1
00.
0 1
7 9
4.1
1
7 9
4.1
1
7 7
6.5
4
2
5.0
1
7 6
4.7
Go
lden
Acr
es L
odg
e 1
3 1
00.
0 1
1 1
00.
0 1
3 1
00.
0 1
3 1
00.
0 1
3 1
00.
0 1
4 7
1.4
2
1
00.
0 1
4 6
4.3
Yo
rk C
reek
Lod
ge
7
10
0.0
7
85
.7
7
85
.7
7
10
0.0
7
10
0.0
7
85
.7
1
10
0.0
7
57
.1
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Pra
irie
R
idg
e 1
5 1
00.
0 1
2 1
00.
0 1
5 1
00.
0 1
5 1
00.
0 1
5 9
3.3
1
5 4
6.7
8
7
5.0
1
5 6
6.7
Piy
am
i Pla
ce
5
10
0.0
6
50
.0
6
10
0.0
6
10
0.0
6
83
.3
6
50
.0
3
33
.3
6
50
.0
St.
Th
ere
se V
illa
– S
t.
Mic
hae
ls H
ealth
Ce
ntr
e 9
0 9
8.9
9
0 7
5.6
8
9 9
5.5
9
0 9
8.9
9
0 9
6.7
9
0 6
6.7
2
8 5
3.6
9
1 7
6.9
Th
e W
ellin
gto
n R
etir
em
ent
Res
ide
nce
3
1 1
00.
0 3
1 8
0.6
3
0 1
00.
0 3
1 1
00.
0 3
1 9
3.5
3
0 6
6.7
1
0 7
0.0
3
0 7
0.0
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Wes
t H
igh
land
s 5
7 9
6.5
5
5 7
4.5
5
8 9
6.6
5
7 9
8.2
5
8 9
4.8
5
7 6
6.7
1
7 6
4.7
5
7 6
6.7
Me
ado
w L
and
s 4
1
00.
0 3
6
6.7
4
1
00.
0 4
1
00.
0 4
1
00.
0 4
1
00.
0 0
--
4
7
5.0
Ext
en
dic
are
Fai
rmo
nt
Pa
rk
77
97
.4
73
76
.7
76
92
.1
75
98
.7
75
97
.3
77
64
.9
25
56
.0
73
71
.2
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Pa
rk
Me
ado
ws
Vill
age
62
95
.2
57
73
.7
62
10
0.0
62
93
.5
61
93
.4
60
60
.0
22
54
.5
60
66
.7
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Lin
den
V
iew
4
6 1
00.
0 4
3 7
6.7
4
6 8
9.1
4
5 9
7.8
4
5 9
3.3
4
2 6
6.7
1
2 5
8.3
4
3 6
7.4
Le
gacy
Lod
ge
60
98
.3
57
75
.4
60
10
0.0
59
10
0.0
60
10
0.0
60
60
.0
22
54
.5
58
77
.6
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Le
e
Cre
st
35
94
.3
32
62
.5
36
94
.4
36
97
.2
34
97
.1
35
51
.4
14
42
.9
35
68
.6
Su
nris
e G
ard
ens
36
10
0.0
33
78
.8
36
10
0.0
36
97
.2
36
88
.9
36
58
.3
15
60
.0
36
77
.8
Col
umbi
a A
ssis
ted
L
ivin
g
19
10
0.0
17
82
.4
19
10
0.0
18
10
0.0
17
10
0.0
19
47
.4
9
33
.3
18
61
.1
62
AD
DIT
ION
AL
CA
RE
QU
ES
TIO
NS
Tab
le 1
5: A
dditi
onal
que
stio
ns c
ontin
ued
Cal
gar
y
Q4
6: I
n th
e la
st 1
2 m
on
ths,
ha
ve y
ou
b
een
par
t of a
ca
re
conf
eren
ce, e
ithe
r in
pe
rson
or
by
ph
one?
Q4
7: W
ere
yo
u
giv
en
the
o
ppo
rtun
ity t
o b
e
pa
rt o
f a
care
co
nfer
ence
in th
e
last
12
mon
ths
eith
er
in p
ers
on
or
by
ph
one
?
Q5
1: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
did
yo
u
he
lp w
ith th
e c
are
of
you
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
wh
en
yo
u
visi
ted
?
Q5
2:
Do
yo
u f
eel
that
su
ppor
tive
liv
ing
fac
ility
sta
ff e
xpe
cts
you
to
he
lp
with
th
e ca
re o
f yo
ur f
amily
mem
ber
wh
en
yo
u v
isit?
Q5
4: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
re
ceiv
e a
ll o
f th
e m
edi
cal
serv
ices
an
d tr
eatm
ents
the
y n
eed
ed?
Q5
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
ha
ve
conc
erns
abo
ut
you
r fa
mily
m
embe
r's
me
dic
atio
n?
Q5
7: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
ur
con
cern
s a
bou
t yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber’s
m
edic
atio
n re
solv
ed
?
N
% Y
es
N
% Y
es
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Ne
ver/
S
om
etim
es
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
Mill
rise
Pla
ce
18
94
.4
1
0.0
1
8 4
4.4
1
8 8
8.9
1
8 1
00.
0 1
8 1
00.
0 6
1
00.
0
Prin
ce o
f P
eace
Ma
nor
1
7 7
0.6
5
0
.0
18
61
.1
18
88
.9
18
10
0.0
18
10
0.0
4
75
.0
Asp
en R
idg
e Lo
dge
18
83
.3
4
25
.0
18
66
.7
18
83
.3
18
10
0.0
19
10
0.0
9
10
0.0
Whi
teh
orn
Vill
age
18
72
.2
4
0.0
1
7 5
2.9
1
7 9
4.1
1
7 1
00.
0 1
8 1
00.
0 6
1
00.
0
Wal
den
Su
ppo
rtiv
e L
ivin
g C
om
mu
nity
4
9 7
1.4
1
2 8
.3
50
40
.0
49
93
.9
49
95
.9
49
93
.9
22
86
.4
Silv
er
Will
ow
Lo
dge
2
6 6
9.2
7
1
4.3
2
6 4
2.3
2
6 9
6.2
2
5 9
6.0
2
5 8
8.0
8
8
7.5
McK
en
zie
To
wn
e R
etir
em
ent
Res
ide
nce
1
7 8
8.2
2
5
0.0
1
7 3
5.3
1
7 7
6.5
1
7 1
00.
0 1
7 9
4.1
4
1
00.
0
Ca
rew
est
Co
lon
el B
elc
her
19
73
.7
5
40
.0
18
44
.4
18
77
.8
19
10
0.0
19
10
0.0
8
87
.5
Ea
u C
lair
e R
etir
eme
nt
Re
sid
ence
4
0 8
7.5
3
3
3.3
3
9 5
3.8
4
0 9
2.5
4
0 9
5.0
4
0 9
5.0
1
9 8
9.5
Sa
ge
wo
od
Su
ppor
tive
Liv
ing
33
81
.8
6
50
.0
33
42
.4
32
93
.8
32
93
.8
31
93
.5
12
10
0.0
Wen
two
rth
Man
or/T
he
Res
ide
nce
and
Th
e C
our
t 2
3 9
1.3
2
5
0.0
2
2 5
9.1
2
3 6
5.2
2
3 9
5.7
2
3 9
1.3
1
1 8
1.8
Sce
nic
Acr
es R
etir
em
ent
Res
iden
ce
6
10
0.0
0
--
6
33
.3
5
60
.0
6
10
0.0
6
83
.3
2
10
0.0
Mo
nte
rey
Pla
ce
55
85
.5
8
87
.5
54
38
.9
51
90
.2
55
94
.5
56
96
.4
27
96
.3
63
AD
DIT
ION
AL
CA
RE
QU
ES
TIO
NS
Cen
tral
Q4
6: I
n th
e la
st 1
2 m
on
ths,
ha
ve y
ou
b
een
par
t of a
ca
re
conf
eren
ce, e
ithe
r in
pe
rson
or
by
ph
one?
Q4
7: W
ere
yo
u
giv
en
the
o
ppo
rtun
ity t
o b
e
pa
rt o
f a
care
co
nfer
ence
in th
e
last
12
mon
ths
eith
er
in p
ers
on
or
by
ph
one
?
Q5
1: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
did
yo
u
he
lp w
ith th
e c
are
of
you
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
wh
en
yo
u
visi
ted
?
Q5
2:
Do
yo
u f
eel
that
su
ppor
tive
liv
ing
fac
ility
sta
ff e
xpe
cts
you
to
he
lp
with
th
e ca
re o
f yo
ur f
amily
mem
ber
wh
en
yo
u v
isit?
Q5
4: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
re
ceiv
e a
ll o
f th
e m
edi
cal
serv
ices
an
d tr
eatm
ents
the
y n
eed
ed?
Q5
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
ha
ve
conc
erns
abo
ut
you
r fa
mily
m
embe
r's
me
dic
atio
n?
Q5
7: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
ur
con
cern
s a
bou
t yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber’s
m
edic
atio
n re
solv
ed
?
N
% Y
es
N
% Y
es
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Ne
ver/
S
om
etim
es
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
Se
reni
ty H
ou
se
6
83
.3
1
0.0
6
6
6.7
6
1
00.
0 6
1
00.
0 6
1
00.
0 3
1
00.
0
Isla
y A
ssis
ted
Liv
ing
1
0 4
0.0
5
4
0.0
1
0 9
0.0
1
0 1
00.
0 1
0 1
00.
0 9
1
00.
0 2
1
00.
0
Su
nris
e V
illag
e W
eta
skiw
in
7
57
.1
2
0.0
7
1
4.3
6
6
6.7
6
1
00.
0 7
1
00.
0 3
1
00.
0
Pro
vid
en
ce P
lace
5
8
0.0
1
0
.0
5
0.0
5
6
0.0
5
1
00.
0 5
1
00.
0 2
1
00.
0
Wes
t Pa
rk L
odg
e 2
1 3
3.3
1
3 7
.7
21
42
.9
21
85
.7
21
10
0.0
21
95
.2
5
10
0.0
Ve
rmill
ion
Va
lley
Lo
dge
15
33
.3
9
22
.2
15
53
.3
15
10
0.0
15
10
0.0
15
93
.3
5
10
0.0
Fa
ith H
ous
e 1
2 4
1.7
6
3
3.3
1
1 4
5.5
1
3 9
2.3
1
3 1
00.
0 1
2 9
1.7
3
6
6.7
Eck
ville
Man
or
Hou
se
5
60
.0
1
0.0
5
8
0.0
5
1
00.
0 5
1
00.
0 5
1
00.
0 1
1
00.
0
Hill
vie
w L
odg
e 1
9 4
2.1
1
0 1
0.0
1
9 4
2.1
1
9 9
4.7
1
9 1
00.
0 1
9 1
00.
0 6
1
00.
0
Su
nris
e V
illag
e O
lds
9
77
.8
0
--
9
44
.4
9
10
0.0
9
10
0.0
9
10
0.0
1
10
0.0
Po
ints
Wes
t Liv
ing
Llo
ydm
inst
er
32
28
.1
18
5.6
3
3 5
1.5
3
2 9
0.6
3
3 9
7.0
3
3 9
3.9
1
2 9
1.7
Su
nris
e V
illag
e (P
on
oka)
1
1 9
0.9
1
0
.0
11
36
.4
11
72
.7
11
10
0.0
11
10
0.0
1
10
0.0
Pin
es
Lodg
e 8
8
7.5
1
0
.0
8
37
.5
8
75
.0
8
10
0.0
8
10
0.0
2
10
0.0
Be
than
y M
ea
do
ws
20
80
.0
4
25
.0
21
66
.7
21
90
.5
21
90
.5
21
10
0.0
8
87
.5
Po
ints
Wes
t Liv
ing
Ce
ntur
y P
ark
2
4 4
1.7
1
3 7
.7
24
70
.8
23
91
.3
22
10
0.0
24
87
.5
11
90
.9
Ma
nor
at
Ro
yal O
ak
26
42
.3
15
6.7
2
7 2
5.9
2
7 8
8.9
2
5 9
6.0
2
7 8
8.9
1
4 8
5.7
Co
ron
atio
n H
osp
ital a
nd
Ca
re C
entr
e
8
62
.5
2
0.0
8
7
5.0
8
1
00.
0 8
1
00.
0 8
8
7.5
1
1
00.
0
He
rita
ge H
ouse
1
8 6
6.7
5
0
.0
18
38
.9
18
88
.9
18
94
.4
17
82
.4
8
87
.5
Be
than
y S
ylva
n L
ake
1
2 3
3.3
6
3
3.3
1
2 3
3.3
1
2 1
00.
0 1
2 7
5.0
1
2 1
00.
0 6
1
00.
0
Su
nse
t M
anor
6
4 5
1.6
2
7 7
.4
64
34
.4
64
90
.6
63
92
.1
61
95
.1
32
87
.5
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Go
od
Sh
ephe
rd L
uth
era
n
Ho
me
33
97
.0
1
0.0
3
4 3
2.4
3
3 8
1.8
3
3 9
3.9
3
4 9
4.1
1
8 8
8.9
Po
ints
Wes
t Liv
ing
Wa
inw
rig
ht
33
75
.8
7
42
.9
32
34
.4
31
80
.6
31
96
.8
30
90
.0
16
81
.3
64
AD
DIT
ION
AL
CA
RE
QU
ES
TIO
NS
Cen
tral
Q4
6: I
n th
e la
st 1
2 m
on
ths,
ha
ve y
ou
b
een
par
t of a
ca
re
conf
eren
ce, e
ithe
r in
pe
rson
or
by
ph
one?
Q4
7: W
ere
yo
u
giv
en
the
o
ppo
rtun
ity t
o b
e
pa
rt o
f a
care
co
nfer
ence
in th
e
last
12
mon
ths
eith
er
in p
ers
on
or
by
ph
one
?
Q5
1: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
did
yo
u
he
lp w
ith th
e c
are
of
you
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
wh
en
yo
u
visi
ted
?
Q5
2:
Do
yo
u f
eel
that
su
ppor
tive
liv
ing
fac
ility
sta
ff e
xpe
cts
you
to
he
lp
with
th
e ca
re o
f yo
ur f
amily
mem
ber
wh
en
yo
u v
isit?
Q5
4: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
re
ceiv
e a
ll o
f th
e m
edi
cal
serv
ices
an
d tr
eatm
ents
the
y n
eed
ed?
Q5
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
ha
ve
conc
erns
abo
ut
you
r fa
mily
m
embe
r's
me
dic
atio
n?
Q5
7: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
ur
con
cern
s a
bou
t yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber’s
m
edic
atio
n re
solv
ed
?
N
% Y
es
N
% Y
es
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Ne
ver/
S
om
etim
es
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
Su
nris
e V
illag
e C
am
rose
5
2 9
0.4
5
4
0.0
5
1 3
5.3
5
0 8
8.0
5
1 1
00.
0 5
1 9
0.2
2
5 9
2.0
Ext
en
dic
are
Mic
hen
er H
ill
39
59
.0
15
13
.3
40
42
.5
37
78
.4
40
85
.0
39
94
.9
17
70
.6
Ch
ate
au
Th
ree
Hill
s 8
3
7.5
5
0
.0
8
0.0
5
8
0.0
8
8
7.5
8
8
7.5
5
8
0.0
Cle
arw
ate
r C
entr
e 1
3 9
2.3
1
0
.0
13
15
.4
13
53
.8
13
76
.9
12
83
.3
10
80
.0
Ed
mo
nto
n
Q4
6: I
n th
e la
st 1
2 m
on
ths,
ha
ve y
ou
b
een
par
t of a
ca
re
conf
eren
ce, e
ithe
r in
pe
rson
or
by
ph
one?
Q4
7: W
ere
yo
u
giv
en
the
o
ppo
rtun
ity t
o b
e
pa
rt o
f a
care
co
nfer
ence
in th
e
last
12
mon
ths
eith
er
in p
ers
on
or
by
ph
one
?
Q5
1: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
did
yo
u
he
lp w
ith th
e c
are
of
you
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
wh
en
yo
u
visi
ted
?
Q5
2:
Do
yo
u f
eel
that
su
ppor
tive
liv
ing
fac
ility
sta
ff e
xpe
cts
you
to
he
lp
with
th
e ca
re o
f yo
ur f
amily
mem
ber
wh
en
yo
u v
isit?
Q5
4: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
re
ceiv
e a
ll o
f th
e m
edi
cal
serv
ices
an
d tr
eatm
ents
the
y n
eed
ed?
Q5
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
ha
ve
conc
erns
abo
ut
you
r fa
mily
m
embe
r's
me
dic
atio
n?
Q5
7: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
ur
con
cern
s a
bou
t yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber’s
m
edic
atio
n re
solv
ed
?
N
% Y
es
N
% Y
es
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Ne
ver/
S
om
etim
es
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
Wes
t Co
untr
y H
ear
th
10
70
.0
3
66
.7
10
20
.0
10
10
0.0
10
80
.0
10
90
.0
3
10
0.0
Co
un
try
Co
tta
ge S
en
iors
Re
sid
ence
8
7
5.0
2
0
.0
8
62
.5
7
10
0.0
8
10
0.0
8
10
0.0
5
10
0.0
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Ge
org
e H
enn
ig P
lace
1
3 7
6.9
3
3
3.3
1
5 3
3.3
1
5 8
6.7
1
4 9
2.9
1
5 9
3.3
4
5
0.0
Pla
ce B
eau
sejo
ur
16
75
.0
4
0.0
1
6 4
3.8
1
5 9
3.3
1
6 1
00.
0 1
6 9
3.8
5
8
0.0
Em
ma
nu
el H
om
e 8
5
0.0
4
5
0.0
8
2
5.0
8
1
00.
0 8
1
00.
0 8
8
7.5
3
1
00.
0
Life
Sty
le O
ptio
ns
Te
rra
Losa
1
6 8
1.3
4
5
0.0
1
6 4
3.8
1
8 8
8.9
1
7 1
00.
0 1
8 9
4.4
8
8
7.5
Sh
eph
erd
’s C
are
Gre
enfie
ld
11
72
.7
2
0.0
1
1 2
7.3
1
1 1
00.
0 1
1 1
00.
0 1
1 1
00.
0 4
1
00.
0
Cita
del M
ew
s W
est
29
65
.5
10
50
.0
29
44
.8
29
96
.6
29
96
.6
29
96
.6
13
10
0.0
Sh
eph
erd
’s G
arde
ns
23
47
.8
12
33
.3
23
47
.8
22
90
.9
22
90
.9
23
10
0.0
9
77
.8
Ro
sed
ale
St.
Alb
ert
38
55
.3
17
5.9
4
0 4
2.5
4
0 8
5.0
4
0 9
7.5
4
0 9
7.5
1
3 8
4.6
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Sp
ruce
Gro
ve C
en
tre
14
71
.4
4
25
.0
13
30
.8
13
84
.6
14
10
0.0
13
10
0.0
2
10
0.0
65
AD
DIT
ION
AL
CA
RE
QU
ES
TIO
NS
Ed
mo
nto
n
Q4
6: I
n th
e la
st 1
2 m
on
ths,
ha
ve y
ou
b
een
par
t of a
ca
re
conf
eren
ce, e
ithe
r in
pe
rson
or
by
ph
one?
Q4
7: W
ere
yo
u
giv
en
the
o
ppo
rtun
ity t
o b
e
pa
rt o
f a
care
co
nfer
ence
in th
e
last
12
mon
ths
eith
er
in p
ers
on
or
by
ph
one
?
Q5
1: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
did
yo
u
he
lp w
ith th
e c
are
of
you
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
wh
en
yo
u
visi
ted
?
Q5
2:
Do
yo
u f
eel
that
su
ppor
tive
liv
ing
fac
ility
sta
ff e
xpe
cts
you
to
he
lp
with
th
e ca
re o
f yo
ur f
amily
mem
ber
wh
en
yo
u v
isit?
Q5
4: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
re
ceiv
e a
ll o
f th
e m
edi
cal
serv
ices
an
d tr
eatm
ents
the
y n
eed
ed?
Q5
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
ha
ve
conc
erns
abo
ut
you
r fa
mily
m
embe
r's
me
dic
atio
n?
Q5
7: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
ur
con
cern
s a
bou
t yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber’s
m
edic
atio
n re
solv
ed
?
N
% Y
es
N
% Y
es
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Ne
ver/
S
om
etim
es
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
Ro
sed
ale
Est
ate
s 1
7 5
8.8
7
2
8.6
1
6 4
3.8
1
6 8
7.5
1
6 9
3.8
1
7 8
8.2
6
6
6.7
Gla
sto
nbur
y V
illag
e
23
69
.6
6
0.0
2
3 2
6.1
2
2 8
1.8
2
1 1
00.
0 2
3 9
1.3
7
1
00.
0
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Wed
man
Hou
se/V
illag
e 3
0 6
6.7
1
0 1
0.0
3
0 3
6.7
3
0 9
0.0
3
0 9
6.7
2
8 1
00.
0 8
8
7.5
Sh
eph
erd
’s C
are
Ke
nsi
ngt
on
21
85
.7
3
0.0
2
1 5
7.1
2
0 1
00.
0 2
1 9
5.2
2
1 1
00.
0 9
7
7.8
De
von
shire
Man
or
24
50
.0
11
9.1
2
4 2
0.8
2
3 8
7.0
2
4 9
5.8
2
4 9
1.7
9
8
8.9
Life
Sty
le O
ptio
ns
Riv
erb
end
8
10
0.0
0
--
8
12
.5
8
87
.5
8
10
0.0
8
87
.5
4
10
0.0
Asp
en H
ouse
4
1 4
3.9
2
0 5
.0
40
25
.0
41
82
.9
40
90
.0
38
97
.4
14
78
.6
Wild
Ros
e C
otta
ge
12
41
.7
7
28
.6
13
30
.8
13
84
.6
13
84
.6
13
10
0.0
5
80
.0
Sh
eph
erd
’s C
are
Va
ngu
ard
3
7 5
9.5
1
5 6
.7
36
41
.7
36
77
.8
34
91
.2
35
97
.1
18
94
.4
Life
Sty
le O
ptio
ns
Le
duc
30
36
.7
19
10
.5
31
48
.4
31
93
.5
30
96
.7
31
93
.5
9
77
.8
Gra
nd M
anor
1
1 1
00.
0 0
--
1
1 6
3.6
1
0 9
0.0
1
1 9
0.9
1
1 1
00.
0 5
8
0.0
Ca
pita
lCar
e L
aurie
r H
ouse
Lyn
nw
oo
d 5
6 8
9.3
6
5
0.0
5
4 1
6.7
5
3 7
9.2
5
5 9
4.5
5
6 9
4.6
3
4 9
1.2
Ro
sed
ale
at
Grie
sba
ch
42
50
.0
21
14
.3
41
43
.9
39
87
.2
41
87
.8
41
95
.1
19
89
.5
Ca
pita
lCar
e S
tra
thco
na
49
81
.6
9
66
.7
49
16
.3
49
85
.7
48
95
.8
49
93
.9
27
92
.6
Sa
lva
tion
Arm
y G
race
Man
or
30
80
.0
5
80
.0
30
43
.3
31
83
.9
31
83
.9
31
90
.3
11
54
.5
Ga
rne
au H
all
10
60
.0
3
0.0
1
0 5
0.0
1
0 1
00.
0 9
1
00.
0 1
0 1
00.
0 2
1
00.
0
Sa
int
Th
om
as A
ssis
ted
Liv
ing
Cen
tre
3
0 8
0.0
6
0
.0
30
36
.7
29
86
.2
29
89
.7
30
96
.7
11
72
.7
Inno
vativ
e H
ou
sing
- V
illa
Ma
rgue
rite
9
6 6
4.6
3
2 9
.4
94
41
.5
93
83
.9
97
90
.7
94
90
.4
35
82
.9
Tu
oi H
ac -
Go
lden
Ag
e M
an
or
32
65
.6
10
30
.0
32
43
.8
30
73
.3
32
87
.5
32
78
.1
19
73
.7
Su
mm
erw
oo
d V
illa
ge
Re
tire
me
nt R
esi
den
ce
46
84
.8
3
33
.3
46
17
.4
43
83
.7
46
87
.0
46
91
.3
26
80
.8
Ru
ther
ford
He
igh
ts R
etir
em
en
t Re
sid
enc
e 4
0 7
5.0
1
0 7
0.0
4
0 2
7.5
3
9 7
9.5
4
0 7
7.5
4
0 8
5.0
2
1 6
1.9
66
AD
DIT
ION
AL
CA
RE
QU
ES
TIO
NS
Ed
mo
nto
n
Q4
6: I
n th
e la
st 1
2 m
on
ths,
ha
ve y
ou
b
een
par
t of a
ca
re
conf
eren
ce, e
ithe
r in
pe
rson
or
by
ph
one?
Q4
7: W
ere
yo
u
giv
en
the
o
ppo
rtun
ity t
o b
e
pa
rt o
f a
care
co
nfer
ence
in th
e
last
12
mon
ths
eith
er
in p
ers
on
or
by
ph
one
?
Q5
1: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
did
yo
u
he
lp w
ith th
e c
are
of
you
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
wh
en
yo
u
visi
ted
?
Q5
2:
Do
yo
u f
eel
that
su
ppor
tive
liv
ing
fac
ility
sta
ff e
xpe
cts
you
to
he
lp
with
th
e ca
re o
f yo
ur f
amily
mem
ber
wh
en
yo
u v
isit?
Q5
4: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
re
ceiv
e a
ll o
f th
e m
edi
cal
serv
ices
an
d tr
eatm
ents
the
y n
eed
ed?
Q5
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
ha
ve
conc
erns
abo
ut
you
r fa
mily
m
embe
r's
me
dic
atio
n?
Q5
7: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
ur
con
cern
s a
bou
t yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber’s
m
edic
atio
n re
solv
ed
?
N
% Y
es
N
% Y
es
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Ne
ver/
S
om
etim
es
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
Ba
lwin
Vill
a 3
0 9
0.0
3
3
3.3
3
0 3
0.0
2
9 7
2.4
3
0 9
6.7
2
9 9
6.6
1
3 9
2.3
Riv
erb
end
Re
tirem
en
t R
esi
den
ce
16
56
.3
5
40
.0
16
25
.0
16
87
.5
16
87
.5
16
10
0.0
9
77
.8
Ch
urc
hill
Ret
irem
en
t Co
mm
uni
ty
19
73
.7
5
0.0
1
9 1
5.8
1
9 8
9.5
1
9 1
00.
0 1
9 1
00.
0 7
7
1.4
No
rth
Q4
6: I
n th
e la
st 1
2 m
on
ths,
ha
ve y
ou
b
een
par
t of a
ca
re
conf
eren
ce, e
ithe
r in
pe
rson
or
by
ph
one?
Q4
7: W
ere
yo
u
giv
en
the
o
ppo
rtun
ity t
o b
e
pa
rt o
f a
care
co
nfer
ence
in th
e
last
12
mon
ths
eith
er
in p
ers
on
or
by
ph
one
?
Q5
1: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
did
yo
u
he
lp w
ith th
e c
are
of
you
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
wh
en
yo
u
visi
ted
?
Q5
2:
Do
yo
u f
eel
that
su
ppor
tive
liv
ing
fac
ility
sta
ff e
xpe
cts
you
to
he
lp
with
th
e ca
re o
f yo
ur f
amily
mem
ber
wh
en
yo
u v
isit?
Q5
4: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
re
ceiv
e a
ll o
f th
e m
edi
cal
serv
ices
an
d tr
eatm
ents
the
y n
eed
ed?
Q5
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
ha
ve
conc
erns
abo
ut
you
r fa
mily
m
embe
r's
me
dic
atio
n?
Q5
7: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
ur
con
cern
s a
bou
t yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber’s
m
edic
atio
n re
solv
ed
?
N
% Y
es
N
% Y
es
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Ne
ver/
S
om
etim
es
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
Viln
a V
illa
7
42
.9
4
0.0
7
7
1.4
7
1
00.
0 7
1
00.
0 7
1
00.
0 2
1
00.
0
He
imst
aed
Lo
dge
35
62
.9
10
30
.0
39
38
.5
37
78
.4
38
94
.7
37
86
.5
15
93
.3
Ma
noi
r d
u L
ac
14
92
.9
1
0.0
1
4 1
4.3
1
4 8
5.7
1
5 9
3.3
1
5 8
0.0
4
1
00.
0
Po
ints
Wes
t Liv
ing
Gra
nde
Pra
irie
3
9 5
9.0
1
4 3
5.7
4
0 3
0.0
4
0 7
5.0
3
8 9
2.1
3
9 9
2.3
1
9 8
4.2
Mo
unt
ain
Vie
w C
entr
e 1
9 5
7.9
8
2
5.0
1
8 2
2.2
1
9 6
3.2
1
9 8
4.2
1
9 8
9.5
8
8
7.5
Gra
nde
Pra
irie
Car
e C
entr
e 2
3 3
9.1
1
3 1
5.4
2
6 1
5.4
2
3 7
8.3
2
5 7
6.0
2
3 8
7.0
1
3 7
6.9
67
AD
DIT
ION
AL
CA
RE
QU
ES
TIO
NS
So
uth
Q4
6: I
n th
e la
st 1
2 m
on
ths,
ha
ve y
ou
b
een
par
t of a
ca
re
conf
eren
ce, e
ithe
r in
pe
rson
or
by
ph
one?
Q4
7: W
ere
yo
u
giv
en
the
o
ppo
rtun
ity t
o b
e
pa
rt o
f a
care
co
nfer
ence
in th
e
last
12
mon
ths
eith
er
in p
ers
on
or
by
ph
one
?
Q5
1: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
did
yo
u
he
lp w
ith th
e c
are
of
you
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
wh
en
yo
u
visi
ted
?
Q5
2:
Do
yo
u f
eel
that
su
ppor
tive
liv
ing
fac
ility
sta
ff e
xpe
cts
you
to
he
lp
with
th
e ca
re o
f yo
ur f
amily
mem
ber
wh
en
yo
u v
isit?
Q5
4: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
re
ceiv
e a
ll o
f th
e m
edi
cal
serv
ices
an
d tr
eatm
ents
the
y n
eed
ed?
Q5
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
ha
ve
conc
erns
abo
ut
you
r fa
mily
m
embe
r's
me
dic
atio
n?
Q5
7: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
ur
con
cern
s a
bou
t yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber’s
m
edic
atio
n re
solv
ed
?
N
% Y
es
N
% Y
es
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Ne
ver/
S
om
etim
es
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
Cle
arv
iew
Lo
dge
9
7
7.8
2
5
0.0
9
7
7.8
9
1
00.
0 9
1
00.
0 9
1
00.
0 1
1
00.
0
Ha
ven
of
Res
t - S
ou
th C
oun
try
Vill
ag
e 1
1 5
4.5
5
0
.0
11
54
.5
11
90
.9
11
90
.9
11
10
0.0
3
66
.7
Ch
inoo
k Lo
dge
5
80
.0
0
--
5
80
.0
5
10
0.0
5
10
0.0
5
80
.0
1
10
0.0
Orc
hard
Man
or
13
10
0.0
0
--
13
61
.5
13
92
.3
13
10
0.0
13
10
0.0
3
10
0.0
Ple
asa
nt V
iew
Lod
ge
So
uth
7
42
.9
4
25
.0
7
14
.3
7
10
0.0
7
85
.7
7
71
.4
4
75
.0
Le
isur
e W
ay
7
10
0.0
0
--
7
28
.6
6
10
0.0
7
10
0.0
7
10
0.0
4
10
0.0
Ma
cLe
od P
ion
eer
Lo
dge
5
20
.0
3
0.0
5
4
0.0
5
8
0.0
5
1
00.
0 5
1
00.
0 3
1
00.
0
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Ga
rde
n V
ista
1
4 9
2.9
1
1
00.
0 1
3 1
5.4
1
2 1
00.
0 1
4 9
2.9
1
3 9
2.3
6
8
3.3
Piy
am
i Lod
ge
11
54
.5
3
0.0
1
1 5
4.5
1
1 9
0.9
1
1 1
00.
0 1
1 8
1.8
6
8
3.3
Su
nn
y S
ou
th L
odg
e 1
8 5
0.0
9
2
2.2
1
8 2
2.2
1
8 8
3.3
1
8 8
8.9
1
8 9
4.4
7
7
1.4
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Vis
ta V
illag
e 3
5 8
5.7
4
5
0.0
3
4 2
3.5
3
5 9
1.4
3
4 1
00.
0 3
3 9
0.9
1
4 9
2.9
Cyp
ress
Vie
w F
oun
dat
ion
17
35
.3
9
55
.6
17
35
.3
17
76
.5
17
10
0.0
17
94
.1
6
83
.3
Go
lden
Acr
es L
odg
e 1
4 5
7.1
6
0
.0
14
50
.0
14
85
.7
14
10
0.0
14
10
0.0
6
83
.3
Yo
rk C
reek
Lod
ge
7
42
.9
3
0.0
7
2
8.6
7
1
00.
0 7
1
00.
0 7
1
00.
0 3
1
00.
0
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Pra
irie
Rid
ge
15
80
.0
3
0.0
1
5 3
3.3
1
5 1
00.
0 1
5 1
00.
0 1
3 9
2.3
6
1
00.
0
Piy
am
i Pla
ce
6
50
.0
3
0.0
6
1
6.7
6
1
00.
0 6
1
00.
0 6
8
3.3
3
3
3.3
St.
Th
ere
se V
illa
– S
t. M
ich
aels
He
alth
Cen
tre
91
50
.5
44
13
.6
90
28
.9
87
87
.4
90
86
.7
90
97
.8
34
82
.4
Th
e W
ellin
gto
n R
etir
em
ent
Res
iden
ce
30
83
.3
5
20
.0
30
26
.7
31
71
.0
31
93
.5
29
96
.6
16
10
0.0
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Wes
t Hig
hlan
ds
58
86
.2
6
0.0
5
5 2
3.6
5
5 8
5.5
5
5 8
7.3
5
7 9
3.0
2
8 8
2.1
Me
ado
w L
and
s 4
1
00.
0 0
--
4
7
5.0
4
7
5.0
4
1
00.
0 4
1
00.
0 3
1
00.
0
Ext
en
dic
are
Fai
rmo
nt P
ark
7
6 7
2.4
1
8 7
2.2
7
6 2
7.6
7
7 8
1.8
7
7 9
4.8
7
7 9
3.5
3
3 8
4.8
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Pa
rk M
ead
ow
s V
illa
ge
62
88
.7
7
57
.1
62
41
.9
62
83
.9
62
91
.9
61
83
.6
31
74
.2
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Lin
den
Vie
w
43
69
.8
13
15
.4
46
23
.9
46
82
.6
46
97
.8
44
93
.2
17
88
.2
68
AD
DIT
ION
AL
CA
RE
QU
ES
TIO
NS
So
uth
Q4
6: I
n th
e la
st 1
2 m
on
ths,
ha
ve y
ou
b
een
par
t of a
ca
re
conf
eren
ce, e
ithe
r in
pe
rson
or
by
ph
one?
Q4
7: W
ere
yo
u
giv
en
the
o
ppo
rtun
ity t
o b
e
pa
rt o
f a
care
co
nfer
ence
in th
e
last
12
mon
ths
eith
er
in p
ers
on
or
by
ph
one
?
Q5
1: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
did
yo
u
he
lp w
ith th
e c
are
of
you
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
wh
en
yo
u
visi
ted
?
Q5
2:
Do
yo
u f
eel
that
su
ppor
tive
liv
ing
fac
ility
sta
ff e
xpe
cts
you
to
he
lp
with
th
e ca
re o
f yo
ur f
amily
mem
ber
wh
en
yo
u v
isit?
Q5
4: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
r fa
mily
m
em
ber
re
ceiv
e a
ll o
f th
e m
edi
cal
serv
ices
an
d tr
eatm
ents
the
y n
eed
ed?
Q5
5: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
d
id y
ou
ha
ve
conc
erns
abo
ut
you
r fa
mily
m
embe
r's
me
dic
atio
n?
Q5
7: I
n th
e la
st 6
m
on
ths,
ho
w o
ften
w
ere
yo
ur
con
cern
s a
bou
t yo
ur
fam
ily
mem
ber’s
m
edic
atio
n re
solv
ed
?
N
% Y
es
N
% Y
es
N
% N
o
N
% N
o
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
N
%
Ne
ver/
S
om
etim
es
N
% A
lwa
ys/
Usu
ally
Le
gacy
Lod
ge
60
65
.0
17
0.0
6
0 3
1.7
5
8 8
4.5
6
1 9
3.4
5
9 8
9.8
3
3 7
8.8
Go
od
Sa
ma
ritan
Le
e C
rest
3
6 9
1.7
3
3
3.3
3
6 1
3.9
3
4 7
3.5
3
5 8
2.9
3
6 9
1.7
2
2 7
7.3
Su
nris
e G
ard
ens
36
94
.4
2
10
0.0
36
30
.6
35
80
.0
36
91
.7
36
86
.1
24
87
.5
Col
umbi
a A
ssis
ted
Liv
ing
19
57
.9
5
20
.0
19
21
.1
19
73
.7
19
78
.9
19
89
.5
9
88
.9
69
RELATIONS
9.0 RS
ThissectiGlobalOvrespondetheupper
Fordetail
9.1 S
Facilities17.6outoEnvironm
Figure 2:rating qua
1
Sta
ffin
g, C
are
of
Bel
on
gin
gs,
an
d
En
viro
nm
ent
mea
n s
core
(0
to 1
00)
SHIP BETWEEN
RELATIONSCALE AN
onpresentscverallCareratntmeanscorrquartileofth
lsonquestion
Staffing, C
intheupperof100points)mentDimensio
: Staffing, Caartile
Mean
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
00.0
N DIMENSIONS
NSHIP BETND GLOBA
comparativertingforeachoresoneachDiheGlobalOve
n‐levelresults
Care of Be
quartileofGl)thanfacilitieonofCare(Fi
are of Belong
Lower
69.4
OF CARE, FOO
TWEEN DAL OVERA
resultsbetweofthefourDiimensionofCerallCarerati
sbyupperan
longings,
lobalOverallesintheloweigure2).
gings, and En
Lower
74
OD RATING SCA
IMENSIONALL CARE
eenlowerandimensionsofCareweresiging,relativet
ndlowerquar
and Envi
Careratingsserquartileon
nvironment D
middle
4.7
ALE AND GLOBA
NS OF CAE RATING
dupperquartCareandFoonificantlyhigtothelowerq
rtilegrouping
ironment
scoredsignifintheStaffing,
Dimension of
Upper mid
81.8
AL OVERALL C
ARE, FOOG
tilefacilitiesbodRatingScalgherinfacilitiquartile.
gs,seeAppen
ficantlyhigheCareofBelon
Care by Glo
ddle
CARE RATING
D RATING
basedonthele.Overall,iescategorize
ndixI.
r(differencengings,and
obal Overall C
Upper
87.0
70
G
edin
of
Care
RELATIONS
9.2 K
Facilities9.9outofCare(Figu
Figure 3:
9.3 F
Facilities1.3outof
Figure 4:
1
Kin
dn
ess
and
Res
pec
t m
ean
sco
re
(0 t
o 1
00)
M
1
Fo
od
Rat
ing
Sca
le m
ean
sco
re(0
to
10)
SHIP BETWEEN
Kindness a
intheupperf 100points)ture3).
: Kindness a
Food Ratin
intheupperf 10points)th
: Food Rating
Mean
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
00.0
Mean
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
0.0
N DIMENSIONS
and Resp
quartileofGlthanfacilities
nd Respect D
ng Scale
quartileofGlhanfacilitiesi
g Scale by G
Lower
81.4
Lower
6.7
OF CARE, FOO
ect
lobalOverallsinthelower
Dimension of
lobalOverallinthelowerq
Global Overal
Lower
85
Lower m
6.
OD RATING SCA
Careratingssrquartileont
f Care by Glo
Careratingssquartileonth
l Care rating
middle
5.5
middle
9
ALE AND GLOBA
scoredsignifitheKindness
obal Overall
scoredsignifiheFoodRatin
g quartile
Upper mid
87.8
Upper midd
7.3
AL OVERALL C
ficantlyhigheandRespect
Care rating q
ficantlyhighengScale(Figu
ddle
dle
CARE RATING
r(differenceDimensiono
quartile
r(differenceure4).
Upper
91.3
Upper
8.0
71
off
of
RELATIONS
9.4 P
Facilities10.4outoEncourag
Figure 5:Overall C
9.5 M
Facilities7.0outof(Figure6
Figure 6:
Pro
vid
ing
In
form
atio
n a
nd
E
nco
ura
gin
g F
amily
In
volv
emen
t m
ean
sco
re(0
to10
0)
1
Mee
tng
Bas
ic N
eed
s m
ean
sco
re
(0 t
o 1
00)
SHIP BETWEEN
Providing
intheupperof100points)gingFamilyIn
: Providing InCare rating qu
Meeting Ba
intheupperf 100points)t6).
: Meeting Ba
Mean
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
mea
n s
core
(0
to 1
00)
Mean
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
00.0
N DIMENSIONS
Informatio
quartileofGl)thanfacilitienvolvementD
nformation anuartile
asic Need
quartileofGlthanfacilities
asic Needs D
Lower
80.0
Lower
92.0
OF CARE, FOO
on and En
lobalOverallesintheloweDimensionofC
nd Encourag
ds
lobalOverallsinthelower
imension of
Lowe
Lower
93
OD RATING SCA
ncouragin
CareratingsserquartileonCare(Figure
ing Family In
Careratingssrquartileont
Care by Glob
er middle
82.6
middle
3.9
ALE AND GLOBA
ng Family
scoredsignifintheProvidin5).
nvolvement D
scoredsignifitheMeetingB
bal Overall C
Upper mid
85.7
Upper mid
97.0
AL OVERALL C
Involvem
ficantlyhighengInformatio
Dimension of
ficantlyhigheBasicNeedsD
Care rating qu
ddle
ddle
CARE RATING
ent
r(differenceonand
f Care by Glo
r(differenceDimensionof
uartile
Upper
90.4
Upper
99.0
72
of
obal
ofCare
FACILITY-LEVEL EFFECTS: FACILITY SIZE AND OWNERSHIP TYPE
10.0 FACILITY-LEVEL EFFECTS: FACILITY SIZE AND OWNERSHIP TYPE
ThissectionpresentsdataontheimpactoffacilitysizeandfacilityownershiptypeonGlobalOverallCareratings,thefourDimensionsofCare,andtheFoodRatingScale.
Facilitysizewasmeasuredbythenumberofbedsateachfacility.InformationonthenumberofbedswascollectedfromAHSusingcurrentdata,asofMarch2012.Thenumberincludesallbedswithinthefacility(i.e.,supportivelivingandlongtermcare).Itisrecognizedthatthetotalnumberofbedsmaynotbecompletelyaccurate(therewasacertaindegreeofvariabilityinthedownsizingandupsizingofsomefacilitiesduringthestudyperiod).Cautionshouldbetakenwheninterpretingresultsthatrefertothenumberofbeds.Ingeneral,facilitysizereportedreflectsareasonableestimateofthesizeofthefacilityatthetimeofthesurvey.
Inadditiontofacilitysize,threefacilityownershipmodelswereexaminedtodeterminetheirimpactonthefamilies’experiencesofthecareandservicesprovidedatasupportivelivingfacility.TheownershipcategoryofeachfacilitywasidentifiedusingAHS2012data.ThethreeownershipmodelsthatprovidepublicallyfundedsupportivelivingcareinAlberta(asof2012)are:
1. Public–operatedbyorwhollyownedsubsidiaryofAHS
2. Private–ownedbyaprivateforprofitorganization
3. Voluntary–ownedbyanot‐for‐profitorfaith‐basedorganization
73
FACILITY-LEVEL EFFECTS: FACILITY SIZE AND OWNERSHIP TYPE
10.1 Facility size
Facilitiesincludedinthefollowinganalyses(N=107)rangedinbednumbersfrom10to280,withaprovincialaverageof63bedsperfacility.ThetablesinthissectionshowthatfacilitiescategorizedinthelowerquartileonGlobalOverallCareratingshadonaverageapproximatelythreetimesasmanybedsascomparedtofacilitiesthatwerecategorizedintheupperquartile(94versus29beds;Table16).AnalysesofeachoftheDimensionsofCareshowedsimilarresults:facilitiescategorizedinthelowerquartileofaDimensionofCareortheFoodRatingScalehadonaverageapproximatelytwotothreetimesasmanybedscomparedtofacilitiescategorizedintheupperquartile(seefollowingtables).ResultsshowthatfacilitieswithfewerbedsaremorelikelytoobtainahigherGlobalOverallCareratingandhigherscoresoneachoftheDimensionsofCare.
Follow‐upanalysesshowedthatasfacilitysizeincreasesuptoapproximately100beds,scoresontheGlobalOverallCarerating,KindnessandRespectDimensionofCare,andtheFoodRatingScaledecrease.However,theeffectofincreasingbednumbersplateausinfacilitieswithgreaterthan100beds.Formoreinformationontheseanalyses,seeAppendixJ.
10.1.1 Global Overall Care ratings
Table 16: Mean number of beds by Global Overall Care rating quartiles
Global Overall Care rating quartiles Mean number of beds 95% CI
Lower Upper
Upper (27 facilities) 29 21 37
Upper middle (27 facilities) 54 38 71
Lower middle (27 facilities) 75 57 94
Lower (26 facilities) 94 72 117
10.1.2 Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment
Table 17: Mean number of beds by Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment Dimension of Care quartiles
Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment quartiles
Mean number of beds 95% CI
Lower Upper
Upper (26 facilities) 34 25 44
Upper middle (27 facilities) 47 33 61
Lower middle (27 facilities) 74 56 92
Lower (27 facilities) 96 72 119
74
FACILITY-LEVEL EFFECTS: FACILITY SIZE AND OWNERSHIP TYPE
10.1.3 Kindness and Respect
Table 18: Mean number of beds by Kindness and Respect Dimension of Care quartiles
Kindness and Respect quartiles Mean number of beds 95% CI
Lower Upper
Upper (26 facilities) 38 27 50
Upper middle (27 facilities) 55 41 70
Lower middle (27 facilities) 87 64 110
Lower (27 facilities) 69 48 91
10.1.4 Food Rating Scale
Table 19: Mean number of beds by Food Rating Scale quartiles
Food Rating quartiles Mean number of beds 95% CI
Lower Upper
Upper (26 facilities) 30 23 37
Upper middle (27 facilities) 52 36 68
Lower middle (28 facilities) 78 56 101
Lower (26 facilities) 90 70 110
10.1.5 Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement
Table 20: Mean number of beds by Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement Dimension of Care quartiles
Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvment quartiles
Mean number of beds 95% CI:
Lower Upper
Upper (27 facilities) 34 25 43
Upper middle (26 facilities) 65 47 82
Lower middle (27 facilities) 78 53 102
Lower (27 facilities) 75 56 94
75
FACILITY-LEVEL EFFECTS: FACILITY SIZE AND OWNERSHIP TYPE
10.1.6 Meeting Basic Needs
Table 21: Mean number of beds by Meeting Basic Needs Dimension of Care quartiles
Meeting Basic Needs quartiles Mean number of beds 95% CI
Lower Upper
Upper (26 facilities) 27 22 32
Upper middle (27 facilities) 70 49 91
Lower middle (27 facilities) 68 52 84
Lower (27 facilities) 85 62 108
76
FACILITY-L
10.2 F
AnalysesDimensiofortheGloDifferenceeachDimethatcomp
10.2.1 G
Figure 7:
Mea
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
Ove
rall
Car
e R
atin
g S
ite
Mea
n -
0 to
10
LEVEL EFFECTS
Facility ow
oftheinfluennsofCareshobalOverallCeswerefoundensionofCarpriseeachDim
Global Over
: Global Ove
AHS
an
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
S: FACILITY SIZ
wnership
nceoffacilityowedthattheCarerating,thdamongfacilre.ForadditiomensionofCa
rall Care rat
rall Care rati
S (8 facilities)
8.7
ZE AND OWNER
ownershiptyerewerenosheDimensionlityownershionaldetails,inare,seeAppe
tings
ngs as a fun
) P
RSHIP TYPE
ypeontheGlosignificantdifnsofCaremeiptypeswithncludinganaendixK.
ction of owne
Private (54 fac
8.3
obalOverallCfferencesamoeanscores,orrespecttothanalysisofthe
ership type
cilities)
CareratinganongfacilityowrtheFoodRatheindividualqeindividuals
Voluntary
8
ndeachofthewnershiptyptingScale.questionswitsurveyquestio
(45 facilities)
8.5
epes
thinons
77
FACILITY-L
10.2.2 S
Figure 8:
10.2.3 K
Figure 9:
1
Sta
ffin
g, C
are
of
Bel
oin
gin
gs
and
E
nvi
ron
men
t m
ean
sco
re (
0 to
100
)
1
Kin
dn
ess
and
Res
pec
t m
ean
sco
re
(0 t
o 1
00)
LEVEL EFFECTS
Staffing, Car
: Staffing, Ca
Kindness an
: Kindness a
A
Mean
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
00.0
A
Mean
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
00.0
S: FACILITY SIZ
re of Belon
are of Belong
nd Respect
nd Respect a
AHS (8 facilit
81.4
AHS (8 facilit
84.3
ZE AND OWNER
gings, and
gings, and En
as a function
ties)
ties)
RSHIP TYPE
Environme
nvironment a
of ownershi
Private (54 f
77.3
Private (54 f
85.5
ent
as a function
p type
facilities)
3
facilities)
5
of ownership
Voluntary
7
Voluntary
8
p type
(45 facilities)
79.0
(45 facilities)
86.6
)
)
78
FACILITY-L
10.2.4 F
Figure 10
10.2.5 P
Figure 11type
Mea
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Fo
od
Rat
ing
Sca
le m
ean
sco
re (
0 to
100
)P
rovi
din
g I
nfo
rmat
ion
an
d E
nco
ura
gin
g
Fam
ily I
nvo
lvem
ent
mea
n s
core
(0
to10
0)
LEVEL EFFECTS
Food Rating
0: Food Ratin
Providing Inf
1: Providing
AHS
an
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mean
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
(0 t
o 1
00)
S: FACILITY SIZ
g Scale
ng Scale as
formation a
Information a
S (8 facilities)
7.2
AHS (8 fac
85.0
ZE AND OWNER
a function of
and Encour
and Encoura
) P
cilities)
RSHIP TYPE
ownership ty
raging Fam
aging Family
Private (54 fac
7.3
Private (54
84
ype
ily Involvem
Involvement
cilities)
4 facilities)
4.0
ment
as a functio
Voluntary (
7
Voluntary
n of ownersh
(45 facilities)
7.2
y (45 facilities
85.3
hip
)
79
FACILITY-L
10.2.6 M
Figure 12
1
Mee
tin
g B
asic
Nee
ds
mea
n s
core
(0
to
100
)
LEVEL EFFECTS
Meeting Bas
2: Meeting B
A
Mean
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
00.0
S: FACILITY SIZ
sic Needs
Basic Needs a
AHS (8 facilit
94.0
ZE AND OWNER
as a function
ties)
RSHIP TYPE
of ownershi
Private (54 f
95.3
p type
facilities)
3
Voluntary
9
(45 facilities)
96.7
)
80
PROPENSITY TO RECOMMEND FACILITY
11.0 PROPENSITY TO RECOMMEND FACILITY
(SurveyQuestion49):Ifsomeoneneededsupportivelivingfacilitycare,wouldyourecommendthissupportivelivingfacility?
Animportantindicatortotheperceivedqualityofafacilityiswhetherafamilymemberwouldrecommendthefacilitytosomeoneneedingsupportivelivingfacility.Forthisreason,aseparatesectionwasdevotedtoGeneralSatisfactionQuestion49(Q49)regardingthepropensitytorecommend.
Thissectionisstructuredasfollows:
Facilitylistbypercentageofthosewhowouldrecommend(Q49)
RelationshipbetweenpropensitytorecommendandGlobalOverallCareratingquartile
Resultsbyfacilitysizeandownershiptype
Question49ispresentedintwoways:
1. Four‐levelresponsestoQuestion49:
a) DefinitelyNo
b) ProbablyNo
c) ProbablyYes
d) DefinitelyYes
2. Binaryresponse,recommendation:YES/NO
a) Yes(ProbablyYesandDefinitelyYes)
b) No(ProbablyNoandDefinitelyNo)
81
PROPENSIT
11.1 P
Provinciafacility(D
Figure 13
Table 22
Definitely n
Probably n
Probably y
Definitely y
Tota
*significantly
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
TY TO RECOMM
Propensity
lly,92.0percDefinitelyYeso
3: Provincial
: Zone summ
C
(N
no
o
yes
yes
al 1
ydifferentcompa
Defi
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MEND FACILITY
y to recom
centofresponorProbablyY
summary of
mary of respo
algary
= 353) (
%
0.8
4.5
37.1
57.5
100.0
aredtotheAlbert
initely no
2.0
Y
mmend – p
ndentsstatedYes).
responses fo
onses for pro
Central
N = 526)
%
1.7
5.5
37.1
55.7
100.0
taresult
Probab
6.0
provincial
dthattheywo
or propensity
opensity to re
Edmonton
(N = 969)
%
2.6
6.0
38.3
53.1
100.0
bly no
0
l and zone
oulddefinitely
y to recomme
ecommend
North
(N = 162)
%
4.3*
9.9*
43.2
42.6*
100.0
Probably ye
38.2
e results (
yorprobably
end
South
(N = 709
%
1.4
6.3
38.4
53.9
100.0
es De
(Q49)
yrecommend
)
Alber
(N = 2,7
%
2.0
6.0
38.2
53.8
100.
efinitely yes
53.8
the
rta
719)
0
0
2
8
.0
82
PROPENSITY TO RECOMMEND FACILITY
Thefollowingtable(Table23)summarizesrespondents’propensitytorecommend(YES/NO)foreachfacility.Facilitiesarepresentedbypercentageofrespondentswillingtorecommendthefacilityandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixF.
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=107facilities).
Table 23: Summary of the percentage of respondents who would recommend the facility by Global Overall Care rating
Calgary Respondent
(N) Percentage willing to
recommend (%) Global Overall Care
rating
Millrise Place 18 100.0 9.2
Aspen Ridge Lodge 19 100.0 9.0
Whitehorn Village 17 100.0 9.0
Silver Willow Lodge 24 100.0 8.8
McKenzie Towne Retirement Residence 17 100.0 8.5
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence 6 100.0 8.2
Walden Supportive Living Community 50 98.0 8.8
Eau Claire Retirement Residence 40 97.5 8.4
Sagewood Supportive Living 33 97.0 8.4
Carewest Colonel Belcher 19 94.7 8.4
Prince of Peace Manor 18 94.4 9.1
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court
23 91.3 8.3
Monterey Place 55 80.0 7.5
Central Respondent
(N) Percentage willing to
recommend (%) Global Overall Care
rating
Serenity House 6 100.0 9.8
Islay Assisted Living 10 100.0 9.6
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 7 100.0 9.4
Providence Place 5 100.0 9.4
83
PROPENSITY TO RECOMMEND FACILITY
Central Respondent
(N) Percentage willing to
recommend (%) Global Overall Care
rating
West Park Lodge 21 100.0 9.4
Vermillion Valley Lodge 15 100.0 9.3
Faith House 13 100.0 9.3
Eckville Manor House 5 100.0 9.2
Hillview Lodge 19 100.0 9.2
Sunrise Village (Ponoka) 11 100.0 8.6
Pines Lodge 8 100.0 8.6
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre 8 100.0 8.5
Bethany Sylvan Lake 12 100.0 8.2
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
34 100.0 8.1
Points West Living Lloydminster 33 97.0 8.7
Manor at Royal Oak 27 96.3 8.5
Bethany Meadows 21 95.2 8.6
Sunset Manor 62 95.2 8.2
Heritage House 18 94.4 8.2
Points West Living Century Park 24 91.7 8.5
Sunrise Village Olds 9 88.9 8.9
Chateau Three Hills 8 87.5 7.3
Sunrise Village Camrose 51 86.3 7.6
Points West Living Wainwright 32 81.3 7.8
Extendicare Michener Hill 36 80.6 7.3
Clearwater Centre 13 53.8 6.5
Edmonton Respondent
(N) Percentage willing to
recommend (%) Global Overall Care
rating
West Country Hearth 10 100.0 9.7
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place 15 100.0 9.1
Place Beausejour 16 100.0 9.1
Emmanuel Home 8 100.0 9.1
LifeStyle Options Terra Losa 17 100.0 8.8
Shepherd’s Care Greenfield 11 100.0 8.8
Shepherd’s Gardens 23 100.0 8.7
Rosedale St. Albert 40 100.0 8.7
Shepherd’s Care Kensington 21 100.0 8.4
84
PROPENSITY TO RECOMMEND FACILITY
Edmonton Respondent
(N) Percentage willing to
recommend (%) Global Overall Care
rating
Devonshire Manor 24 100.0 8.4
LifeStyle Options Riverbend 8 100.0 8.4
Wild Rose Cottage 12 100.0 8.3
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood 53 98.1 8.1
Citadel Mews West 28 96.4 8.8
CapitalCare Strathcona 50 96.0 8.1
Glastonbury Village 23 95.7 8.5
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 35 94.3 8.2
Rosedale Estates 17 94.1 8.6
Salvation Army Grace Manor 31 93.5 8.0
Tuoi Hac - Golden Age Manor 31 93.5 7.5
LifeStyle Options Leduc 30 93.3 8.2
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre 14 92.9 8.6
Rosedale at Griesbach 42 92.9 8.1
Aspen House 40 92.5 8.3
Garneau Hall 10 90.0 7.9
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre 30 90.0 7.9
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite 98 87.8 7.8
Country Cottage Seniors Residence 8 87.5 9.4
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village 30 86.7 8.4
Rutherford Heights Retirement Residence
40 85.0 7.0
Grand Manor 11 81.8 8.2
Riverbend Retirement Residence 16 81.3 6.8
Summerwood Village Retirement Residence
46 78.3 7.5
Churchill Retirement Community 17 76.5 6.7
Balwin Villa 28 71.4 6.9
North Respondent
(N) Percentage willing to
recommend (%) Global Overall Care
rating
Vilna Villa 7 100.0 9.1
Heimstaed Lodge 38 92.1 8.3
Points West Living Grande Prairie 39 89.7 7.4
Manoir du Lac 14 85.7 7.9
Grande Prairie Care Centre 25 68.0 6.8
Mountain View Centre 18 66.7 6.8
85
PROPENSITY TO RECOMMEND FACILITY
South Respondent
(N) Percentage willing to
recommend (%) Global Overall Care
rating
Clearview Lodge 9 100.0 9.9
Haven of Rest - South Country Village 11 100.0 9.5
Chinook Lodge 5 100.0 9.4
Orchard Manor 13 100.0 9.2
Pleasant View Lodge South 7 100.0 9.0
Leisure Way 6 100.0 9.0
MacLeod Pioneer Lodge 5 100.0 9.0
Piyami Lodge 11 100.0 8.6
Sunny South Lodge 18 100.0 8.6
Cypress View Foundation 17 100.0 8.5
York Creek Lodge 7 100.0 8.4
Good Samaritan Prairie Ridge 15 100.0 8.3
Good Samaritan West Highlands 56 96.4 8.0
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre
90 94.4 8.1
Good Samaritan Vista Village 35 94.3 8.5
Extendicare Fairmont Park 76 93.4 8.0
Legacy Lodge 60 93.3 7.9
Golden Acres Lodge 14 92.9 8.4
Good Samaritan Garden Vista 13 92.3 8.6
Good Samaritan Lee Crest 36 88.9 7.7
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village 61 86.9 8.0
Sunrise Gardens 34 85.3 7.5
Good Samaritan Linden View 45 84.4 8.0
The Wellington Retirement Residence 31 83.9 8.0
Piyami Place 6 83.3 8.2
Columbia Assisted Living 19 78.9 7.4
Meadow Lands 4 75.0 8.0
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.Intheeventofatie,facilitiesarepresentedbytheirGlobalOverallCareratingsfromhighesttolowest.
86
PROPENSIT
11.2 P
ThefollowGlobalOv
ComparedgreaterpeGlobalOv14).
Figure 14rating qua
Perce
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
TY TO RECOMM
Propensity
wingsectiondverallCarerat
dtorespondeercentageofrverallCarerat
4: Percentagartile
entage (%)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
MEND FACILITY
y to recom
describesresting.
entswithafarespondentstingsstatedth
ge who would
Lower
84.6
Y
mmend by
pondents’pr
milymemberwithafamilyhattheywou
d recommend
Low
y Global O
ropensitytor
rresidinginaymemberlivildrecommen
d their family
wer middle
94.9
Overall Car
recommendth
alowerquartinginafacilitndthefacility
y members’ fa
Upper m
96.6
re rating q
hefacilityasa
tilefacility,atyintheuppey(84.6%vers
acility by Glo
iddle
6
quartile
afunctionof
significantlyerquartileofus99.0%;Fig
obal Overall C
Upper
99.0
gure
Care
87
PROPENSITY TO RECOMMEND FACILITY
11.3 Propensity to recommend by facility size and ownership type
Thissectionpresentsdataontheinfluenceoffacilitysizeandfacilityownershiptypeonthepropensitytorecommendthefacility.Formoredetailsonthemethodologyofthissection,seeSection10.
11.3.1 The influence of facility size on propensity to recommend
Facilitiesscoringbelowthemedianpercentageofrespondentswhowouldrecommendthefacility(96%)hadonaveragetwiceasmanybedscomparedtofacilitiesabovethemedian.Thisfindingsuggeststhatfacilitiesoperatingfewerbedshaveagreaterpercentageoffamilymemberswhowouldrecommendthefacility(Table24).Foradditionaldetails,seeAppendixJ.
Table 24: Number of beds by percentage of respondents who would recommend the facility (median 96%)15
Percent recommended median
95% CI:
Mean number of beds
Lower Upper
Above median (53 facilities) 42 33 52
Below median (54 facilities) 83 67 98
15Duetothedistributionofresults,thedecisionwasmadetouseamedianratherthanaquartilesplit.
88
PROPENSIT
11.3.2 In
Therewetype(Figu
Figure 15
Perce
1
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
TY TO RECOMM
nfluence of
renosignificure15).
5: Percentag
entage
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
MEND FACILITY
ownership
antdifferenc
ge who would
AHS (8 facilit
97.0
Y
type on pro
esamongfac
d recommend
ties)
opensity to
cilitiesforthe
d facility by o
Private (54 f
92.2
recommen
epropensityt
ownership typ
facilities)
2
nd
torecommen
pe
Voluntary
9
dbyownersh
(45 facilities)
93.8
hip
)
89
QUALITATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
12.0 QUALITATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Attheendofthequestionnaire,familymemberswereaskedoneopen‐endedquestion:Doyouhaveanysuggestionshowcareandservicesatthissupportivelivingfacilitycouldbeimproved?Ifsoexplain.Responseswererecordedwithinthespaceprovided.Whilesomefamilymembersmadeapositivecomment,themajorityofcommentswereconstructivefeedbackandrecommendationsforchange.Intotal,1,736familymembersprovidedqualitativefeedback.
ThisWordCloud16summarizesthewordsfamilymembersofsupportivelivingresidentsusedmostoftenwhenansweringtheaboveopen‐endedquestion.Thewordsusedmostfrequentlyarelargest,andincludethewords‘staff’,‘care’,and‘facility’.Wordsusedlessfrequentlyaresmaller.Asdemonstrated,staffinglevels,residentcare,andtheconditionandenvironmentofthefacilityaresomeofthekeytopicsofinterestforfamilymembers.
Familymemberstouchedonavarietyoftopicsintheirresponses,includingbutnotlimitedtofood,activities,cleanliness,bathing,andinformation.Thesediversetopicsreinforcethatfacilitiesprovidearangeofcareandservicesessentialtoresidents’dailylivesandhighlightthatthereisstillworktobedoneinmanydifferentareas.
Inthesectionsthatfollow,asummaryandanalysisoffamilymembers’commentsisprovided.TheresultingemergentthemeswereorganizedbythefourDimensionsofCare,andadditionalthemesretainedfortheirimportance:(1)Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment,(2)MeetingBasicNeeds,(3)ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement(4)KindnessandRespect,(5)Safetyand
16TheWordcloudprovidesasummaryofthewordsmostfrequentlyusedbyfamilymembers,withtheexceptionof:twoletterwords,conjunctions(e.g.,and,than,once),prepositions(e.g.,like,near,into),pronouns(e.g.,you,him,her),nounsdescribingtheresident’sidentityandwheretheylive(e.g.,mom,dad,city,dates),wordsdescribingthesurvey(e.g.,survey,questionnaire),numbers,andduplicatesandpluralsofwords(e.g.,staffing,meals).
Figure 16: Word cloud – Qualitative analysis
90
QUALITATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Security,and(6)Other.Belowisasummaryofthekeythemesandideasidentifiedinfamilymembers’comments.Thesesummariesareaccompaniedbydirectquotesfromfamilymemberstoprovideamorecompletepictureoftheirexperiences.Quoteshavebeeneditedforgrammaticalpurposes,butnochangestothecontentofthecommentsweremade,withtheexceptionoftheremovalofidentifyinginformation.
AllsupportivelivingfacilitiesmustbelicensedundertheSupportiveLivingAccommodationLicensingActandmustcomplywithboththeSupportiveLivingAccommodationStandardsandtheContinuingCareHealthServiceStandards.Thestandardsarenotedwherefamilymembercommentsrelate.Thepurposeofreferringtothesestandardswasnottosuggestwherefacilitiesmayormaynotbeincompliancewithstandards,buttoprovidecontexttofamilymembers’comments.Asaresult,familymembers’observationsandperceptionsarenotsufficienttoevaluateafacility’scompliancewithaspecificstandardintheabsenceoffurtherstudy.ThesestandardsandcompliancerequirementsaredescribedinmoredetailinBoxA.17,18,19
17Licensingandaccommodationstandardshttp://www.health.alberta.ca/services/supportive‐living.html18ContinuingCareHealthServiceStandardshttp://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/Continuing‐Care‐Standards‐2008.pdf19AdmissionGuidelinesforPubliclyFundedContinuingCareLivingOptionshttp://www.albertahealthservices.ca/Seniors/if‐sen‐living‐option‐guidelines.pdf
BoxA:StandardsSupportiveLivingAccommodationLicensingAct:Allsupportivelivingaccommodationsmustbelicensedwhentheoperatorprovidespermanentaccommodationtofourormoreadultsandtheoperatorprovidesorarrangesforservicesrelatedtosafetyandsecurityoftheresidentsaswellasatleastonemealadayorhousekeepingservices.SupportiveLivingAccommodationStandards:TheAlbertagovernmentsetsprovincialaccommodationstandards,andmonitorscompliancetothestandardsthroughannualsiteinspections.Thestandardsapplytoaccommodationandrelatedservicessuchasfacilitymaintenance,meals,housekeeping,andareasthatimpactaresident’ssafetyandsecurity.Eachaccommodationisinspectedatleastonceayear,andmoreoftenifrequired.Anoperatormustmeetallaccommodationstandardstoachievecompliance.ContinuingCareHealthServiceStandards:AlbertaHealthisresponsibleforpubliclyfundedcontinuingcarehealthservicesandhasdevelopedtheContinuingCareHealthServiceStandards.TheContinuingCareHealthServiceStandardsareintendedtobuildonexistinglegislation,andincludeanumberofstandardsnotcurrentlyinlegislation.TheintentoftheContinuingCareHealthServiceStandardsistoidentifystandardsfortheprovisionofqualitycontinuingcarehealthservicesthattakeintoconsiderationtheindividualneeds,preferencesandabilitiesofeachclient.TheregionalhealthauthorityisaccountabletoAlbertaHealthforensuringthatthesestandardsarebeingimplementedandadheredtoatboththeregionalandtheoperationallevel.AdmissionGuidelinesforPubliclyFundedContinuingCareLivingOptions:TheintentoftheAlbertaHealthServicesLivingOptionguidelinesistoprovideasetofsupporttoolstoassistwithconsistentlivingoptiondecisionsinrelationtosupportivelivinglevels3and4andlongtermcare.
91
QUALITATI
12.1 S
BelowisaEnvironmandmana
12.1.1 S
Approximcommenttheirapprhardworkresidents’complimestaffmust‘Staffinglmembers
Familymeratioswerwhenthersuchastomembersbathspercarewasoestablish
Inadditioafacilityhtheyfeltttheirshiftexample,whenthesunabletoperson.Facontribut
Overall,faratioandthismightmostwanrequiremhealthcar
20Proportioncommentersmembersat21Familyme
VE ANALYTICA
Staffing, C
asummaryofment,andFaciagement).
Staffing leve
mately29peraboutstaffinreciationforskingandcarin’bestinterestentedthequatoperatewithevels’wasthe.
emberssaidtrenegativelyreweretoofeoileting.Inadalsodescribeweek.Familyoverlooked.Wtrustingrelat
ontohavingahadalownumthatstaffweret.Someofthisfamilymembseweretaskscometoworamilymembeedtohighsta
amilymembefromincreastbeespeciallntedtoseeanentsinsuppoeaide,licens
nswerecalculates.Asaresult,theptimesmademoreembersalsosaidt
AL RESULTS
Care of Be
ffamilymemilityStaff(sta
els
centoffamilynglevels.20Fastaffandexprngindividualstsatheart.Walitiesoftheshinthelimitsemostcomm
theythoughtyaffectingresewstaff,residdition,resideedsituationsymemberssaWhenstafftutionshipswith
animpactonrmberofstaff,erequiredtoswork,accorbersnotedhesbestsuitedtrk,familymemerssuggestedaffturnovera
erssaidtheyfingnumbersyimportantonincreaseofsortivelivingfaedpracticaln
dbydividingtheproportionofpeoethanonethemathiswasthecasew
longings,
bercommentaffinglevels,a
ymembersmmilymemberressedthatstswhogenuin
Whilefamilymtaff,theyalsosofavailablermonconcernf
thathighstafidents’qualitdentswereunentsexperienwhereresideaidthatattimrnoverwashhstaff.21
residents’quaitproducedctakeongreardingtofamilalthcareaidetocleaningstmberscommedstaffmightbatsomefacilit
feltthatfacilitofpermanenonevenings,wstaffatallhouacilities,thernurse,registe
numberofpeoploplewhoprovideticstatementintwhenstaffwerer
and Envi
tsrelatingtoadditionaltra
madearsconveyedtaffwerenelyhadthemembersorecognizedresources.forfamily
ffturnover,utyofcare.Spenabletoreceiceddelaysinentswereunamesresidentchigh,familym
alityofcare,fchallengesforterresponsibymembers,wsandnursestaffandkitcheentedthat,atbeatriskofbties.
tieswouldbentfull‐timestaweekends,anurs.AlthougheareAHSguierednurse)th
lewhoprovidedadathematicstatetheircomments.rotatedthrougho
IbeliecarryibutIfenougDelaysworkecan’tbtime.
ironment
theCareofRainingandedu
understaffing,ecifically,famivetimelyhenreceivingserabletoreceivcarewasrushmemberssaid
familymembrstaff.Specifbilityandaccowasbeyondwcleanedresidenstaff.Whettimes,thereurnout,ands
enefitfromaaff.Whilefamndduring‘peatherearenoidelinesthathatmustbeo
athematicstatemementpertheme
outthefacility.
evethecaregiingouttheirdfeelthefacilitghworkersonshappensimersarehelpinbetwoplaces
ResidentsBeloucationforst
,andpoorstamilymemberslpwithmeetirvices,suchavemandatedchedanderrortheyfeltresi
bersalsocomfically,familyomplishmorwhatshouldbdentroomsanastaffmemwasnoonetsaidtheyfelt
reviewofthemilymembersakhours’,succurrentstaffdefinethetypn‐siteoravai
mentforathemeoewillnotaddto1
iversaredutiesverywtydoesnothaneachshift.mplybecausetngothersandsatthesame
ongings,Faciltaff,leadershi
afftoresidentssaidtheyfeltingbasicneeasmeals.Famcare,suchasrsweremadeidentsstruggl
mentedthatwmemberssaieworkdurinbeexpected.Fandservedmemberwassicktoreplacethisthatthis
estaff‐to‐residscommentedchasmealtimf‐to‐residentrpeofstaff(e.gilable.Specifi
overthetotalnum100becausefamil
well,ave
thed
lityip,
ttthatds,
milytwoeorledto
whenidngForealskands
dentdthatme,ratiog.,ically,
mberofly
92
QUALITATI
supportivlevelfouralltimes;todeterm
Intheirco
Infa
H
Ean
Atminimunotoverwnumbero
12.1.2 C
ThedegrewasthefocommentincludingOtherfamwascompfamilymeForexammaintenafamilymeregularlycompliancpreventatfreeofha
Familymemovewithandwerewerewhespaces,bu
22AlbertaHehttp://www23Supportivehttp://www24Supportivehttp://www25Supportivehttp://www
VE ANALYTICA
velivinglevelsites(SL4)abothrequire
minewhether
omments,fam
ncreasingtheacilities.
Hiringdedicat
nlistingvolunndentertainm
um,familymworked.Overaofresidentsan
Cleanliness
eetowhichfaocusofappros.Familymemwellgroome
milymemberspleted,itcoulemberssaidtple,familymnceandrepaemberssaidtorthoroughlceornon‐comtivemaintenazards,24andt
embersalsothinthesespaovercrowdedeelchairbounutaccesstoth
ealthServices,Adw.albertahealthsereLivingAccommw.health.alberta.caeLivingAccommw.health.alberta.caeLivingAccommw.health.alberta.ca
AL RESULTS
threesites(Srerequiredtanon‐call24ornotcurren
milymembers
numberofh
tedkitchenst
nteerstohelpmenttoresid
emberssuggeall,familymendthisprodu
and condit
acilitieswereoximately15pmberspraisedlawnsandsssaidtheyfeldhavebeendheyfeltthataembersdescrirsweredelaheydidnotayenough.Whmpliance,supanceandrepathesupportiv
talkedabouttaces.Specificad,presentingnd.Aswell,famhesespaces,l
missionGuidelinrvices.ca/Seniors/odationStandarda/documents/CC‐odationStandarda/documents/CC‐odationStandarda/documents/CC‐
SL3)arerequohaveonehe4‐hourregistentstaffinglev
sofresidents
ealthcareaid
affandcleani
pstaffwithtaents.
estedareconembersexpreucedchalleng
ion of the fa
keptcleananpercentoffadfacilityconspotlesscomtthatalthougdonebetter.Satsomesitesribedsituatioayedandlawnlwaysthinkrhetherornotpportivelivingairsareperfovelivingaccom
theamountoally,familymechallengesfomilymemberlikeuseofout
esforPubliclyFu/if‐sen‐living‐optdsandChecklist,s‐AccommodationdsandChecklist,s‐AccommodationdsandChecklist,s‐Accommodation
uiredtohaveealthcareaiderednurse.22
velsshouldbe
suggested:
des,registered
ingstaff,and
askslikewate
nsiderationofssedthattheesforbothre
acility
ndmaintainemilymemberditions,monareas.ghthisworkSpecifically,maintenanceonswherelighncareandsnresidentroomtfamilymembgaccommodarmed,23thebmmodationis
ofspaceavailaemberssaidtorresidentswrssaidfacilititdoorspace,w
undedContinuingtion‐guidelines.pdstandard3:Maint‐Guide4‐2013‐SLstandard2:Safety‐Guide4‐2013‐SLstandard15:Clea‐Guide4‐2013‐SL
Wehavresidenbetter.roomf
onehealthcaandonelicenFurtherstudechanged.
dnurses,and
arecreation
erdelivery,an
fhowtasksarrewasnotenesidentsandf
dr
eandrepairshting,temperowremovalwmsandcommbers’commenationstandarbuildingandgscleanedreg
ablewithinfathatinsomefwhohaddisabesweredesigwassometim
gCareLivingOptidftenancerequiremL.pdfyrequirementsL.pdfaningrequiremenL.pdf
vesuggestednt’s]roombeNomajorprforimprovem
areaideon‐sitnsedpracticadywouldbere
dlicensedpra
coordinator.
ndproviding
redelegatednoughstafftoforstaff.
werenotconratureandelewerenotperfmonareaswerntsarereflecrdsrequirethgroundsaremularly.25
acilitiesandrfacilities,spabilities,suchgnedtoincludmesrestricted
ions
ments
nts
that[theecleanedalitoblemsbutment.
teatalltimesalnurseon‐sitequiredinor
acticalnurses
companionsh
sothatstaffaoassistwitht
nductedregulevatorformed.Aswrecleanedtiveoffacilitihatregularmaintainedan
residentsabilcesweretooasthosewhodeparticular.Insomecas
ttle
sandteatrder
in
hip
arethe
larly.
well,
ies’
nd
itytosmallo
es,
93
QUALITATI
familymeresidents
Suggestiomembersrepairsbyspacetoaspaceslik
12.1.3 A
AboutninwhichstameetresidwhotheyexperiencOtherfamtobeaswofknowle
Whilefamwerelessstaffwasinapproprunderstan
Familymeoftheres
UA
Le
Tmsuef
P
Uco
Thesesugrequiredt
VE ANALYTICA
emberssaidtfromeachot
onsweremadsuggestedthymaintenancaccommodatekecommonar
Additional tr
nepercentofaffpossessedtdents’needs.saidwereknceandskillbymilymemberswelltrainedoredgeandskill
milymembersinformedresimproperlytrriateapproacndingresiden
emberssuggeidents.Some
ndergotrainiAlzheimer’s,n
earnhowtob
akepartinadmanagement,iuchashearinffects,andab
articipateins
ndergotrainiontrol.
ggestionsrefltodetermine
AL RESULTS
hatcommonther.
detoensurerhatcleaningbcestaff.Asweethenumberreasandoutd
aining and
f familymembtheskillsandSeveralfaminowledgeableyprovidingexsconveyedthrexperiencedlthattheyhad
ssaidtheyrecsidentcarewrainedandlachestocarewnts’needsand
estedstaffunspecificsugg
ingtolearnheurologicald
betterinterac
dditionaltraiincontinencengaids,approilitytoassess
sensitivitytra
ingtoprovide
ecttheopiniowhetherstaf
areasweren
egularandthbecompletedell,familymemofresidentsdoorareas.
continued e
bersdiscussedqualificationilymemberspeanddemonsxcellentcarehatsomestaffdasotherstad.
cognizedtheswasnegativelyackedqualificwereused,incdbehaviours
ndergocontingestionsinclu
howtointeracdamage,andm
ctwithupset
ningtosuppomanagemenpriatedispensanddiagnos
ainingandco
elifestylecoa
onsandperceffwouldbene
notavailablea
horoughcleanbydedicatedmberssuggesatafacilityan
education
edthedegreensrequiredtopraisedstaffstratedtheirtoresidents.fdidnotappeff,butwered
selimitationsyimpacted.Spationsorexpconsistentquoccurred.
nuoustrainingdedthatstaff
ctwithandapmemoryprob
anddisgrunt
ortresidents’tandostomynsingofmediseminorillne
onflictresolut
achingtoresi
eptionsoffamefitfromaddi
Themwithretheycaexperi
andexpressed
ningandmaindhousekeepinstedfacilitiesndtoensure
too
eardoingthebest
s,theyalsosapecifically,famperience,erroualityofcarew
gandeducatif:
pproachresidblems.
tledresidents
’healthcarenycare,maintecations,andmess.
tiontraining.
identsincludi
milymembersitionaltrainin
ajorityofperesidentsaredanwiththetrencetheyhav
dconcerntha
ntenanceoffangstaffandmsensurethattresidentshav
tthattheyco
aidtheyfeltthmilymemberorstocarewewasprovided
ioninordert
dentswhoha
s.
needs,includienanceofmedmonitoringo
ingsmoking,
sandfurtherng.Atpresent
rsonnelworkidoingthebesrainingandve.
atthisisolate
acilities.Fammaintenanceathereisenouveaccessto
ouldwiththe
hatwhenstafrssaidthatweremade,d,andbarrier
omeetthene
avedementia,
ingoxygendicalequipmefmedication
diet,andwei
rstudywouldt,supportive
ingst
ed
ilyandugh
level
ffwhen
sto
eeds
,
entside
ight
dbeliving
94
QUALITATI
facilitiessongoingt
12.1.4 L
CommentapproximFamilymefriendly,ainfluencemembersperformtcoulddob
Inparticuofstaffsuresidentsexpressedhomewhe
Familymestaffandfcommunitodiscussalwaysav
Intheircotheyshoutheywantconcerns.
12.2 K
Familymedifficultre
12.2.1 In
Approximcommentfamilymethattheypolite,friemembersimpatienttheability
26Continuinghttp://www
VE ANALYTICA
standardsreqrainingtoadd
eadership a
tsrelatingtolmatelyfiveperembersexprealwaysavailaonresidentqsaidtheyfelttheirroletofabetter.
ular,familymupervisionandexperienceddthatthisnegentheywere
emberssaidtfamilymembcatechangessionsaboutchvailablefor,an
omments,famuldbeletgo.Itedmanagem
Kindness a
emberscommesidents.
nterpersona
matelyninepeaboutinterpembersandrewereappreciendly,supportalkedaboutt,rude,anddiytocontribut
gCareHealthSerw.health.alberta.ca
AL RESULTS
quirecaretobdressthecha
and manag
leadershipanrcentoffamiessedthatmableandwillinqualityofcaretthatmanageamilymembe
emberssaidtdsupport.Firrepeatederrgativelyaffecillorfindrep
theyfeltthaters.Thesefamthatoccurredhangesbeforendreceptive
milymembersInadditiontomenttocomm
and Resp
mentedontop
al relations
ercentoffampersonalrelatesidents.Famiativeofcomprtive,andresthowsomestisrespectful.Ftetopositive
viceStandard,staa/documents/Con
bedeliveredbangingneeds
gement
ndmanagemelymemberscanagementwngtohelp,aneandstaff.Otementdidnoters’expectatio
theyfeltthatrst,familymerorsandinapptedstaff,suchplacementsta
itwastherolmilymemberdinthefaciliehand.Additito,questions
ssuggestedthoensuringstamunicatewith
ect
picsrelatingt
milymemberstionsbetweenmilymemberspassionate,capectfulstaff.taffdidnotpoFamilymembornegativer
andard1.13:Conntinuing‐Care‐Sta
byeducatedaofresidents.2
entmadeupcomments.washelpful,dapositivetherfamilytalwaysonsand
managementemberssaidtpropriatecarhaswhenmaaffwhenfacil
leofmanagemrsexpressedctyandfamilyionally,familyandconcern
hatwhenempaffperformththemaboutr
tokindness,c
providedanstaffandsexpressedaring,kind,Otherfamilyossesstheseqbersspokeabresidentandf
tinuingcarehealtandards‐2008.pdf
Ifeltmanbeenmor[residentlisteningconcerne
Taketicompasituati
andqualified26
tdidnotalwathisnegativelreasaresult.anagementdilitiesweresh
menttoensuconcernthatymembersexymembersps.
ployeesarenheirdutiescorresidentsand
courtesy,resp
qualities,andboutbothtypefamilyexperi
thserviceprovidf
nagementshoreinvolvedwts]–gettingtotothem,andedabouttheir
imewiththeassionandunontheyarein
dprovidersw
aysprovideayaffectedresSecond,famiidnotencourortofstaff.
reflowofinfmanagementxpressedadeperceivedman
notsuitableorrectly,familydtobeopent
pect,privacy
dcouldbeuncesofstaffandences.Theco
ders
ouldhavewithoknowthembeingrneeds.
residents,shnderstandthen.
whoundergo
appropriatelesidentsbecauilymembersragestafftost
formationbettdidnotalwaesiretocontrinagementas
raredisruptiymemberssatocomplaints
andhandling
caring,unkindhowbothhoncernsexpre
m,
owe
evelsuse
tay
tweenaysibutenot
ive,aidsand
gof
nd,aveessed
95
QUALITATI
byfamilyabilitytoconsidera
Familymehadcompmemberstheresidedemandinresidentsresidentsdidnoten
Intheircokindtorespendtimacknowleresidents,
12.3 P
Thediscuinformatifacilitiesimemberschallenge
12.3.1 In
Involvem10percenbeinginfoconcernininvolvedithemup‐texperienc
Itisimpovaried,anresidents’andproceresult,famunlessthehoweverhcostofser
27Supportivehttp://www
VE ANALYTICA
memberswereceivecare,ately.
emberssaidtprehensiondisaidsomestent’sdignity,ngandoffens.Familymem.Incontrast,ngagewithre
omments,famesidentsandtmewiththemedgetheresid,familymem
Providing
ussionbelowaonbetweensincludeandinprovideaglisthatoccurre
nvolving fam
entinresidenntoffamilymormedaboutngresidents.Finresident’scto‐date.Manycedchallenge
rtanttonotendthisinform’privacyandeduresregardmilymemberseywereappohaveaccesstrvicesandac
eLivingAccommw.health.alberta.ca
AL RESULTS
erethatincastogettheirc
theyfeltthatfficultiesandtaffdidnotcoindependencivelanguagembersexpressfamilymembesidentsaside
milymemberstofamilymemoutsideofprdentsonadaiberssuggeste
Informatio
addressestopstaffandbetwnvolvefamilyimpseintothedasaresult
mily in resid
nts’carewasmembers’comandhelpingtFamilymembcareandfeltcyotherfamilystotheirinvo
thatindividumationwasnopersonalinfodingthecollesmightnothointedthisrigtoinformationcommodation
odationStandarda/documents/CC‐
seswherestaomplaintsan
staffdidnotdwithresidenommunicatewe,andwishesandgesturessedconcernthberssaidsomefromwhent
ssuggestedstmbers.Familyrovidingcarelybasis,evenedstaffusep
on and En
picsfamilymweenstaffandymembersineirexperienct.
dent care
thefocusofamments.Thistomakedecisberssaidtheyconfidentthaymemberssaolvement.
ualswhowereotcollectedinormationbycction,useandhavehadlegalghtbylaw(e.gnaboutthefans,andinform
dsandChecklist,s‐Accommodation
affwererudendconcernsa
alwaysknowntswhowerewithresidentss.Somestaffwsaswellasachatthisstyleestaffavoidetheywerepro
taffbecompaymemberssuandservices.nwithasimplositiveanden
ncouragin
emberscommdfamilymemresidentcarecesparticipati
approximatelincludedbothsionsywereatstaffkeptaidthey
elegallyentitnthequestioncomplyingwiddisclosureolaccesstoresg.,powerofaacility,includmationregard
standard32:Priv‐Guide4‐2013‐SL
Thestacommubasis,apositiv
anddisrespeaddressed,an
whowtocommedifficultordsinamannerwerenotedbcondescendinofcommunicedinteractionovidinghelpa
assionate,unduggestedstaff.Lastly,famille“goodmorncouragingst
ng Family
mentedonrembers,aswelle.Ingeneral,inginresiden
lyh
tledtoreceivennaire.SuppoithAlbertaprofresidents’psidents’persoattorneyorguingmaintenadinghowtof
vacyandpersonalL.pdf
affarekind,wunicatewithmandalwaysrevely.
ectful,itdisrudtobetreate
municatewitdisruptive.Rerthatconveybyfamilymemngtoneofvoicationwasdinwithresidenandcare.
derstanding,fgettoknowlymemberssrning”.Whentatements.
Involvem
elatingtotheasthedegrethecommentntcareandth
einformationortivelivingfarivacylawsanpersonalinfoonalandfinanuardian).Famanceandcleanfileacomplain
linformation
well‐informedmeonareguespond
uptedresidenedfairlyand
thresidentswlatedly,familyedtheyrespembersasusinicewhentalksrespectfultonts’altogethe
respectful,antheresidentssuggestedstaftalkingto
ent
flowofetowhichtsmadebyfahesuccessesa
naboutresidacilitiesprotendhavepolicrmation.27Asncialinformamilymembersningschedulentorconcern
d,lar
ts
wholyectedngkingtooerand
ndsandff
amilyand
entsectciessaation,sdides,n.
96
QUALITATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Familymembersmighthavealsobeengrantedpermissionbyresidentsorhadalegalrighttoattendanannualcareconferenceonbehalfoftheresident.28Familymemberssaidtheyfeltthatcareconferencesprovidedanopportunitytoreceiveregularupdatesaboutresident’sprogress,healthstatus,dietary,andexerciseneeds,andtoaddressanyconcerns.Whilesomefamilymemberssaidtheyparticipatedinacareconference,otherssaidtheyexperiencedschedulingconflictsortheirrequestforacareconferencewasnotactedon.
Relatedly,familymembersreportedthattheywerenotalwaysinformedaboutepisodiceventsconcerningresidentsoraboutresident’simmediateneeds.Familymembersrecalledtimeswhentheywerenotinformedthatresidentshadbecomeill,weretakentohospital,hadfallenandbecomeinjuredinthefacility,orhadmedicationschanged.Whenfamilymemberswerenotinformedoftheseevents,theysaiditcausedthemtofeel“outoftheloop”.Becausefamilymemberswereunaware,theysaiditalsopreventedthemfromcheckinginontheresidenttoensuretheywereokayandtooffersupport.
Familymembersalsotalkedabouttimeswhentheywerenotinformedaboutchangeswithinthefacility.Forexample,familymemberssaidstaffandmanagementchangesoccurredwithouttheirknowledge.Similarly,familymembersdescribedtimeswhentheywerenotnotifiedaboutchangestoaccommodationandservicecharges.
Inadditiontonotalwaysbeingkeptinformedaboutresidents,familymemberssaidthatthereweretimeswhentheywerenotincludedindecision‐making.Assomefamilymembershadahistoryofbeinginvolvedinresidentscareandwereknowledgeableabouttheirresident’sspecificneeds,familymemberssaidtheyfeltlikestaffdidnotalwayslistentowhattheyhadtosay.Familymemberssaidthereweretimeswhentheirknowledgeabouttheresidentcouldhavepreventedmedicalerrorsfrombeingmade.
Partofbeinginvolvedandincludedwasdeterminedbythedegreetowhichfamilymemberssaidtheywereenabledorpreventedfromplayinganactiveroleinresident’scare.Whilesomefamilymemberssaidstaffwerealwaysavailableandreceptive,otherfamilymembersexpressedthattheyexperiencedlongwaittimestocontactstaffandtogetaresponsefromstaff.Forexample,familymemberssaidtheyexperiencedadministrativedifficultieswhenmessagesleftforstaffwerenotdelivered.Relatedly,familymemberssaidtheydidnotalwaysknowhowtocontactstaffbecausethisinformationwasnotalwaysavailabletothem.Whenstaffweredifficulttocontact,familymembersexpressedchallengestotheirinvolvementinresidentcare.
Intheircomments,familymembersmaderecommendationstoincreasetheirinvolvementinresidentcare.Familymemberssuggestedfrequent(quarterly,semi‐annually,orannual)updatesfromstaffaboutresidentsbywayofaformalmeetingorcareconference.Inadditiontoregularupdates,familymemberssuggestedthey:beinformedaboutincidentsconcerningtheresidentimmediatelyaftertheyoccur;bekeptup‐to‐dateonresidentneeds;andbeinvolvedindiscussionsbeforechangestoresidentcarearemade.
Familymemberssuggestedtheybeprovidedwithupdatedstaffcontactinformation,andthatstaffbeavailabletospeakwiththembothinpersonandbyphone.Wherethisisnotpossible,familymemberssuggestedthatmessagesberespondedtowithinatimelymanner(within24‐hours).Lastly,family
28ContinuingCareHealthService,standard1.9:Client/familyinvolvementincareplanninghttp://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/Continuing‐Care‐Standards‐2008.pdf
97
QUALITATI
memberstheirknowchangest
12.3.2 C
Aboutfivemixedexpaddresseddegreetoconcernsthatstaffquickly.Ostaffwerechanges.Whelplessastaffweresomethin
Forasmaaddressedthatifthemembersaboutthe
Familymefamilymesuggestedresolutionreviewwoconcerns
12.4 M
Familymefood,hygifamilymeunderstan
12.4.1 F
Approximcommentcomplime
29Continuing2008.pdf30SupportiveAccommoda
VE ANALYTICA
wantedtobewledgeoftheotheresiden
Complaints
epercentoffperienceswitd.InparticulawhichstaffwcontributedtwerereceptivOtherfamilymedefensive,ruWhencomplaandtheirconfenotnecessargbedone.
allnumberofd,butvoicingeymadeacomsaidthattherepercussion
emberssuggeemberswithodstaffdealwins.Althoughiouldbenecesresolutionpr
Meeting Ba
emberstalkeieneandgrooembersdotondingofwhat
Food and m
mately23peraboutfoodaentedthequa
gCareHealthSer
eLivingAccommtion‐Guide4‐2013
AL RESULTS
eincludedineresidenttobnt’scareplan.
and concer
familymembthgettingcomar,familymemwerewillingttotheirresoluveandworkememberssaidude,unwillinaintsandconfidenceintherilyrudeoru
familymembgacomplaintmplaint,thereeresidentaskns.
estedstaffbeoutbeingcomithcomplaintitisnotpossissary,asperprocessinplac
asic Need
daboutaseroming,healthsupportresidtresidents’ba
eal service
centoffamilyandmealservalityofthefoo
vice,standard1.5
odationstandard3‐SL.pdf
decision‐makbeacknowled
rns
erssharedthmplaintsandcmberssaidthtoaddresscomution.Familyedtofindresodtheystrugglgtomakechacernswereuefacilityandsunreceptive,fa
bers,theirconaltogether.Soesidentmighkedthemnott
ereceptivetombativeorcomtsandconceribletodetermprovincialstacetoprovide
ds
riesoftopicsrhcareneeds,hdentsarealldasicday‐to‐d
ymembersmvices.Somefaodservedatf
5:Clientsconcern
ds–Standard24:
kingconcernidged,andthey
hattheyhadconcernsheyfeltthemplaintsandymemberssaolutionsedtogetcomanges,orunwnresolved,fastaffdeclinedfamilymembe
ncernwasnoomeofthesetbepenalizedtomakeacom
complaintsamplacent,andnsinatimelyminefacilitycandards29,30safairreview
relatingtoreshelpandsupediscussedbelayneedsare,
madeaamilymemberfacilities.Othe
nshttp://www.he
Concernsandcom
Ontherelatiotoworproble
FoodcnutritiMealsmost[
ingtheresideywanttopro
did
mplaintsandcwillingtotakeamilymemberd.Otherfamilershadtobe
otwithgettingfamilymembdasaresult.mplaintbecau
andconcernsdtorespondrymannerandcomplianceorsupportivelivofconcernsa
sidentsbasicervisionwithlow.Theseto,andwhether
rser
ealth.alberta.ca/d
mplaintshttp://w
ewholeIhaveonshipwiththrkwiththememsweencou
couldbemoreious,hot,andarehighspot[residents].
ent.Theysaidovideinputbe
concernsadderesponsibilirsconveyedtymembersspersistentan
gcomplaintsberssaidtheySimilarly,othusethereside
bylisteningtrespectfully.dtoseekpermrnon‐compliavingfacilitiesandcomplain
cneeds.Commbasicneeds,picshelptocrornotthey
documents/Conti
www.health.alber
eagoodhestaffandtrtosolvetheunter.
ediverse,dinteresting.tsinthedayf
dtheywouldeforestaffma
dressedbecauityformakingthattheyfeltaidthatwhilendinsistthat
andconcernsywereconcerherfamilyentwasworr
toresidentanFamilymembmanentanceasfurthmusthaveants.
mentsrelatingandtheworkcreateanarebeingme
inuing‐Care‐Stand
rta.ca/documents
ry
for
likeakes
useg
e
srned
ried
ndbers
er
gtokthat
et.
dards‐
s/CC‐
98
QUALITATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
familymembersconveyeddissatisfactionwiththequality,variety,temperature,portionsize,andnutritionvalueofthefood.Overall,familymembersrecognizedthatalthoughfacilitiesmustoperatewithintheconstraintsofavailableresources,includingstaffinglevelsandbudget,facilitiessometimesstruggledtoprovidequalitymealstoallresidents‐whooftenhaddiversenutritionanddietaryneeds.
Accordingtofamilymembers,foodpreparationaffectedfoodquality.Specifically,familymemberssaidtheydidnotthinkfacilitiesalwaysemployedindividualswhohadculinaryknowledgeandskillandexpressedthatthisnegativelyaffectedfoodqualityasresidentsreceivedfoodthatwasunappealing,unappetizing,toocoldandovercookedorundercooked.Inadditiontofoodpreparation,familymemberssaidtheythoughtthequalityofthefoodbroughtinalsocontributedtooverallfoodquality.Inparticular,familymemberssaidtheythoughtsomefacilitiesreliedonpre‐madefoodshighinsodiumandpreservativesor‘fresh’ingredientsthatseemedclosertoexpiration.Familymembersalsoexpressedthattheydidnotthinktherewereenoughchoicesinthefoodoffered,andasaresultresidentswerenotalwaysprovidedwithavarietyoffoodsorfoodsthattheypreferred.Overall,familymembersexpressedthatwhenfoodwasnotpreparedon‐siteusingavarietyoffreshingredientsandpreparedbyanexperiencedandknowledgeablecook,foodqualitywaspoor.
Relatingtofoodquality,familymembersexpressedthatthefoodwasnotalwaysnutritiousanddidnotalwaysmeetresidents’dietaryneedsandhealthandwellnessgoals.Specifically,familymemberssaidresidentsweresometimesservedfoodsthatdidnotpromotegoodhealth,likedeepfriedfoodsandlargesugarydesserts.Aswell,familymemberssaidresidentswhohaddietaryrestrictionsduetomedicalconditions(e.g.,diabetes,highcholesterol),orwhohaddifficultychewingandswallowingwerenotalwaysprovidedwithsuitablefoods.Familymemberssaidtheyfeltthatresidentsgainedweight,lostweight,orwereatriskofchokingasaresult.
Familymembersalsosaidmealserviceswerenotalwayswellplanned.Inparticular,familymemberssaidthetimingofmealswasattimesproblematic,especiallyforresidentswhohadhealthcareneedsthatrequiredthattheytakemedicationsatparticulartimesofdayandwithfood.Familymemberssaidthatsometimesmealswereservedtooearlyorwerespacedtoofarapart.Relatedly,familymemberssaidresidentswerenotalwaysprovidedwithregularsnacksandbeveragesbetweenmeals,whichtheysuggestedwasalsoaresultofpoorplanning.Inadditiontotheirconcernsaboutmealtiming,familymemberssaidresidentswerenotalwaysabletoeattheirmealsontimeduetodelaysingettingalloftheresidentsintothediningarea.Whenmealsweredelayed,familymemberssaidtheyfeltresidentswererushedtofinishtheirmeals.
Asaresultfamilymemberssuggestedfacilitiesensureresidents’nutritionneedsarefulfilled.Familymembersalsosuggestedfoodbepreparedandservedonthesameday,byacookwithexperienceinthefoodindustry.Aswell,familymemberssuggestedfacilitiesseekregularfeedbackfromresidentsconcerningresidentpreferences.Lastly,familymemberssuggestedadequatestaffinglevelstoenableresidentstogettoandfrommealsontime,andtoassistresidentswitheatingifresidentsneedhelp.Whilefamilymembers’commentsprovidedvaluableinsightastowhereimprovementstofoodandmealservicescouldbemade,furtherstudywouldberequiredinordertodeterminewhetherornotsupportivelivingfacilitiescomplyordonotcomplywithstandards.Currently,supportivelivingfacilities
99
QUALITATI
mustassenutritiona
12.4.2 H
Thelevelthefocuscommentprovidedhealthcarexpressedfacilityrelimitedth
InparticuphysiotheItisimpotherapeutprovideaauthorityalwaysbecommenttheseserv
Aswell,falicensedpresidents’experienctheyarranFamilymeschedules
Inadditioparticularmedicatioincludingpharmaciarrangemfamilymestafftoen
31Continuinghttp://www32Supportivehttp://www33Continuinghttp://www34Continuinghttp://www
VE ANALYTICA
esseachresidalrequiremen
Healthcare n
ofcareandsofapproximas.Familymemtoresidentsaeneedsweredtheirapprecsources,staffhenumberan
ular,familymerapyandmertanttonoteticservicesprccesstothera’scontinuingeprovidedwiswouldrequvices.
amilymembepracticalnurs’healthcarenceddelaysinngedforappoemberssaidts.
ontotheabovr,familymemonsfromonedelaysinrecesdidnotcar
mentsbenefiteemberssaidrnsuretheytoo
gCareHealthSerw.health.alberta.caeLivingAccommw.health.alberta.cagCareHealthSerw.health.alberta.cagCareHealthSerw.health.alberta.ca
AL RESULTS
dentfornutritnts32arefulfi
needs
ervicesavailaately10percmberscompliandweresatiebeingmet.Wciation,theyafinglevels,andtypeofcare
emberssaidtentalhealthsethat,presentrovidedorfuapeuticserviccarehealthsithparticularuirefurtherst
erssaidtheydsesandhealthneedsortofoassessment,tointmentsanthiscouldbe
vehealthservmbersconveyepharmacy.Faceivingmedicrryparticularedpharmacieresidentsdidoktheirpresc
vice,standard1.1a/documents/ConodationStandarda/documents/CC‐viceStandards,sta/documents/ConviceStandards,sta/documents/Con
tionandhydrlled.
ableatthefaccentoffamilyimentedtheqisfiedthatresWhilefamilymalsorecognizndstaffingreqeandservice
thatresidentervices,orhetlyfacilitiesarndedforbytcesandhealtservicesprogrtherapeuticstudytodeterm
didnotfeelthhcareaides,hllowresidenttreatmentandtransportatchallenging,s
vices,familymeddissatisfacamilymembecationbecausermedicationsesmoresothanotalwaysrecribedmedica
17:Therapeuticnntinuing‐Care‐Stads,standard13:N‐Accommodationtandard1.18:Thentinuing‐Care‐Statandard1.19:Orantinuing‐Care‐Sta
rationneeds3
cilitymadeupmembersqualityofcarsident’smembersedthatthequirements,sprovidedto
sdidnotalwealthservicesrerequiredtotheregionalhhservicesnoramorhealthservicesundeminewhethe
hatallhealthchadtheknowlts’careplansdmonitoringtionandaccosuchaswhen
memberscomctionwiththeerssaidthishepharmaciess.Overall,famanresidents.eceivethecoration.
nutritionandhydandards‐2008.pdfNutritionalrequir‐Guide4‐2013‐SLerapeuticserviceandards‐2008.pdfalhealth,dental,pandards‐2008.pdf
ThenuprofesandreIssuesalways
31andensure
p
re
oresidents.
aysreceivethlikedentistryoassessandphealthauthorotprovidedorhservices.33,3
erthesestandrresidentsw
careprofessioledgeorskill.Asaresult,fg.Tobridgethompaniedresintheyhadto
mmentedonmefacility’sdechadnegativecsweregeogramilymembersInadditiontorrectmedicat
rationfrements;andstanL.pdfesfpodiatry,hearingf
umberofregusionalsavailaviewclientcagetdealtwitsinatimelyw
eresidentsdie
herapeuticsey,hearing,anprovideresidity,andassistrfundedbyth4Asaresult,dards,andfamwereassisted
onalson‐site,necessarytofamilymembhisgap,familidentstotheiworkaround
medicationdicisiontoonlyconsequencesaphicallydistsquestionedomedicationtion,orwere
ndard14:Menure
gandvisionservi
ulatedhealthabletoassessareisminimath,butnotway.
etaryand
erviceslikendvisionservdentswithtwith,butnoheregionalhresidentsmamilymemberwithaccessin
,includingoaddressberssaidresidymemberssairappointmendtheirbusy
istribution.Inyreceivesforresidenttantorbecauswhetherthesdistribution,notmonitore
equirements
ces
sal.
vices.
othealthaynotrsng
dentsaidnts.
n
tssese,edby
100
QUALITATI
Relatedtowasaconandstaffwexperiencsupportthwhetherfandinaccshouldbesupplies;servicesp
Intheircofacilities.Avisitingavailabilitmedicalcrequiredtmemberswouldbepharmacycorrectmofworkin
12.4.3 H
Resident’astoiletinmovedfroapproximfamilymeresponderesidentsstaffingorlocateorareceivingresidentsorbecausresidentsenough,e
Familymewerenegadignityw
35Continuinghttp://www36AlbertaHehttp://www
VE ANALYTICA
ohealthservincern.Specificwerenotalwcedchallengeheminthiseffamilymembecordancewithesupportedinandwhennoprogramther
omments,famFamilymembphysiotheraptyofhealthponditions.Astoensure24‐’commentsrrequired.Alsy.Familymemmedicationandngmedicaleq
Help and su
sabilitytoreng,eating,andombedtowhmatelyninepeemberssaidtdtoresidentsexperiencedrunderstaffinalertstaffwhhelponanasdidnotalwasestaffbelievwerenot.Reespeciallywhe
emberssaidtativelyaffecteascompromi
gCareHealthSerw.health.alberta.caealthServices,Adw.albertahealthser
AL RESULTS
ices,familymcally,medicalaysawareofswhentryingffort.Withouters’commenthcontinuingnaccessingmotprovidedasresidentshou
milymembersberssuggestepistormobilerofessionalsksmentionede‐houravailabreflectcompliso,familymemmberssuggesddosage.Lasuipment.
pervision w
eceivetimelyhdtransferringheelchair)waercentoffamheywereples’requestsfolongwaittimngandbecauhentheyneedsneededbasiysreceiveassedresidentselatedly,familenresidentsw
thatwhenresed.Specificallised(suchas
viceStandards,sta/documents/ConmissionGuidelinrvices.ca/Seniors/
membersexprlequipmentwhowtheseitegtoaccessmtfurtherinvetsarereflecticarestandardmedicallynecespartoftheruldbeassisted
sprovidedreedfacilitiesaredentistwasknowledgeabelsewhere,suilityofaregisianceornon‐mberssuggestedmedicatiotly,familyme
with basic n
helpwithbasg(assistancesdiscussedbilymembers.asedwithhoworhelp,othersmesbecauseoseresidentswdedhelp.Inadis,familymemsistancewithwerecapablelymembersswereatrisko
sidentsexperly,familymemwhenresiden
tandard1.20:Spentinuing‐Care‐StaesforPublicallyF/if‐sen‐living‐opt
ressedthatmwasnotalwayemsworked.edicalequipmestigationandiveoffacilitieds,basedonaessaryhealthregionalhealtdinaccessing
commendatiorrangein‐housuggested.Fbleandskilledpportivelivinsterednurse.compliancewstedthatfacilonsbedeliveemberssugge
eeds
sicneedssuchwithbeingby.Althoughwquicklystassaidofshortwereunabletdditiontomberssaidhdailyneeds,eofcompletinsaidstaffdidnoffallingorw
riencedlongwmbersperceintsdidnotre
ecializedhealthsandards‐2008.pdfFundedContinuintion‐guidelines.pd
Howloassistahavebresidenbecausattendinotthesimply
aintenanceoysfunctioninInaddition,fment,andsaidreview,itisescomplianceassessedhealserviceequipthauthority’sgthem.35
onstoimprovusehealthcarFamilymembedenoughtoangfacility’sle.36Inordertowiththisguidlitiesprovideeredontimeaestedstaffen
h
aff
to
eitherbecaungtasksonthnotalwayssuwereill.
waittimesorivedthat:resieceivetimely
erviceequipmenfngCareLivingOpdf
ongistoolongancetothetoieensituationnthasbeenlese[staff]wereing[otherresefaultoftheayafactofshor
fresidents’hngproperly,clfamilymembdfacilitiesdinotpossibleeornon‐complthservicenepmentandmscontinuingc
vecareandseservicesasersalsosuggeassessandtreevelsthreeanodeterminewdeline,furthereresidentswiandforstafftnsureresident
setherewereheirown,eveuperviseorm
didnotreceiidentsfeltlesassistanceto
tandmedical‐sur
ptions.
gtowaitforilet?...Therenswherebyaeftonthetoilebusysidents].Thisaides,butisrtageofstaff.
healthequipmleanedpropeerssaidtheydnotalwaystodeterminepliance.Curreeeds,residentmedical‐surgiccarehealth
ervicesatmuchaspossested24‐houeatresidents’ndfourarewhetherfamilrinvestigatioithchoiceintoadministertsalwayshav
enotenoughnthough
monitorreside
ivehelp,residsssafe,resideusethebath
rgicalsupplies
et
sis
menterly,
eently,tscal
sible.ur
lyn
theveuse
staff
ents
dentsentsroom
101
QUALITATI
andhadttoavoidbforthemsmedicalestaffinglebasicneed
Familymemembersfunctionpsuggestedmembersstaffwithprovidehtoileting.stafftheytoolongt
12.4.4 R
ApproximcommentparticularresidenthFamilyme
Ingenerawerebathbathsperalsosuggeareincontoftenasthreceiveonwerenotcompromwhenresi
Whilefamwerealsobathing.Abathing,fnumbero
Familymeandhairc
37Continuinghttp://www
VE ANALYTICA
ositinurineburdeningstaselvesrathertmergency.Inevelswerelowdscouldbeb
embersrecomsuggestedstproperly.Whedstaffacknowalsosuggestetheopportun
helpwithdailyOverall,whilehad,theyfelttogethelpwi
Resident hy
matelysevenpedaboutresir,familymemhygieneandgemberssaidt
l,familymemhed.Theprovweekatminestedbyfamitinent,residehestandardmnlyonebathpbathedoften
mised,especiaidentswereb
milymembersoawarethatfaAssomeresidfamilymembeofstaffavailab
embersalsoecuttingweren
gCareHealthSerw.health.alberta.ca
AL RESULTS
soakedclothaff,residentswthanaskforhngeneral,famw,howeverfaetter.
mmendedstataffalwaysbeenstaffarebwledgeresideedstaffroutinnitytomonitoyneedsliketefamilymemtthatresidenthbasicneed
giene and g
percentoffamidenthygienemberssaidthegroomingwastheyfeltfacili
mbers’mostcvincerecentlyimum,accordilymembers.entsareeligibmandated.Insperweekandenough,famillyforthosewbathed,staffw
swereawarefacilitiesweredentsrequireerswereconsble.
expressedthanotalwayspe
viceStandards,sta/documents/Con
ingforlongpweremorelikhelp,andresimilymembersamilymembe
affstrivetoprevisibleandausyandcannentsrequestsnelycheckinorresidentswtransferring,pmbersrecognintdignityshods.
grooming
milymembereandgroomineydidnotfeesdoneofteneitiescouldim
ommonconcymandatedadingtoresideShouldresidbleforthis.Fastead,familydschedulingoilymemberswhowereincwerehurried
ofthisstandenotprovidedmorethanonsciousthatth
atothergroomerformed.Ina
tandard1.21(b):ntinuing‐Care‐Sta
Ane
periodsoftimkelytoplacetdentswerelerecognizedterssaidtheyf
rovideresideavailabletorenotassistresisothatresideonresidentswhorequireeprovidingsnaizedthatstaffuldnotbeco
rsng.Inlthatenough.mprovethisan
ernwasthenbathingstanentpreferencentsrequireamilymembememberssaiofthisbathwsaidtheywercontinent.Inaandleftsoap
ard,andmaddadditionalfnestaffmembhisstandardc
mingpracticeaddition,fam
Operationalprocandards‐2008.pdf
Aminimumofneedstoapplyenforced.
me),residentsthemselvesaesslikelytortherewerelimfeltresponse
ntswithtimeesidentsanddentsimmedentsareawars.Itwassuggeextrasuperviacksandbevefcouldonlydmpromisedb
ndofferedcon
numberoftimndardwhichres(e.g.,bath,morefrequenerssaidthatridthatitwaswasoftenunpreconcernedaddition,fampandshampo
dereferencetfundingtohirberinordertcouldnotbep
es,suchasormilymembers
cessesf
f twobathingdyinallfacilitie
werelesslikatriskofharmreceivehelpqmitsplacedontimestohelp
elyhelp.Todensurethatcdiately,familyrethathelpisestedthatthiision,andtoperages,andasdosomuchwbecauseresid
nstructivefee
mesperweekrequiresresidshower,bedntbathing,foresidentswercommonforredictable.Wdresidentdigmilymembersoointheresid
toitintheircremorestafftoseatthemiproperlyenfo
ralcare,shavisaidthatres
daysesandbe
kelytoaskformbydoingthquicklyinanstaffwhenpresidentsw
oso,familycallbellsystemymembersscoming.Famiswouldprovproactivelyssistingwith
withthenumbdentsmustwa
edback.
kthatresidendentsreceivebath).37Thisorexampleiftrenotbathedresidentsto
Whenresidentnitywascommenteddents’hair.
omments.Thtoassistwithinaliftfororcedwiththe
ing,hairbrusidentclothin
rhelpings
with
ms
milyvide
berofait
tstwoswastheyas
ts
that
heyh
e
hing,gwas
102
QUALITATI
notalwayimportantrecognizetheirimpomanicure
Familymeintocleanotherservsuchasbyservices.
12.4.5 T
Aboutfiveexperiencfacilities.residentsbecausethreceived.didthingsotherfamresponsibguardian,membersresidentc
Cl
Cl
P
Fi
T
D
Foth
Mbr
M
A
G
38Supportivehttp://www
VE ANALYTICA
yschangeddatpartofresidedthatthesetortancetoress,hairdressin
emberssuggenclothing,comvices,likehaiyprovidingsp
The work fam
epercentoffcesofassistinFamilymembbecausetheyheywerenotOtherfamilysforresidentmilymembersbilityasafamtohelpandtdescribedthcare.Someof
leaningresid
leaningcomm
rovidingresi
illingcommu
akingresiden
oingresident
ollowing‐upohattheyrecei
Monitoring,asruises,medic
Maintainingre
Assistingwith
ettingresiden
eLivingAccommw.health.alberta.ca
AL RESULTS
aily,orwhendents’persontasksrequiresidentdignityngandbarber
estedthatstambingtheirhircuttingandpacewithint
mily memb
familymembngresidentsaberssaidtheyyfeltthatfacitsatisfiedwitmembersexptsbecausethesaidtheyfelt
milymember,atolookoutfohemultiplerof theserolesin
ents’rooms
monareas
dentswithfo
nicationgaps
ntsoutforap
tslaundry
onresidentcaivedtheirme
ssessingandrcationsideeff
esidenthygien
basicneedsl
ntssuppliess
odationStandarda/documents/CC‐
dirty.Overallnalandmedicedtimenotalwy.Whilesuppring,itisnot
affprovidereshairandbrushdstylingaswethefacilityfor
ers do for r
erssharedthatsupportiveysteppedinailitystaffwerththehelprepressedthateyenjoyeddotthatitwastandattimes,rresidents.Oolesthattheyncluded:
ood,foodstor
sbetweensta
pointmentso
are,ensuringdicationsand
reportingonrfects,weightc
neandgroom
liketoileting
suchastoiletr
dsandChecklist,s‐Accommodation
l,familymemalcare(e.g.,fwaysavailablportivelivingarequiremen
sidentswithhingtheirteeellasnailandrresidentsto
residents
heirlivingandhelpedeunabletoosidentstheyregularloingso.StilltheirroleandlegalOverall,familyperformedin
age,ortaking
aff
orarrangingf
gresidentsgodthatdietary
resident’sheachangeando
ming
andeating
ries
standard9:Perso‐Guide4‐2013‐SL
Forthebeenforemploymy[fambeing,thtocaref[residenmoretimlimitedprovideothers.
mbersconveyefootcarefordletostaff,bufacilitiesmaynt.38
dailypersonaeth.Inadditiodfootcare,beopaycertified
r
ly
d
yn
gresidentsou
fortransporta
otthecaretheyplansweref
althsuchasboverallprogre
onalchoiceservicL.pdf
lastseveralyrtunatetobeyafulltimecamilymember]herejustisnforeveryonent’s]conditiomeand attennumberofste,withouttak
edthatgroomdiabetics).Fatfamilymemyprovideper
alcare,likechon,familymememadeavailadprofessiona
utformeals
ation
eyneededsucfollowed
bycheckingfoess
ces
yearswehaveeabletorepersonfor].Reasonotenoughstaproperly.Mynrequiresntionthanthetaffcankingawayfrom
mingwasanamilymembermbersstressedrsonalservice
hangingresidmberssuggesabletoresidenlsforthese
chascheckin
orinfection,
e
r
affy
e
m
rsdeslike
dentsstednts,
ng
103
QUALITATI
P
P
P
Ath
Fib
Lo
P
G
A
Intheircophysicalscapableoneedswesomethincontribut
12.5 S
Thisthemdimensioncommentconcernsresidentscommentmental,phatafacilitrelatedtosecurityoandsecur
Ofalltheofthefacicompleterooms.Faresidents)personalc
Anothersresidentsmembersunmonito
VE ANALYTICA
ayingforextr
ayingforcost
rovidingexer
AdvocatingforheMinisterof
indingalterneadministere
ocatingresid
erformingbu
ettingresiden
Actingastrans
omments,famsupports,carefdoingsomuremet.Additgtheywanteetoresident
Safety and
mewasretainnsbecauseofedonwhatthwithinthefaandstaffatredonsituatiohysical,andetytreatedtheothethemeSaofthefacilityritywereperc
commentsofilityandresidprivacyinthamilymembe).Inadditioncareitems,lik
securityconcewereabletosaidtheyfeltored.Inadditi
AL RESULTS
raassistance
tstheresiden
rciseandrecr
rtheresidentfHealthandt
ativesolutionedmoreeasil
entsmissing
uildingmainte
ntsneededhe
slatorsatmed
milymembersegivers,andduch,andtheretionally,famildtodoandshcareinthefu
d Security
edindependefitssignificanheyperceivedcilitythatcouriskofharm.Fonswheretheemotionalweem.ApproximafetyandSecratherthanaceivedbythe
fthisnature,fdentsafety.Ineirpersonalsrswerealsoc,familymemkerazors,mig
ernfamilymegetthehelpttthatresidenion,familym
forresidents
ntcouldnota
reationoppor
tbytakingcotheMinistryo
nswhenproblybystaff
items
enance,such
ealthequipm
dicalappoint
sdescribedodecision‐makeweretimeslymembersehoulddo.Oveuture.
entoftheothnce.FamilymdtobesecuriuldpotentiallFamilymembeyfeltthatrellbeingwash
matelyfourpeurity,andoftaboutharmtomajorityoff
familymembnparticular,fspaces,asothconcernedabbersexpresseghthaveacce
emberstalkedtheyneededntswhodidnoemberssaidt
sbecausestaf
afford
rtunities
mplaintsandofHealth
blemsarose,s
asrepairs
mentbyresear
mentswhen
ccasionswhekers.Familymwhentheyhaexpressedthaerall,familym
herfourmembersityorsafetyyplacebersalsoesidents’harmedbecauercentoffamthese,themaoresidents.Ofamilymembe
ersmostcomfamilymembeherresidentsboutthesecuredconcernthesstotheseit
daboutwastandthatresidotgetalongmtheyfeltthat
Workinnightshbecausepatients
ffweretoobu
dconcernsto
suchasresear
rching,phoni
residentscou
eretheyactedmembersacknadtostepinaatprovidingrmemberscon
useofthewaymilymembersajorityweregverall,thissuerstobemin
mmonlyexpreerssaidthatrmay,attimerityofresidenhatresidentstemswhenth
thenumberodentsweremmightactoutlownumbers
ngaloneatanyhouldnotbeaeofsafetyreasandstaff.
usyortoofew
higherlevela
rchingmedic
ingandfollow
uldnotspeak
dasadvocatenowledgedthandensurethresidentswithnveyedthatth
ythatstafforprovidedacogeneralconceuggeststhatisimal.
essedconcernresidentsdids,havewandnts’personalthatcouldnohesewerenot
ofstaffavailabmonitored.Sevandthisbehasofstaffand
yfacilityatallowedasonsforthe
w
authoritiesli
cationsthatco
wing‐up
kEnglish
s,emotionalhatstaffwerehatresidents’hhelpwasalsheywerelikel
rotherresideommentthaternsaboutthessuesofsafet
nforthesecudnotalwayshderedintotheitems(fromotsafelyhandtproperlysec
bletoensureveralfamilyaviourmighthighstaffrot
ke
ould
andonly’solyto
entstety
urityhaveeirotherdlecured.
that
gotation
104
QUALITATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
reducedresidents’senseofsecurityandcomfort.Relatedly,familymemberswereconcernedaboutstaffsafetywhentherewastoofewstaff.Specifically,familymemberssaidtheyfeltthatifaresidentwasbehaviorallychallengingoraggressive,staffmightnotbeabletocontrolthatresident’sbehaviourontheirown.
Familymembersalsosaidtheywereconcernedabouttheevacuationofresidentsinthecaseofanemergency.Familymemberssaidthattherewasnotalwaysasysteminplacetoquicklyinformresidentsofanemergency,andtherewasnoeasywaytogeteveryresidentoutofthefacility.Inparticular,familymemberspointedoutthatmanyresidentswereimmobile,therewasnotenoughstafftoassistresidents,andtherewasusuallyonlyoneelevator.
Severalfamilymemberssaidthatbothkeepingresidentswithinthefacilityandtakingresidentsoutsideofthefacilitywasasecurityconcern.Onefamilymemberexpressedthatkeepingtrackofresidentswithinthefacilitywasachallengebecausetrackingdevicesdidnotalwaysworkcorrectly.Anotherfamilymembersaidthatresidentswhotheyfeltshouldbeplacedinasecureunit,becausetheseresidentshadatendencytowander,werenot.Ineithercase,familymemberssaidthatresidentsmightbeabletoexitthefacilityunnoticed.Otherfamilymemberssaidtheywereconcernedaboutsecuritymeasuresinplacetoensureresidentswerenottakenoutofthefacilitybyanyoneotherthantrustedindividualsknowntothefamily.Familymemberssaidthatstaffwasnotalwaysawareofwhoshouldandshouldnottakeresidentsoutsideofthefacility.
Intheircomments,familymembersexpressedconcernaboutsituationsinwhicharesidentexperiencedphysicalharm,neglect,oremotionalharm.Itisimportanttoreiteratethatthesecommentswerefewinnumberanddonotreflecttheexperienceofthemajorityofresidents.Afewfamilymemberssaidthatstaffwithheldprescribedmedicationortheyfeltthatstaffinappropriatelyusedmedicationtoresolvebehaviouralissues.Lastly,afewfamilymemberssaidthatstaffdidnotadequatelymonitororsuperviseresidentstoprotectresidentsfromriskoffalling,resultinginbrokenorfracturedbones.
Overall,familymembershadfewcommentsrelatingtothetopicofsafetyandsecurity.However,familymembersalsoofferedrecommendationstocontinuetoimproveresidentsafetyandsecurity.Inparticular,familymemberssuggestedanincreaseinstaffinglevelssothatstaffcanbettermonitorresidentsandensureresidents’personalitemsaresecure.Also,familymembersrecommendedthatadequatesecurityproceduresbeputinplacetoensureresidentsarealwaysaccountedforandmonitoredregularly.Todoso,familymemberssuggestedamonitoredlogbookforvisitorstosigninandoutwith;staffbecomefamiliarwithresidentsandtheirfamilies;securingwanderingresidentsinlockedunitsifneeded;andensuringtrackingdevices(ifapplicable)function.Whetherornotfamilymembers’commentsarereflectiveoffacilitiescomplianceornon‐compliance,whichwouldrequirefurtherreview,facilitiesarerequiredtopromotethesafetyandsecurityofresidents,includingprocessesthataccountforallresidentsonadailybasis,andensurethatmonitoringmechanismsorpersonnelareinplaceonaround‐the‐clockbasis.39
39SupportiveLivingAccommodationStandardsandChecklist,standard18:Residentsafetyandsecurityhttp://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/CC‐Accommodation‐Guide4‐2013‐SL.pdf
105
QUALITATI
12.6 O
InadditiotheSafetyDimensio
12.6.1 A
Forapproactivityreofinterespartinregengagedaworkrecrentertaine
Otherfamactivitiestherewersaidtheyinvolved.familymewerenotstemmedfulltimererequiredtactivities,residents
Familymedevelopmandtypeo
C
B
O
So
C
C
G
M
Sh
40Supportivehttp://www
VE ANALYTICA
Other
ontoprovidinyandSecuritynofCare.The
Activities
oximately12esidentsweret.Familymemgularwell‐orasaresult.Threationaldireedandactive
milymembersandfeltthatrealwaysenofeltthatstaffBecauseresiembersexprephysicallyanfromnothavecreationaldtoprovideacsupportiveli.40
embersrecommentofactivitofactivitieso
ooking
aking
utings
ocialswithot
rochet
utclippings
amenight
Movienight
huffleboard
eLivingAccommw.health.alberta.ca
AL RESULTS
ngcommentsycategory,fame‘Other’cate
percentoffaeperceivedtomberssaidthganizedactivhesefamilymectorsdidtoeeandnoticed
ssaidtheyfelthiscouldbeoughactivitiesf didnotalwadentswerenessedconcernndmentallystvingenoughsdirectoronstativitiestoresivingfacilitie
mmendedthatiesandleadtofferedtoresi
therresidents
odationStandarda/documents/CC‐
thatcouldbemilymembergoryaddress
amilymemberobeengagedheyfeltthatrevitiesandwermembersapprensureresidethepositivee
tthatresidenimproved.Spsorenoughvaysmakeenouotasactiveanthatresidentimulatedenostaff,nothaviaff.Itisimporsidents,howesshallprovid
atfacilitiesemtheseactivitieidentstogetr
s
dsandChecklist,s‐Accommodation
ecategorizedrsprovidedcsestheseaddi
rs,theleveloinwasatopiesidentstookreactiveandreciatedtheentswerekepeffectsactivit
ntsdidnothapecifically,thvarietyintheughofaneffoasfamilymemntswereisolaough.Ingenengenoughfurtanttonoteever,whereandeactivitiesth
mployafulltimes.Familymeresidentstob
standard12:Soci‐Guide4‐2013‐SL
[FacilitentertaKeep[rwillha
intooneofthommentsthaitionaltopics
ofick
pttieshadonre
aveenoughopesefamilymeactivitiesoffeorttoensuremberssaidtheated,bored,haeral,familymeundingtosuppthatsupportinoperatorprhataddresst
merecreationemberssuggebemoreactiv
ialorleisureactivL.pdf
tiesshould]hainmentactivresidents]buavefun.
hefourDimeatwerenotclsinthesumm
esidents’over
pportunitytoemberssaidtfered.Aswell,residentsweeywouldlikeadnosenseoemberssaidtportactivitieivelivingfacirovidessociatheneedsand
naldirectorwestedincreasive.Suggestion
vities
haveestablishvitiesdaily.usyandthey
nsionsofCarassifiabletoa
mariesbelow.
rallwellbeing
otakepartintheydidnott,familymemereengagedaeresidentstoofpurpose,ortheyfeltthatsandnothavilitiesarenotlorleisuredpreferences
whocanguideingthenumbnsincluded:
hed
reora
g.
thinkbersndbe,rthisvinga
sof
etheber
106
QUALITATI
B
Li
G
P
A
G
V
C
Whendevpopulatio
Familymefamilymeparticipatresidentsaccommomadeava
12.6.2 F
ApproximtheimporSpecificalalwaysremembersmembersservicesaforresidesomecaserent,med
Overall,farecommetheirmon
VE ANALYTICA
ingo
iveentertainm
oingforwalk
etvisits
Audioreading
ardening
olunteering
rafts
velopingtheson,includinga
embersalsocemberssuggeteinactivitiessothatallre
odateresidentilable,sucha
Funding
matelyeightprtanceofrecely,familymeeceivedvalueexpressedthsaidtheyfeltandnotenougents’abilitytoes,familymemdications,add
amilymembendedthatfacnthlybillsand
AL RESULTS
mentsuchas
ks
s
eactivities,faageandcapab
conveyedtheestedstaffuses.Familymemsidentscanptswithvaryinsaccesstoa
ercentoffameivingqualitymberssaidthfortheamouhatthiswasetthatthequaghstafftoprooaffordtopaymberssaidthitionalhealth
erssuggestedcilityfeesdecrdaffordperso
musicandda
amilymembebilities.
eimportanceeencouragemmbersalsosuparticipateinngphysicalcaHandiBus,so
milymembersycareatanaffheydidnotthuntpaideachspeciallythealityofresideovideresidenyforthemonheypaidoutohservices,and
facilityfeessreaseoratleonalitems.
ancers
erssuggested
ofstaffinvolvmentandposiuggestedthatactivities,regapabilities,fathatimmobi
shighlightedfordableprichinkresidentsmonth.Famicasewhenfantcaredeclinntswithcare)nthlyfacilityfofpocketbecadtoiletriesea
shouldbeaffoaststayconst
Rentgoincome
dthatstaffkee
vingandengaitivereinforceavarietyofagardlessofthamilymemberileresidentsc
e.slyacilityfundingnedasaresul.Familymemfees,particulaauseresidentachmonth.
ordableforretanttoensur
oesuptoooftesdonot.
epinmindth
agingallresidementtogetactivitiesbeaheircapabilitirssuggestedcangoonout
gwasminimilt(e.g.,reducembersalsoexparlywhenrattscouldnota
esidents.Famreresidentsca
en.Fixed
heresident
dents.Specifiresidentstoavailabletoes.Toresourcesbetings.
izedandfamiedanddelayepressedconctesincreased.affordtopayf
milymembersanaffordtop
cally,
ilyedern.Infor
spay
107
LIMITATIONS
13.0 LIMITATIONS
13.1 Limitations of the quantitative analyses
Ininterpretingtheresultsofthereport,thereareseveralimportantlimitationstoconsider:
1. Theeffectofsamplesize:Resultsbecomeincreasinglyunreliableasthesamplesize(i.e.,thenumberofrespondents)decreasesinrelationtotheoverallpopulation.Readersmustbemindfulofthesamplesizewhengivingweighttofindings,inparticularfacility‐to‐facilitycomparisons.Tomitigatethis,facility‐levelanalyseswerelimitedtofacilitieswithreliablesamplesizes(107of134facilities;seeSection4.3andAppendixD),whichisdefinedasthosefacilitiesforwhichrespondentsreliablyrepresentthefacilitywithinapredefinedmarginoferror.Thecriteriaforreliabilitywastwo‐fold:1)amarginoferrorcalculationwhichidentifiedreliablefacilitiesasthosewithamarginoferrorofequaltoorlessthan10percent,and2)aresponserateofgreaterthan50percent(forfurtherdetails,seeAppendixD).Furthermore,samplesizesand95percentconfidenceintervalsarereportedinassociationwithresultsamongfacilitiesinorderforthereadertomakejudgmentsregardingthereliabilityoffindings.
2. Theeffectoftheresidentprofileatthefacility:Differencesinresidentprofilesmustbeconsideredwheninterpretingthesurveyresultsrelativetothezoneandtheprovince.Forexample,ageandthedegreeofphysicalandcognitiveimpairmentofresidentswithinaparticularfacilitymayprovidemeaningfulcontextintheinterpretationofthesurveyresults,includingexplainingwhydifferencesexistordonotexistrelativetoAHSzoneandprovincialresults,andwhetherthesedifferencesaremeaningful.
3. Theeffectofservicesprovided:Giventhatfacilitiesdifferinmanyways,thesurveyanditscomponentsmustalsobeevaluatedrelativetotheactivitiesandtheservicesprovidedbyeachfacility.Forexample,laundryservicesmaynotbeaserviceofferedbyallfacilities,orusedbyallresidentswithineachfacilitytherebylimitingtheapplicabilityofquestionsrelatedtolaundryforthosefacilitiesorresidents.
13.2 Limitations of the qualitative analyses
Thereareseveralimportantlimitationstothequalitativeanalyses.First,familymemberswerelimitedbytheamountofspaceprovidedtorecordtheiranswers.Whilefamilymemberschosetoexpandtheiranswersbywritingonthebackpageoftheirquestionnaire,ortosubmitanadditionallong‐answerresponse,mostwrotetheirresponseswithinthespaceprovided.Asaresult,theresponsestothesequestionsmaybeshorter,lessdetailed,andmaynotcoverallofwhatafamilymemberhadtosayhadalargerspacebeenprovided.
Anotherimportantconsiderationisthatthesecommentsprovideoneperspectiveofthequalityofcareandservicesatsupportivelivingfacilities.Thisanalysisisbasedonfamilymembers’opinionsandexperiences,anddoesnotprovideacomprehensive,overallpictureofafacility’scareandservices.Inparticular,familymembers’commentsmaynotreflecttheopinionsandexperiencesofresidents,staffandfacilityoperators.Itispossiblethatthefamilymemberswhoprovidedcommentsandconcernswerethosewhosefamilymembersrequiredthemosthelpand/orwhosefamilymembersweremostatriskofnegativehealthcareexperiences.Ifthiswasthecase,itispossiblethattheexperiencesofthose
108
LIMITATIONS
whoprovidedcommentswererelativelymorenegativethantheoverallpopulation.Nevertheless,familymembersprovidedinvaluableinsightbasedontheirownobservationsandexperiences.
109
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
14.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
TheSupportiveLivingFamilyExperienceSurveywasconductedbytheHealthQualityCouncilofAlbertaincollaborationwithAlbertaHealthandAlbertaHealthServices(AHS).Theintentofthesurveyistoestablishabaselinemeasurementforsupportivelivingfamilyexperiences(familymembersofsupportivelivinglevel3and4residents)41thatcanbeusedforbenchmarkingandongoingmonitoringasmeasuredbytheGlobalOverallCarerating,fourDimensionsofCare,andtheFoodRatingScale.Thisreportpresentsanoverviewoffacilityperformanceacrosstheprovincefromthefamilymembers’perspectives.Thisinformationcanbeusedtoassessperformancerelativetopeers,toidentifyopportunitiesforimprovement,andtoidentifyhigherperformingfacilities.
Results
Global Overall Care rating
TheGlobalOverallCareratingreflectsfamilymember’soverallevaluationofthesupportivelivingfacility.TheGlobalOverallCareratingfortheprovincewas8.4outof10.Therewasvariationamongthefacilitiesthroughouttheprovincewithindividualfacilityscoresrangingfrom6.5to9.9outof10.
Attheprovinciallevel,thefourDimensionsofCareandtheFoodRatingScalevaryintheirinfluenceonfamilyexperienceandfamily’soverallevaluationofthesupportivelivingfacility.ThegreatestgainsattheprovinciallevelmayberealizedbyfocusingonthestrongestinfluencersofGlobalOverallCare.Thesearelistedinorderofdecreasinginfluenceandinclude:
1. Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment
2. KindnessandRespect
3. Food
4. ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement
5. MeetingBasicNeeds
Inaddition,eachfacilityhastheirownuniqueareasoffocus,whichmaydifferfromthoseidentifiedfortheprovince.Thesearehighlightedinfacility‐levelreports,whichhavebeenprovidedtoeachfacilitythatparticipatedinthesurvey.
Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment
TheStaffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironmentDimensionofCarehasthestrongestinfluenceontheGlobalOverallCarerating.Thisdimensionreflectsfamilymembers’experienceswiththeavailabilityofstaff,thecleanlinessoftheresident’sroom,andwhethertheresident’sclothesorbelongingswerelost.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas78.3outof100.Therewasvariabilityamongthefacilitiesthroughouttheprovincewithscoresrangingfrom58.1to95.7outof100.TheStaffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironmentDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximately33percentofallfamilymembercomments.Familymembersmostfrequentlyprovidedcommentsrelatedtostaffinglevelsandspecifically,issuesregardinghighstaffturnoverandunderstaffing.
41Supportivelivinglevel3isforindividualswhosemedicalconditionisstableandappropriatelymanagedwithout24‐houron‐sitenursingstaff,butwhohavelimitedindependence.Supportivelivinglevel4isforindividualswithmorecomplexmedicalconditions.
110
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
Kindness and Respect
TheKindnessandRespectDimensionofCarehasthesecondmostinfluenceontheGlobalOverallCarerating.Thisdimensionreflectsfamilymembers’experienceswiththecourteousness,kindness,politeness,andappropriatenessofemployeestowardsresidents.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas85.8outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom60.3to100outof100.TheKindnessandRespectDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelyfivepercentofallfamilymembercomments.Familymembersexpressedthattheywereappreciativeoffriendly,kind,andrespectfulstaffwhotookaninterestinresidents.Familymembersalsoexpressedconcernsthatwhenstaffdidnotpossessthesequalities,thisdisruptedtheresidents’abilitytoreceivecare,togettheircomplaintsandconcernsaddressedandtobetreatedfairlyandconsiderately.
Food Rating Scale
TheFoodRatingScalereflectsfamilymembers’opinionsaboutthefoodatthefacility.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisitemwas7.2outof10;facilityscoresrangedfrom5.3to9.7outof10.Withrespecttofoodandfoodrelatedissues,somefamilymemberscomplimentedthequalityofthefoodservedatfacilities.Otherfamilymembersexpressedconcernsaboutgeneralfoodquality:thatthefoodwasnotalwaysnutritiousanddidnotalwaysmeetresident’sdietaryneedsandhealthandwellnessgoals.
Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement
TheProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvementDimensionofCarereflectsfamilymembers’experienceswithbeinginformedaboutthecareandservicesthattheresidentisreceiving,aswellasinformationonpaymentsandexpenses.Inaddition,familymemberswereaskediftheyarecomfortableaskingquestionsandwhethertheyareeverdiscouragedfromaskingquestionsoftheemployeesatthefacility.Thescoreforthisdimensionfortheprovincewas84.6outof100.Thefacilityscoresrangedfrom69.6to98.4outof100.TheProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvementDimensionofCarecomprisedapproximately11percentofallfamilymembercomments.Mostofthecommentsfocusedontheflowofinformationbetweenstaffandfamilymembers,aswellasthedegreetowhichthefacilityincludedandinvolvedfamilymembersinresidentcare.
Meeting Basic Needs
TheMeetingBasicNeedsDimensionofCarereflectsfamilymembers’experienceswithfacilitystaffhelpingtheresidentwitheating,drinking,ortoileting.Thescoreforthisdimensionfortheprovincewas95.8outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom74.7to100outof100.TheMeetingBasicNeedsDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximately31percentofallfamilymembercomments.Themostfrequentlyprovidedcommentsrelatedtotheavailabilityofcareandservicesinthefacility;however,familiesrecognizedthatthenumberandtypeofcareandservicesprovidedtoresidentswerelimitedbyfacilityresources,staffinglevels,andstaffingrequirements.Overall,familymemberssaidresidentswouldbenefitfromreceivingmoretimelycareandservicesandfromhavingaccesstoin‐househealthcare,hygiene,andgroomingservices.
111
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
Quartile analyses
Facilitiesthatwerecategorizedintheupperquartile(i.e.,upper25percentofscores)ontheirGlobalOverallCareratingwerealsoratedmorepositivelyineachofthefourDimensionsofCareandFoodRatingScalerelativetofacilitiesthatwerecategorizedinthelowerquartile(i.e.,lower25percentofscores).Thisanalysiswillassistlowerquartilefacilitiesindeterminingtheimportanceandfocusofqualityimprovementinitiatives.Facilitieswishingtoimprovecanlooktothoseupperquartileperformersforexamplesofhowtoachieveimprovedperformanceinvariousareas.Differencesinmeansbetweentheupperandlowerperformingfacilities,ineachofthefourDimensionsofCareandtheFoodRatingScaleare:
Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment:17.6outof100
KindnessandRespect:9.9outof100
Food:1.3outof10
ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement:10.4outof100
MeetingBasicNeeds:7.0outof100
Facility size
Overall,resultsshowedthatfacilitysizeisanimportantfactorthatinfluencesallDimensionsofCareandtheGlobalOverallCarerating.Asfacilitysizeincreases(i.e.,numberofbeds),theGlobalOverallCareratingandscoresforDimensionsofCaredecrease.Typically,smallerfacilities(i.e.,fewerbeds)havemorefavorableratingsthanlargerfacilities.ThisissimilartoafindingthatwaspreviouslyreportedbytheHealthQualityCouncilofAlbertaforthelongtermcaresector.42However,itwasnotedthattherewereafewlargefacilitiesthatreceivedrelativelyhighscoresandafewsmallfacilitiesthatreceivedrelativelylowscoresontheGlobalOverallCarerating.
Ownership type
Althoughthereweredifferencesamongownershiptypesforsomeoftheindividualquestionsinthesurvey,noevidencewasfoundtosuggestthattheGlobalOverallCare,DimensionsofCare,andtheFoodRatingScalescoresdifferedbyownershiptype(i.e.,AHS,privatelyowned,orvoluntaryowned).
Propensity to recommend
Provincially,92.0percentofrespondentsstatedthattheywouldrecommendthefacilitytheirfamilymemberlivedintoanotherfamilymemberorfriend.AgreaterpercentageofrespondentsfromfacilitiescategorizedintheupperquartileofGlobalOverallCareratingswouldrecommendtheirfacilityrelativetorespondentsfromlowerquartilefacilities(99.0%versus84.6%).
Conclusion
Resultspresentedinthisreportareintendedtoguidereflectiononperformancebyidentifyingthefactorsthatcontributetotheoverallevaluationofafacilityfromthefamilymembers’perspectives.
42Forfurtherdetailspleasereferto:http://hqca.ca/surveys/continuing‐care‐experience/
112
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
Goingforward,resultsfromfacility‐levelreports,thisreport,andthe2014SupportiveLivingResidentExperienceSurveyReportprovideabenchmarkbywhichtocomparefuturesurveyresultsandtomeasureimprovementoutcomes.Inaddition,theongoingevaluationofafacilityagainstitself,anditspeers,willprovideopportunitiestoidentifyareasofsuccess,andtodeterminetheimportanceandfocusofqualityimprovementinitiatives.Thiscansupportacultureofcontinualqualityimprovementbasedonfamilyandresidentfeedback.
Ataprovinciallevel,thegreatestgainsmayberealizedbyfocusingonimprovementtothefollowing,inorderofdecreasingpriorityandinfluenceonGlobalOverallCarerating:
1. Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment
2. KindnessandRespect
3. Food
4. ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement
5. MeetingBasicNeeds
Eachindividualfacilityhastheirownuniqueareasforimprovement,whichmaydifferfromthoseidentifiedfortheprovince.Facilitiesshouldrefertotheirfacility‐levelreportstobetterdeterminewheretofocusqualityimprovementeffortstobestmeettheneedsoftheirresidentsandfamilymembers.
Familyexperiencedataaloneshouldnotbeusedtojudgefacilityperformanceintheabsenceofotherinformationsuchaslevel‐of‐needoftheresidentpopulation,servicesprovided,otherqualitymeasuressuchasthosederivedfromtheinterRAITMResidentAssessmentInstrument,complaintsandconcerns,andcompliancewithprovincialcontinuingcarestandards.
113
APPENDICES
APPENDICES
115
APPENDIX
APPEN
A
NDIX A: SUURVEY DOOCUMENTTS
117
APPENDIX
A
118
APPENDIX
A
119
APPENDIX A
120
APPENDIX
A
121
APPENDIX
A
122
APPENDIX
A
123
APPENDIX
A
124
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B: SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
B.1 Privacy, confidentiality, and ethical considerations
InaccordancewiththerequirementsoftheHealthInformationActofAlberta(HIA),anamendmenttotheHQCAprivacyimpactassessmentforpatientexperiencesurveyswassubmittedto,andacceptedby,theOfficeoftheInformationandPrivacyCommissionerofAlberta(OIPC)specificallyfortheSupportiveLivingResidentandFamilyExperiencesurveys.
Asaprovincialcustodian,theHQCAfollowstheHIAtoensurethesecurityofthehealthinformationitcollects.Potentialrespondentswereinformedofthepurposeandprocessofthesurvey,thattheirparticipationwasvoluntary,andthattheirinformationwouldbeconfidential.Thoserespondentswhodeclinedtoparticipatewereremovedfromthesurveyprocess.Residentsandfamilieswereinformedaboutthesurveyprocessusingconventionalcommunicationchannelsincludingpostersandpamphlets.Acontactnumberwasprovidedforthosewhohadconcerns.
B.2 The Alberta Supportive Living Family Experience Survey
B.2.1 The survey instrument (Appendix A)
TheCAHPS®NursingHomeSurvey:FamilyMemberInstrumentwasusedforthissurveyofsupportivelivingresidentfamilymembers.ThisinstrumentwasalsousedintheHQCAsurveyoflongtermcareresidentfamilymembers.QuestionsintheCAHPS®instrumentwererewordedtochangethecontextfromlongtermcaretosupportiveliving.Forexample,question9(Q9)reads:
Q9:Inthelast6months,abouthowmanytimesdidyouvisityourfamilymemberinthenursinghome?
Itwaschangedto:
Q9:Inthelast6months,abouthowmanytimesdidyouvisityourfamilymemberinthesupportivelivingfacility?
Thesurveyiscomprisedof64questions,plusoneopen‐endedquestion,andwasusedwiththepermissionoftheAgencyforHealthcareResearchandQuality(AHRQ).
Thequestionnairewasdeliveredto,andansweredby,familymembers(respondents).Thequestionnairecollectedthefollowinginformation:
Residentandrespondent(familymember)characteristics(AppendixC)
Reportedfamilyexperienceandperceptionofsupportivelivingfacilityactivitiesandservices
Familymemberratingsofthecareprovidedtotheresidentbythesupportivelivingfacility
Willingnesstorecommendthesupportivelivingfacility
Suggestionsforimprovementofcareandservicesprovidedatthesupportivelivingfacility
125
APPENDIX B
B.2.2 Survey dimensions
TheCAHPS®surveycomprisesfoursubscales(i.e.,DimensionsofCare):1)Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment,2)KindnessandRespect,3)ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement,and4)MeetingBasicNeeds.EachDimensionofCarecomprisesmultiplequestions;andadimensionsummaryscoreisproducedfromspecificquestionswithineachdimension.Foralistofthesequestions,seeAppendixF.
B.2.3 Survey response options
Eachsurveyquestionwastypicallyfollowedbytwo‐optionYesorNoresponseorafour‐optionresponse:
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
B.2.4 Survey scoring
Thetypicalmethodforscoringthesurveyistotransformeachresponsetoascaledmeasurebetween0‐100,asshowninTable25.Higherscoresrepresentpositiveexperiencesandlowerscoresrepresentmorenegativeexperiences.ThescoringmethodologyinvolvesthecalculationofasummaryscoreforeachDimensionofCareusingamean(oraverage)ofthescaled‐responsescoreswithineachDimensionofCare.
Table 25: Survey scale conversion
Four response options Two response options
Answer choice Converted scaled value Answer choice Converted
scaled value
Always 100.0 Yes 100.0
Usually 66.67
Sometimes 33.33 No 0.0
Never 0.0
NegativelyframedquestionssuchasQuestion15(Inthelast6months,didyoueverseeanynursesoraidesberudetoyourfamilymemberoranyotherresident?)werereversecoded,whereNOresponseswerecodedas100.0andYESresponseswerecodedas0.0.Forallrespondents,eachresponsewasconvertedtoanumericalvaluebasedonthescalingmethodabove(Table25).ADimensionofCaresummaryscorewascalculatedonlyifatleastoneanswerwasprovidedtothequestionsusedforcalculatingthesummaryvariable.Facilitymeansreplacedmissingvaluesforthesequestions.ScaledresponsesweresummedanddividedbythenumberofquestionswithineachDimensionofCareto
126
APPENDIX B
arriveatasummaryscore.Questionweightsweredeterminedaccordingtofactorloadingsinafactoranalysisusingapromaxrotation.
B.3 Survey sampling design and recruitment
Thesurveywasconductedasacensusofalleligibleparticipantsforwhomcontactdatawasavailable.Giventhesmallsizeofmostsupportivelivingfacilities,randomsamplingtechniqueswerenotrequiredandwouldhaveaddedlittlevalueattheexpenseofincreasedcomplexityforthefewlargerfacilities,whererandomselectionmighthavebeenjustified.
Eligiblerespondentswereidentifiedusingacompiledsupportivelivingresidentdatabase;whichwasconstructedusingdataobtainedfromfacilitiesandAHS.Eligibilitywasbasedonboththeresidentandfamilymemberinformation.Thefollowingindividualswereexcluded:
Contactsofnewresidents(thosewhohadresidedatthefacilityforaperiodoflessthanonemonth)
Residentswhohadnocontactperson(familymember),orwhosecontactpersonresidedoutsideofCanada
Contactsofdeceasedresidentsupondatabaseconstruction
Contactsofresidentswhowerelistedasapublicguardian
Contactsofresidentswhowerenolongerlivingatthefacilitythatwaslistedinthedatabase
Familymembersofthosewhoweredeceasedsubsequenttosurveyrolloutweregiventheoptiontocompletethesurveyandtoprovideresponsesthatreflectedthelastsixmonthsinwhichtheresidentresidedinthefacility.Onerespondentwasexcludedbecausetheresidenthadbeenlivingatthesupportivelivingfacilityforlessthanonemonth.43
Thirty‐nineindividualsdeclinedtobesentasurveybeforesurveyroll‐out.Duetotheirpotentialeligibility,theseindividualswereregardedas‘refusedtoparticipate’(thereforeeligiblerespondents).
Thestudyemployedacontinuousrecruitmentstrategyandmailingsweresentoutinthreewaves:October2013,November2013,andJanuary2014.Withineachwave,thefollowingthree‐stagemailingprotocolwasusedtoensuremaximumparticipationrates:
Initialmailingofquestionnairepackages
Postcardreminderstoallnon‐respondents
Mailingofquestionnairepackagewithmodifiedcoverlettertoallnon‐respondents
Familymembershadtheoptionofeithersendingbackapaperquestionnaire,orcompletingthesurveyon‐lineusingauniquesingle‐usesurveyaccesscodeimprintedoneachquestionnairecoverpage.
43Amongrespondents,1.8percentsaidthattheirfamilymemberlivedintheirfacilityforlessthansixmonthsbutgreaterthanonemonth.
127
APPENDIX B
B.3.1 Response rates
Toreducethepotentialfor“non‐responsebias”,itisdesirabletoachieveahighresponserate.Table26showsoverallresponseratebysurveymethod.
Table 26: Response rate
Description Count Response proporiton (%)
Total Sample (Original) 6,613
Proportion eligible (All waves) 4,303 100
Total paper survey responses 2,666 62.0
Total web surveys 203 4.7
Total response 2,869 66.7
Ofthe6,613residentsinthecompleteddatabase,4,303(65.1%)weredeemedeligibletoparticipate(afterallexclusioncriteriawereapplied).Atotalof2,869familymembersreturnedasurveyorcompletedawebsurveyandwereconsideredrespondents(66.7%).Themainmodeofparticipationwasthroughpapersurveyresponses(N=2,666),whichconstituted92.9percentofallcompletedsurveyresponses.
128
APPENDIX
Figure 17
Note:Transi
B
7: Study flow
tional/Duplicate
IneContact addr
Public guardi
No contact inN = 1,255)
Family conta
Deceased; w
Moved/no lon
Transitional/D
Level of Care
w-chart
residentrefersto
eligible N =ress outside Ca
an (N = 110)
nfo (address an
ct at same faci
was not sent a s
nger at facility (
Duplicate resid
e not SL3, SL4
oaresidentcaptu
N
EligWave 1: 3,
Wave 2: 66
Wave 3: 72
(N = 39 ref
Inva
Lang
No r
Refu
Dece
Resi
= 2,310anada (N = 41)
nd phone numb
lity (N = 3)
survey (N = 250
(N = 632)
ent (N = 17)
or SL4D (N =
uredtwiceinthed
= 6,6
gible N = 4,532
60
2
fused to be sen
Nonreslid address/retu
guage issues (N
response (N = 1
used - returned
eased - did not
ident lived in fa
Res
Response -
Response
)
ber,
0)
2)
database.
13
,303
nt a survey).
sponse N =urn-to-sender (
N = 2)
1,249)
d survey blank (
t complete (N =
acility less than
sponse N =
- Paper Surv
e - Web Surv
= 1,434(N = 120)
(N = 53)
= 8)
n one month (N
= 2,869
vey (N = 2,66
vey (N = 203
N = 2)
66)
3)
129
APPENDIX B
B.3.2 Response rates by wave
Themajorityofmailoutswerecompletedduringwave1;82.0percentofeligiblerespondentsreceivedamailoutduringwave1.Responseproportions(percentagesoftotalresponse)wererelativelysimilaracrosswaves(Table27).Theprimaryreasonforanonresponsewasunreturned/nonresponse(89.6%);thiswasdefinedasunreturnedmailandnoresponseviaweb(Table28).
Table 27: Response proportions by wave
Wave 1 (N = 3,532) Wave 2 (N = 660) Wave 3 (N = 72) Alberta (N = 4,264)
Description Percentage (%) Percentage (%) Percentage (%) Percentage (%)
Proportion eligible 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total paper survey responses
61.8 67.8* 48.5 62.5
Total web surveys 5.5 0.0 11.1 4.8
Total response 67.3 67.8 59.7 67.3*
*Totalresponseexcludes39individualsthatdeclinedpriortosurveymailout.
Table 28: Reasons for non-response by wave
Wave 1 (N = 3,532) Wave 2 (N = 660) Wave 3 (N = 72) Alberta (N = 4,264)
Description Percentage (%) Percentage (%) Percentage (%) Percentage (%)
Proportion eligible 100 100 100 100
Invalid address/RTS 2.9 2.0 5.6 2.8
Language 0.1 -- -- 0.1
Unreturned/non-response
29.1 30.0 34.7 29.3
Refused 0.4 0.2 -- 0.4
Deceased - did not complete
0.2 -- -- 0.2
Lived in facility less than one month
0.1 -- -- 0.1
130
AF AP
PE
ND
IX B
Fig
ure
18:
Res
p N
Res
pons
e -
pape
r
(n =
2,1
82)
Res
pons
e -
web
s
(n =
195
)pons
e flo
w-c
hart
Wav
e 1
N =
3,5
32
surv
ey
surv
ey
No
nre
s
Inva
lid a
send
er (
Lang
uag
No
resp
o
Ref
used
Dec
eas e
(n =
8)
Live
d in
m
onth
(nby
wa
ve
spo
nse
(n
= 1
,155
)
ddre
ss/r
etur
n-to
-n
= 1
03)
ge is
sues
(n
= 2
)
onse
(n
= 1
,026
)
(n
= 1
4)
ed -
did
not
com
plet
e
faci
lity
less
than
one
n
= 2
)
Res
pons
e -
pa
(n =
44
Wav
e 2
N =
660
per
surv
ey
48)
No
n
Inva
sen
No
r
Ref
u2 0 nre
spo
nse
(n
= 2
13)
alid
add
ress
/ret
urn-
to-
der
(n=
13)
resp
onse
(N
= 1
98)
used
(n=
1)
-
Res
pons
e -
p
(n =
3
Res
pons
e -
w
(n =
Wav
e 3
N =
72
aper
sur
vey
35)
web
sur
vey
8)
No In to N
3 on
resp
on
se (
n =
29)
nval
id a
ddre
ss/r
etur
n-
o-se
nder
(n
= 4
)
o re
spon
se (
n =
25)
131
APPENDIX
B.4 R
Responsesurveys.
Figure 19
44Note:wheInotherwor
Non
Res
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
B
Response
erateoverallw
9: Survey res
nresultsrefertords,itisthezonei
n-respondents
spondents
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
rates by z
was66.7per
sponse rates
zonecomparisoninwhichthefacil
Calgary
s 31.1
68.9
zone44
cent.Ofthec
s by AHS zon
ns,theseresultsrityinreferenceis
Central
30.6
69.4
completedres
ne and provin
refertozonesinwslocated.
Edmonton
35.7
64.3
sponses,near
nce
whichtherespond
n North
39.7
60.3
rlyall(92.9%
dents’familymem
South
31.2
68.8
%)werepaper
mber(resident)r
Alberta
33.3
66.7
r
resides.
a
132
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX C: RESPONDENT AND RESIDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Noteasterisk(*)representsavaluestatisticallydifferentascomparedtotheAlberta(provincial)result.SeeTable46,AppendixFforanexample.
Severalquestionsaboutrespondentandresidentcharacteristicswereincludedinthesurveyquestionnaire.Thesewereintendedto:
1. Helptounderstandwhovisitstheresident(theirdemographiccharacteristicsandtheirrelationshiptotheresident)
2. Evaluatehowthesecharacteristicsmayhaveimpactedtheresults
C.1 Respondent (i.e., family member) characteristics
Respondentcharacteristicsweregroupedintotwocategories:
1. Respondents’relationshipandlevelofinvolvementwiththeresident:
a) Respondentrelationshiptoresident
b) Frequencyofvisits
c) Mostexperiencedpersonwithlevelofcare
2. Socio‐demographicprofilesofrespondents:
a) Age
b) Gender
c) Education
d) Ethnicity
e) Language
Detailedresultsforeachattributearereportedinthefollowingpages.
133
APPENDIX
C.1.1 Q
Respondemajorityospouse/p
Amongthin‐law(23
Figure 20
Table 29
Spouse/part
Parent
Mother/fathe
Grandparen
Aunt/uncle
Sister/brothe
Child
Friend
Other
To
Alberta
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
C
Question 1 (
entswereaskofrespondenartner(8.8%
hosewhorepo3.5%).
0: Provincial
: Zone summ
tner
er -in-law
t
er
otal
Spouse/Partner
a 8.8
(Q1): Who
kedtoreportttsreportedth).
ortedother,t
summary of
mary of respo
Calgary
(N = 363)
%
6.1
74.1*
1.9
1.1
2.8
5.8
2.8
3.6
1.9
100.0
ParentMot
65.8
is the perso
theirrelationhattheywere
hemajorityr
responses fo
onses for sur
Central
(N = 540)
%
8.5
66.9
1.9
1.3
5.7
8.0
4.6
1.7
1.5
100.0
her/Father -in-law
Grand
2.6 0
on named o
nshiptothereerepresentin
reportedther
or survey Q1
rvey Q1
Edmonton
(N = 1,023)
%
7.9
62.8*
2.6
0.7
4.9
10.1
4.3
3.0
3.7*
100.0
dparent Aunt / Un
0.9 4.7
on the cove
esidentnamengtheirparen
residentwas
1
North
(N = 173
%
12.7
63.0
4.6
0.6
3.5
9.2
2.9
2.9
0.6
100.0
ncle Sister / Broth
8.6
er letter?
edonthecovents(65.8%)o
asibling,orb
3)
Sout
(N = 74
%
10.6
65.9
3.0
0.8
4.9
8.1
2.7
2.2
1.9
100.0
her Child
3.7
erletter.Thertheir
brother‐orsi
h
42)
Albe
(N = 2
%
6 8.
9 65
2.
0.
4.
8.
3.
2.
2.
0 100
Friend
2.6
ister‐
erta
2,841)
%
8
5.8
6
9
7
6
7
6
4
0.0
Other
2.4
134
APPENDIX
C.1.2 Qin
Themajorlastsixm
Figure 21
Table 30
0 - 1 times I
2 - 5 times I
6 - 10 times
11 - 20 time
More than 2
Alb
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
C
Q9: In the lan the suppo
rityofrespononths(68.7%
1: Provincial
: Zone summ
n the last six mo
n the last six mo
In the last six m
s In the last six m
0 times In the las
Total
0 - 1 timlast 6 m
erta 2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ast 6 monthortive living
ndentsreport%).Responses
summary of
mary of respo
nths
nths
onths
months
st six months
es in themonths
2 - la
.6
s, about hofacility?
tedthattheyswerefound
responses fo
onses for sur
Calgary
(N = 360)
%
2.2
6.4
8.6
14.4
68.3
100.0
5 times in theast 6 months
7.5
ow many tim
visitedtheirftodiffersign
or survey Q9
rvey Q9
Central
(N = 539)
%
1.1*
7.1
9.5
13.9
68.5
100.0
6 - 10 timethe last 6 m
8.5
mes did you
familymembificantlyacro
9
Edmonton
N = 1,010)
%
3.7*
8.3
8.9
14.1
65.0*
100.0
es inonths
11 - 2the las
u visit your
bermorethanosszones(p<
North
(N = 171) (N
%
2.9
8.2
10.5
10.5
67.8
100.0
20 times inst 6 months
t
12.7
family mem
n20timesint<0.05,Table
South
N = 732)
Al
(N =
%
2.5
7.2
6.6
9.6*
74.2* 6
100.0 1
More than 20imes in the las
months
68.7
mber
the30).
lberta
= 2,812)
%
2.6
7.5
8.5
12.7
68.7
100.0
0t 6
135
APPENDIX C
Respondentswhoanswered0‐1timeswereinstructedtoskiptothedemographicsectionofthequestionnaire.Forthosewhocontinuedtoanswersurveyquestions,theirresponsesweresettomissing(N=21withvalidresponseonGlobalOverallCareratingquestion).
SomerespondentsdidnotprovidearesponsetoQ9,butdidcompletetherestofthequestionnaire.GlobalOverallCareratingsforthisgroupdidnotdiffersignificantlyfromthosewhoprovidedavalidresponseandthereforetheirresponsestotherestofthequestionnairewereretained.
Table 31: Missing responses to Q9 versus frequency of visits
Q9 Response Results
Missing Referent group
0 to 1 times In the last six months Not significant relative to referent group (p > 0.05)
2 to 5 times In the last six months Not significant relative to referent group (p > 0.05)
6 to 10 times In the last six months Not significant relative to referent group (p > 0.05)
11 to 20 times In the last six months Not significant relative to referent group (p > 0.05)
More than 20 times In the last six months Not significant relative to referent group (p > 0.05)
136
APPENDIX
C.1.3 Qlivc
Inalmost(87.8%).
Figure 22
Table 32
Yes
No
Don't know
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
C
Q64: Considving facilityare?
allcases,the
2: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calga
(N = 3
%
86.7
9.9
w 3.3
100.
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
dering all ofy, are you th
erespondentw
summary of
mary of respo
ary
62)
Ce
(N =
7 8
9
3
0 1
Yes
87.8
f the peoplehe person w
wastheperso
responses fo
onses for sur
entral
= 535)
E
(N
%
88.0
9.2
2.8
00.0
e who visit ywho has the
onwiththem
or survey Q6
rvey Q64
Edmonton
N = 1,011)
%
87.9
9.1
3.0
100.0
No
9.2
your family e most expe
mostexperien
64
North
(N = 173)
%
84.4
11.0
4.6
100.0
y member inerience with
ncewithcare
South
(N = 730
%
88.9
8.6
2.5
100.0
Don'
3
n the suppoh his or her
ofthereside
0)
Albe
(N = 2,
%
87.
9.2
3.0
100
't know
3.0
ortive r
nt
erta
,811)
%
8
2
0
0.0
137
APPENDIX
C.1.4 Q
Themostresponde
Figure 23
Table 33
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 or older
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
C
Q60: What i
commonresnts.Approxim
3: Provincial
: Zone summ
Cal
(N =
0
3
2
4
2
r 8
l 10
25 to
erta 1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
s your age?
pondentagemately34per
summary of
mary of respo
lgary
= 353)
C
(N
%
0.3
3.1
0.7
4.2
2.9
8.8
00.0
34 35 t
0 2
?
groupwasthrcentofresp
responses fo
onses for sur
Central
N = 509)
%
1.4
2.2
17.1
40.1
28.5*
10.8
100.0
to 44 45
2.9
hose55to64ondentswere
or survey Q6
rvey Q60
Edmonton
(N = 989)
%
1.1
4.0*
23.7*
41.0
21.5*
8.7
100.0
5 to 54
20.5
yearsold,coeover65yea
60
North
(N = 162)
%
1.2
2.5
24.7
38.3
21.6
11.7
100.0
55 to 64
41.4
nsistingof41arsofage.
South
(N = 709
%
0.8
1.7
17.5
42.3
26.1
11.6
100.0
65 to 74
24.2
1.4percento
9)
Albe
(N = 2
%
1.0
2.9
20.
41.
24.
10.
100
75 or olde
10.0
of
erta
,722)
%
0
9
.5
.4
.2
.0
0.0
er
138
APPENDIX
C.1.5 Q
Femalescsignifican
Figure 24
Table 34
Male
Female
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
C
Q61: Are yo
constituted66ntlyacrossAH
4: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calgary
(N = 363
%
36.4
63.6
100.0
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
u male or f
6.8percentoHSzone(p>0
summary of
mary of respo
y
3)
Centr
(N = 5
%
33.1
66.9
100.
M
33
female?
ofrespondent0.05,Table34
responses fo
onses for sur
ral
535)
Edm
(N =
1
9
.0 1
ale
3.2
tsandthepro4).
or survey Q6
rvey Q61
monton
= 1,013)
%
32.6
67.4
100.0
oportionoffe
61
North
(N = 171)
%
27.5
72.5
100.0
emalestomal
South
(N = 731)
%
33.9
66.1
100.0
Female
66.8
lesdidnotdi
Alber
(N = 2,8
%
33.2
66.8
100.0
ffer
rta
813)
2
8
0
139
APPENDIX
C.1.6 Q
Approximless,and2difference
Figure 25
Table 35
Grade schoo
Completed h
Post-second
Some unive
Completed c
Completed u
Postgrad de
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
C
Q62: What i
mately32per24percentoesinresponse
5: Provincial
: Zone summ
ol or some high s
high school
dary technical sc
rsity or college
college diploma
university degree
egree (Master's o
Total
Gradeschool some hi
schoo
erta 10.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
s the highe
centofrespofrespondentseswerefoun
summary of
mary of respo
school
hool
e
or Ph.D.)
eorigh
ol
Complethigh
schoo
21.9
est grade or
ondentsreporsreportedthdacrosszone
responses fo
onses for sur
Calgary
(N = 348)
%
7.5
22.1
13.8
17.5*
14.4
19
5.7
100.0
ted
ol
Post-secondatechnicschoo
14.4
r level of sc
rtedtheirhigattheyhadces(p<0.05,T
or survey Q6
rvey Q62
Central
(N = 519)
E
%
11
23.9
17.9*
10.8
15.8
16.4
4.2*
100.0
aryall
Someuniversior colleg
13
chool that yo
ghestlevelofecompletedauTable35).
62
Edmonton
(N = 968) (N
%
6.2*
22.4
14.4
12
15.7
20.1
9.2*
100.0
eityge
Completcollegediploma
16.4
ou have co
educationwauniversitydeg
North
N = 165)
S
(N
%
34.5*
22.4
10.9
9.7
11.5
7.3*
3.6
100.0 1
tedea
Completuniversi
degree
17.9
ompleted?
ashighschoogree.Significa
South
N = 700)
Alb
(N =
%
10.3 1
19.3 2
13.0 1
14.6
20.1* 1
17.7 1
5.0 6
100.0 10
tedty
e
Postgradegree
(Masteror Ph.D
6.4
lorant
berta
2,700)
%
10.1
21.9
14.4
13
16.4
17.9
6.4
00.0
ader's.)
140
APPENDIX
C.1.7 Q
Themajor(97.3%).TSignificanlanguage
AmongthItalian,Uk
Figure 26
Table 36
English
Other
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
C
Q63: What l
rityofresponTheNorthzontdifferenceswasEnglish(
hosewhorepokrainian,and
6: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calga
(N = 36
%
97.2
2.8
100.0
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
anguage do
ndentsreportneconsistedwerefounda(p<0.05,Tab
ortedotherasFrench.
summary of
mary of respo
ry
63)
Ce
(N =
99
0
0 10
Eng
97
o you norm
tedthatEngliofthelargestacrosszonesble36).
stheirprima
responses fo
onses for sur
ntral
= 538)
E
(N
%
9.6*
0.4*
00.0
glish
7.3
En
mally speak
ishwastheprtpercentageinthepercen
rylanguage,t
or survey Q6
rvey Q63
dmonton
N = 1012)
%
96.8
3.2
100.0
nglish Othe
at home?
rimarylanguofnon‐Englisntageofrespo
themostcom
63
North
(N = 170)
%
83.5*
16.5*
100.0
er
agespokeninshrespondenondentswhos
mmonlanguag
South
(N = 733
%
99.3*
0.7*
100.0
Other
2.7
ntheirhoments(16.5%).seprimary
geswereGerm
)
Albe
(N = 2,
%
97.
2.7
100
man,
erta
,816)
%
3
7
.0
141
APPENDIX C
C.1.8 Respondent characteristics and differences in Global Overall Care ratings
GlobalOverallCareratings(ascorefrom0to10)werecomparedtovariablesconsideredunderthesectionRespondentcharacteristics.Inperformingmeancomparisons,variableswithmorethantwolevelswereassessedusingaone‐wayanalysisofvariance,whereastwo‐levelcategoriessuchasgender(Male/Female)wereassessedusingt‐tests.Forsimplicityinreporting,ageandeducationweredichotomizedinto:
Age:65andoverversusunder65yearsofage
Education:Highschoolorlessversusmorethanhighschool
Table 37: Respondent characteristics and differences in Global Overall Care ratings
Respondent characteristic and/or related questions Comment: significant difference in Global Overall Care rating
Q9: In the last 6 months, about how many times did you visit your family member in the supportive living facility?
Not significant
Q64: Considering all of the people who visit your family member in the supportive living facility, are you the person who has the most experience with his or her care?
Not significant
Q60: What is your age? Respondents 65 and older had higher Global Overall Care ratings compared to respondents under 65 (8.4 versus 8.1 out of 10; p < 0.05)
Q61: Are you male or female? Male respondents had higher Global Overall Care ratings compared to female respondents
(8.3 versus 8.1; p < 0.05).
Q62: What is the highest grade or level of school that you have completed?
Not significant
Q63: What language do you normally speak at home? Not significant
142
APPENDIX C
C.2 Resident characteristics
Noteasterisk(*)representsavaluestatisticallydifferentascomparedtotheAlbertaresult.SeeTable46AppendixFforanexample.
Thefollowingresidentdemographicinformationwascollected:
Timelivedinhome
Permanencyinhome
Residentinsharedroom
Residentwithseriousmemoryproblems
Residentautonomy
143
APPENDIX
C.2.1 Qfa
ThemajorSignifican
Figure 27
Table 38
1 month to a
3 months to
6 to almost 1
12 months o
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
C
Q4: In total, acility?
rityofresidenntdifferences
7: Provincial
: Zone summ
almost 3 months
almost 5 months
12 months
or longer
Total
1 to m
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
about how
nts(88.0%)linresponses
summary of
mary of respo
s
almost 3months
0.3
long has y
livedattheirswerefound
responses fo
onses for sur
Calgary
(N = 363)
%
0.6
1.7
8.5
89.3
100.0
3 months to6 mon
1.6
your family m
supportivelivacrosszones
or survey Q4
rvey Q4
Central
(N = 541)
%
0.4
3.1*
14.4*
82.1*
100.0
o almostnths
6
member liv
vingfacilityf(p<0.05,Ta
4
Edmonton
(N = 1,027) (
%
0.1
1.2
9.6
89.1
100.0
6 to almost months
10.2
ved in this s
for12monthsable38).
North
(N = 173)
S
(N
%
0.6
0.6
12.7
86.1
100.0
12 12
supportive l
sorlonger.
South
N = 742)
Alb
(N =
%
0.3 0
1.2 1
8.0 1
90.6* 8
100.0 10
2 months orlonger
88.0
iving
berta
2,846)
%
0.3
1.6
0.2
88.0
00.0
144
APPENDIX
C.2.2 Qliv
Approximatasupporesponses
Figure 28
Table 39
Yes
No
Don't know
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
C
Q5: Do you ving facility
mately91perortivelivingfswerefound
8: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calgar
(N = 36
%
93.4
3.9
w 2.8*
100.0
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
expect youy permanen
centoffamilyfacility;with5acrosszones
summary of
mary of respo
ry
61)
Ce
(N =
8
4
6
0 10
Yes
90.7
ur family metly?
ymembersst5.5percentss(p<0.05,Ta
responses fo
onses for sur
ntral
= 535)
E
(N
%
9.5
4.3
6.2
00.0
ember to liv
tatedthatthesayingthatthable39).
or survey Q5
rvey Q5
dmonton
N = 1,008)
%
89.8
3.1
7.1*
100.0
No
3.8
ve in this or
eyexpectedtheywereunsu
5
North
(N = 168)
%
86.9
6.0
7.1
100.0
any other s
heresidenttoure.Significan
South
(N = 728
%
92.3
3.8
3.8
100.0
Don'
5
supportive
opermanentlntdifferences
)
Albe
(N = 2,
%
90.
3.8
5.5
100
't know
5.5
lylivesin
erta
,800)
%
7
8
5
.0
145
APPENDIX
C.2.3 Qa
Themajorwerefoun
Figure 29
Table 40
Yes
No
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
C
Q6: In the lanother pers
rityofresidenndacrosszon
9: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calgary
(N = 364)
%
5.5
94.5
100.0
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ast 6 monthson at this s
nts(95.4%)rnes(p<0.05,
summary of
mary of respo
Centra
(N = 540
%
3.3
96.7
100.0
Y
4
s, has yoursupportive
residedinasiTable40).
responses fo
onses for sur
al
0)
Edm
(N =
3
96
10
Yes
4.6
r family meliving facilit
ingle‐residen
or survey Q6
rvey Q6
monton
1,019)
%
3.1*
6.9*
00.0
mber ever ty?
ntroom.Signi
6
North
(N = 174)
%
1.7
98.3
100.0
shared a ro
ificantdiffere
South
(N = 742)
%
7.8*
92.2*
100.0
No
95.4
oom with
encesinrespo
Alber
(N = 2,8
%
4.6
95.4
100.
onses
rta
839)
6
4
.0
146
APPENDIX
C.2.4 QA
ProvinciaSignifican
Figure 30
Table 41
Yes
No
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
C
Q7: Does yoAlzheimer's
lly,58.8percntdifferences
0: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calga
(N = 3
%
60.
39.
100
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
our family mdisease, de
centoffamilyinresponses
summary of
mary of respo
ary
359)
Ce
(N
%
2 5
8 4
.0 1
Y
58
member havementia, st
ymembersreswerefound
responses fo
onses for sur
entral
= 531)
E
(
%
52.9*
47.1*
100.0
Yes
8.8
ve serious mtroke, accid
eportedthattacrosszones
or survey Q7
rvey Q7
Edmonton
N = 1,006)
%
57.8
42.2
100.0
memory prodent, or som
theresidenth(p<0.05,Ta
7
North
(N = 171)
%
66.1
33.9
100.0
oblems becmething else
hadseriousmable41).
South
(N = 730
%
62.3
37.7
100.0
No
41.2
cause of e?
memoryprobl
0)
Albe
(N = 2,
%
58.
41.
100
ems.
erta
,797)
%
8
2
0.0
147
APPENDIX
C.2.5 Qdw
Provinciaalwayscawerefoun
Figure 31
Table 42
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
C
Q8: In the laecisions ab
wear, and w
lly,58.6percpableofmakndacrosszon
1: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calg
(N =
%
15
s 22
31
31
10
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ast 6 monthbout his or h
which activit
centofresponkingdecisionsnes(p<0.05,
summary of
mary of respo
gary
357)
Ce
(N
%
5.1 1
2.1 2
1.7 2
1.1 3
0.0 1
Never
16.7
s, how ofteher own daies to do?
ndentsreportsabouthisorTable42).
responses fo
onses for sur
entral
= 527)
E
(
%
13.1*
24.3
28.8
33.8
100.0
Someti
24.7
en was youraily life, such
tedthattherherowndail
or survey Q8
rvey Q8
Edmonton
N = 1,015)
%
14.4*
23.4
30.0
32.2
100.0
imes
7
r family meh as when
residenttheylylife.Signific
8
North
(N = 167)
%
24.6*
28.1
25.7
21.6*
100.0
Usually
28.6
mber capato get up, w
representedcantdifferenc
South
(N = 733)
%
21.6*
27.1
25.6
25.6*
100.0
ble of makiwhat clothe
wasusuallyocesinrespon
)
Alber
(N = 2,7
%
16.7
24.7
28.6
30.0
100.
Always
30.0
ng s to
orses
rta
799)
7
7
6
0
0
148
APPENDIX C
C.2.7 Resident characteristics and differences in Global Overall Care ratings
GlobalOverallCareratings(ascorefrom0to10)werecomparedtovariablesconsideredunderthesectionResidentcharacteristics.Inperformingmeancomparisons,variableswithmorethantwolevelswereassessedusingaone‐wayanalysisofvariance,whereastwo‐levelcategoriessuchasgender(Male/Female)wereassessedusingt‐tests.
Table 43: Resident characteristics and differences in Global Overall Care ratings
Resident characteristic and/or related questions Comment: significant difference in Global Overall Care rating
Q4: In total, about how long as your family member lived in this supportive living facility?
Not significant
Q5: Do you expect your family member to live in this or any other supportive living facility permanently?
Respondents who expected their family member to live in this or any other supportive living facility gave higher Global Overall Care ratings (8.2 out of 10) compared to those who did not expect this (7.9; p < 0.05) and those who were unsure (7.5; p < 0.05).
Q6: In the last 6 months, has your family member ever shared a room with another person at this supportive living facility?
Respondents whose family member shared a room with another person gave lower Global Overall Care ratings than those who did not have to share a room (7.8 versus 8.2 out of 10; p < 0.05)
Q7: Does your family member have serious memory problems because of Alzheimer's disease, dementia, stroke, accident, or something else?
Respondents whose family member had memory problems gave lower Global Overall Care ratings than those who had no problems (8.1 versus 8.3 out of 10; p < 0.05)
Q8: In the last 6 months, how often was your family member capable of making decisions about his or her own daily life, such as when to get up, what clothes to wear, and which activities to do?
Respondents who’s family member answered never gave lower Global Overall Care ratings (8.0 out of 10) than those answered with usually (8.3 out of 10) and always (8.3 out of 10), p < 0.05
149
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX D: CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION IN FACILITY-LEVEL ANALYSES
Criteria:
1. Confidentiality:fiveormorerespondentsperfacility45
2. <10percentmarginoferror(withfinitepopulationcorrection)
3. Responserateof>50percent
Of113facilitieswithatleastfivesurveyscollected(84.3%of134facilities;Table44):
60metboththemarginoferrorandresponseratecriterialabelledingreen
47mettheresponseratecriterionbutnotthemarginoferrorcriterion(withanaveragemarginoferrorof14.4%,rangingfrom10.4%to23.0%)labelledinyellow
Sixdidnotmeeteithercriterionlabelledinred
Facilitiesthatmetthemarginoferrorcriterion,responseratecriterion,orboth,accountedfor107of134facilities,or79.9percentoffacilities(labelledingreenandyellow),andthesefacilitiesalsoaccountedfor96.3percentofallrespondents(2,764of2,869)and94.4percentofalleligiblerespondents(4,063of4,303).Itisimportanttonotethatfacilitieswithsmallsamplesizes(e.g.,smallfacilities)willinherentlyhavemoredifficultinmeetingconfidentiality,responserateandmarginoferrorcriteria.Inaddition,theresidentprofileofafacilitymustbeconsideredasthesecriteriamayimpactthenumberofresidentswhowereultimatelyeligibleforasurvey,andinturnimpactsthenumberconsideredforconfidentialityreasons,responserate,andthemarginoferrorcalculation.Forexample,thesmallerthefacility,themoredifficulttomeettheconfidentialitycriterionoffiverespondents,andsimilarlythemarginoferrorcalculationisdependentonsamplesize.
Facilitiesexcludedfromfacility‐levelreporting(27facilities)inthisreportstillreceivedindividualfacility‐levelreports.
Table 44: Facility inclusion criteria
Zone Facility Response rate
(%) Margin of error
(%)
Calgary Walden Supportive Living Community 71.2 5.9
Calgary Monterey Place 68.3 5.9
Calgary Eau Claire Retirement Residence 75.9 6.1
Calgary Silver Willow Lodge 79.4 6.9
Calgary Sagewood Supportive Living 63.5 8.3
Calgary Aspen Ridge Lodge 79.2 8.4
Calgary Millrise Place 75.0 9.4
Calgary Carewest Colonel Belcher 73.1 9.5
Calgary McKenzie Towne Retirement Residence 70.4 10.0
Central Sunset Manor 71.4 5.2
45Facility‐levelreportingwithveryfewindividualsrunstheriskofdirectorindirectdisclosure.
150
APPENDIX D
Zone Facility Response rate
(%) Margin of error
(%)
Central Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran
Home 83.7 5.3
Central Sunrise Village Camrose 71.1 5.8
Central Bethany Meadows 87.5 6.2
Central Extendicare Michener Hill 73.2 6.4
Central Faith House 87.5 7.7
Central Points West Living Wainwright 68.8 7.7
Central Points West Living Century Park 77.4 7.7
Central Points West Living Lloydminster 63.0 8.3
Central West Park Lodge 75.9 8.4
Central Manor at Royal Oak 69.2 8.5
Edmonton Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite 64.9 4.5
Edmonton CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood 78.9 4.8
Edmonton CapitalCare Strathcona 77.3 5.3
Edmonton Summerwood Village Retirement Residence 67.6 6.6
Edmonton Aspen House 70.0 6.7
Edmonton Rosedale at Griesbach 67.7 6.8
Edmonton Churchill Retirement Community 86.4 6.8
Edmonton Rosedale St. Albert 67.8 7.1
Edmonton Rutherford Heights Retirement Residence 62.5 7.7
Edmonton Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 63.8 7.8
Edmonton LifeStyle Options Terra Losa 80.0 8.0
Edmonton Citadel Mews West 68.2 8.2
Edmonton Salvation Army Grace Manor 60.0 8.3
Edmonton Tuoi Hac - Golden Age Manor 61.1 8.6
Edmonton Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village 59.3 8.9
Edmonton Good Samaritan George Hennig Place 80.0 9.0
Edmonton LifeStyle Options Leduc 56.9 9.0
Edmonton Balwin Villa 58.2 9.0
Edmonton Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre 56.1 9.3
Edmonton Devonshire Manor 66.7 9.4
Edmonton Shepherd’s Gardens 67.6 9.4
Edmonton Shepherd’s Care Kensington 68.8 9.5
Edmonton Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre 78.9 9.5
Edmonton Grand Manor 84.6 9.7
Edmonton Country Cottage Seniors Residence 88.9 9.8
North Heimstaed Lodge 74.1 6.4
North Points West Living Grande Prairie 56.9 8.1
North Grande Prairie Care Centre 69.2 8.5
North Mountain View Centre 67.7 9.9
151
APPENDIX D
Zone Facility Response rate
(%) Margin of error
(%)
South St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre 67.2 4.7
South Extendicare Fairmont Park 71.1 4.7
South Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village 73.3 5.0
South Legacy Lodge 68.1 5.7
South The Wellington Retirement Residence 82.5 5.8
South Good Samaritan West Highlands 66.0 5.8
South Good Samaritan Vista Village 76.6 6.4
South Good Samaritan Linden View 67.1 6.5
South Sunrise Gardens 68.5 7.3
South Good Samaritan Lee Crest 59.7 8.3
South Good Samaritan Garden Vista 83.3 8.5
Calgary Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court 55.8 10.8
Calgary Whitehorn Village 66.7 10.9
Calgary Prince of Peace Manor 63.3 11.1
Calgary Scenic Acres Retirement Residence 75.0 17.1
Central Hillview Lodge 63.3 11.1
Central Vermillion Valley Lodge 71.4 11.1
Central Heritage House 62.1 11.6
Central Sunrise Village Olds 81.8 11.7
Central Bethany Sylvan Lake 72.2 11.8
Central Sunrise Village (Ponoka) 73.3 12.6
Central Clearwater Centre 65.0 13.2
Central Islay Assisted Living 71.4 13.8
Central Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 77.8 14.8
Central Chateau Three Hills 72.7 15.2
Central Pines Lodge 66.7 16.7
Central Serenity House 75.0 17.1
Central Coronation Hospital and Care Centre 57.1 18.8
Central Providence Place 54.5 22.6
Central Eckville Manor House 54.5 22.6
Edmonton Rosedale Estates 67.9 10.4
Edmonton Glastonbury Village 59.0 10.6
Edmonton Place Beausejour 57.1 13.1
Edmonton Riverbend Retirement Residence 57.1 13.1
Edmonton Wild Rose Cottage 56.0 14.2
Edmonton Shepherd’s Care Greenfield 59.1 14.2
Edmonton Garneau Hall 64.7 14.5
Edmonton West Country Hearth 66.7 14.8
Edmonton Emmanuel Home 72.7 15.2
Edmonton LifeStyle Options Riverbend 57.1 18.8
152
APPENDIX D
Zone Facility Response rate
(%) Margin of error
(%)
North Manoir du Lac 54.3 12.3
North Vilna Villa 70.0 17.1
South York Creek Lodge 63.6 18.7
South Sunny South Lodge 69.2 10.5
South Orchard Manor 76.5 10.9
South Pleasant View Lodge South 87.5 11.2
South Haven of Rest - South Country Village 78.6 11.4
South Golden Acres Lodge 70.0 11.8
South Columbia Assisted Living 55.9 12.1
South Cypress View Foundation 56.3 12.4
South Piyami Lodge 73.3 12.6
South Piyami Place 85.7 13.1
South Good Samaritan Prairie Ridge 57.7 13.4
South Leisure Way 77.8 14.8
South Clearview Lodge 60.0 17.1
South Chinook Lodge 71.4 20.2
South Meadow Lands 60.0 21.3
South MacLeod Pioneer Lodge 62.5 23.0
Calgary Edgemont Retirement Residence 50.0 18.0
Central Viewpoint 38.5 28.6
Edmonton Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle 38.9 13.5
Edmonton Salvation Army Stepping Stone Supportive
Residence 47.6 18.4
Edmonton Edmonton Chinatown Care Centre 50.0 21.7
Edmonton Shepherd’s Care Ashbourne 35.0 24.5
153
APPENDIX D
Table 45: Facilities excluded from provincial reporting
Facilities with zero respondents (6 facilities) – excluded from report
Zone Facility
Central Sunrise Village Drayton Valley
Central Symphony Seniors Living at Aspen Ridge
Edmonton Kipohtakawmik Elders Lodge
North Shepherd's Care Barrhead
North Parkland Lodge
North Jasper Alpine Summit Seniors Lodge
Facilities with less than 5 respondents (excluded from facility-level analyses, but included in all other aggregate level reporting)
Zone Facility (# of respondents)
Calgary Carewest Nickle House (4)
Central Eagle View Lodge (3)
Central Provost Health Centre (4)
Central St. Michael’s Manor/Vegreville Manor (3)
Central Wetaskiwin Meadows (4)
North St. Paul Abilities Network (2)
North Ridgevalley Seniors Home (4)
North The Gardens at Emerald Park (2)
North Pleasant View Lodge North (1)
North Chateau Lac St. Anne (4)
North Spruceview Lodge (4)
North Vanderwell Lodge (1)
North Whispering Pines Seniors Lodge (3)
South Valleyview (3)
South Prairie Rose Lodge (3)
154
APPENDIX
APPENFOOD RRECOM
Thisappeemphasiznumberostrategywconsequeresult,thepartiallymlevelresu
E.1 G
TheGlobawassignif
Figure 32
M
1
Glo
bal
Ove
rall
Car
e R
atin
g m
ean
sco
re(0
to
10)
E
NDIX E: PRRATING S
MMEND
endixdescribezeequalweighofrespondentwasdesignedntlynotallzoedatadidnotmitigatedbyeultsinthissec
Global Ove
alOverallCarficantvariatio
2: Global Ov
Calg
Mean 8.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
0.0
ROVINCIASCALE SU
esrespondenhttoeachindts),ratherthaforrepresenones)wereadtlenditselftoemphasizingctionshouldb
erall Care
reratingforaoninGlobalO
erall Care ra
gary Ce
5
AL AND ZOUMMARY M
nt‐leveldataadividualrespoanindividualntativezone‐ledequatelyrepocomparativeequalweightbeinterpreted
ratings
allrespondentOverallCarer
atings by AHS
entral Ed
8.3
ONE-LEVEMEANS A
atthezoneanondentwithinfacilitieswithevelanalysespresentedintezone‐levelattoeachindivdwithcautio
tsintheprovratingsacross
S zone
dmonton
8.1
EL DIMENAND PROP
ndprovincialneachzone(hinthezoness(i.e.,acensutheresultinganalyses.Althvidualresponn.
vince(N=2,7sAHSzones(
North
7.7
NSIONS OPENSITY T
level.Analys(i.e.,thedenoms.Althoughthus),notallfacsamplingdishoughpotentindentwithin
727)was8.2o(Figure32).
South
8.2
F CARE ATO
esinthissectminatoristhhesamplingilities(andstribution.Asialbiasmaybeachzone,zo
outof10.The
Alberta
8.2
AND
tione
abeone‐
ere
155
APPENDIX
E.2 S
Themean=2,772)w33).
Figure 33
1
Sta
ffin
g, C
are
of
Bel
on
gin
gs,
an
d E
nvi
ron
men
t m
ean
sco
re (
0-10
0)
E
Staffing, C
nscoreforStawas75.8out
3: Staffing, C
Ca
Mean 7
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
00.0
Care of Be
affing,Careofof100.Signif
Care of Belon
lgary C
8.6
longings,
fBelongings,ficantdifferen
ngings, and E
Central E
78.1
and Envi
andEnvironmncesinmean
Environment
Edmonton
76.0
ironment
mentforallrscoresacross
Dimension o
North
69.0
respondentsiszoneswere
of Care score
South
73.7
intheprovincfound(Figur
es by AHS zo
Alberta
75.8
ce(Nre
one
156
APPENDIX
E.3 K
Themean100.Signi
Figure 34
Me
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Kin
dn
ess
and
Res
pec
t m
ean
sco
re (
0 to
100
)
E
Kindness a
nscoreforKinificantdiffere
4: Kindness
Calga
ean 86.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
and Resp
ndnessandRencesinmean
and Respect
ary Ce
3 86
ect
Respectforallnscoresacros
t Dimension o
ntral Ed
6.7
lrespondentssszoneswere
of Care score
dmonton
84.8
sintheprovinefound(Figu
res by AHS z
North
79.6
nce(N=2,76ure34).
zone
South
84.4
63)was84.9o
Alberta
84.9
outof
157
APPENDIX
E.4 F
Theprovi7.0outof
Figure 35
Mea
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Fo
od
Rat
ing
Sca
le m
ean
sco
re (
0 to
10)
E
Food Ratin
incialmeanscf 10.Therewe
5: Food Ratin
Calgar
an 7.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ng Scale
corefortheFerenosignific
ng Scale Me
ry Cen
7.
Foodratingsccantdifferenc
an Dimensio
ntral Edm
1
caleforallrescesinmeans
on of Care sc
monton
7.0
spondentsinscoresacross
cores by AHS
North
6.9
theprovincezones(Figur
S zone
South
7.0
e(N=2,640)wre35).
Alberta
7.0
was
158
APPENDIX
E.5 P
Themeantheprovin(Figure3
Figure 36AHS zone
1
Mea
n P
rovi
din
g I
nfo
rmat
ion
an
d E
nco
ura
gin
g
Fam
ily I
nvo
lvem
ent
(0 -
100)
E
Providing
nscoreforProncewas82.936).
6: Providing e
Ca
Mean 8
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
00.0
Informatio
ovidingInforoutof100.Si
Information a
lgary C
3.8
on and En
rmationandEignificantdiff
and Encoura
Central E
84.9
ncouragin
EncouragingFferencesinm
aging Family
Edmonton
82.9
ng Family
FamilyInvolvmeanscoresac
Involvement
North
77.7
Involvem
vementforallcrosszonesw
Dimension o
South
82.3
ent
lrespondentswerefound
of Care score
Alberta
82.9
sin
es by
159
APPENDIX
E.6 M
Themean100.Signi
Figure 37
Mea
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Mea
n M
eeti
ng
Bas
ic N
eed
s (0
to
100
)
E
Meeting Ba
nscoreforMeificantdiffere
7: Meeting B
Calgary
an 97.1
asic Need
eetingBasicNencesinmean
Basic Needs D
y Cent
95.4
ds
Needsforallrnscoresacros
Dimension of
tral Edm
4 9
respondentsisszoneswere
f Care scores
monton
95.2
intheprovinefound(Figu
s by AHS zo
North
90.6
ce(N=2,765ure37).
one
South
92.6
5)was94.6ou
Alberta
94.6
utof
160
APPENDIX
E.7 P
Theperce92.0perc
Figure 38
Me
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
E
Propensity
entageofrespcent.Significa
8: Percentag
Calga
ean 94.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
y to recom
pondentswhoantdifference
ge who would
ary Ce
6 92
mmend
owouldrecomesinpercenta
d recommend
ntral Ed
2.8
mmendtheiragesacrosszo
d facility by A
dmonton
91.4
rfacilityintheoneswerefou
AHS zone
North
85.8
eprovince(Nund(Figure3
South
92.2
N=2,719)wa38).
Alberta
92.0
as
161
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX F: SUMMARY OF PROVINCIAL AND ZONE LEVEL RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL SURVEY QUESTIONS
ThissectionprovidesadetailedanalysisofresponsestosurveyquestionswhichmakeuptheDimensionsofCare:1)Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment;2)KindnessandRespect;3)ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement;and4)MeetingBasicNeeds,inadditiontotheFoodRatingScale.
Resultsinthissectionarepresentedasfollows:
F.1Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment
(Q10andQ11)Canfindanurseoraide?
(Q50)Howoftenthereareenoughnursesoraides?
(Q31)Resident’sroomlooksandsmellsclean?
(Q22)Residentlooksandsmellsclean?
(Q34)Publicarealookandsmellsclean?
(Q36)Resident’smedicalbelongingslost?
(Q37andQ38)Resident’sclotheslost?
F.2KindnessandRespect
(Q12)Nursesandaidestreatresidentwithcourtesyandrespect?
(Q13)Nursesandaidestreatresidentwithkindness?
(Q14)Nursesandaidesreallycareaboutresident?
(Q15)Nursesandaideswererudetoresidents?
(Q23andQ24)Nursesandaideswereappropriatewithdifficultresidents?
F.3Providinginformationandencouragingfamilyinvolvement
(Q26andQ27)Nursesandaidesgiverespondentinformationaboutresident?
(Q28)Nursesandaidesexplainthingsinanunderstandableway?
(Q29)Nursesandaidesdiscouragerespondentquestions?
(Q42)Respondentstopsselffromcomplaining?
(Q44andQ45)Respondentinvolvedindecisionsaboutcare?
(Q58andQ59)Respondentgiveninfoaboutpaymentsandexpensesassoonastheywanted?
F.4MeetingBasicNeeds
(Q16andQ17)Helpedbecausestaffdidn’thelporresidentwaitedtoolongforhelpwitheating?
(Q18andQ19)Helpedbecausestaffdidn’thelporresidentwaitedtoolongforhelpwithdrinking?
162
APPENDIX F
(Q20andQ21)Helpedbecausestaffdidn’thelporresidentwaitedtoolongforhelpwithtoileting?
F.5Other
QuestionsrelatedtoStaffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment
QuestionsrelatedtoKindnessandRespect
QuestionsrelatedtoProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement
QuestionsrelatedtoMeetingBasicNeeds
(Q55,Q56andQ57)Medications
Descriptivestatistics(meansandresponsepercentagesforall2,869respondents)werecomputedtoproduceprovincialandAHSzoneleveldata.Responseproportions(percentages)werecomparedusingthebinomialprobabilitytest,whichassesseswhetherazone‐specificpercentagediffersfromthepercentageobservedattheprovinciallevel.Forexample,(Table46):
A:ThepercentageofEdmontonrespondentswhoansweredusuallywas62.5percent
B:Thepercentageofallrespondents(Albertapopulation)whoansweredusuallywas37.5percent
Table 46: Example table of binomial probability test interpretation
Calgary Central Edmonton North South Alberta
N % N % N % N % N % N %
Never 10 25.0 10 25.0 10 12.5 10 25.0 10 25.0 50 20.8
Sometimes 10 25.0 10 25.0 10 12.5 10 25.0 10 25.0 50 20.8
Usually 10 25.0 10 25.0 50 62.5* 10 25.0 10 25.0 90 37.5
Always 10 25.0 10 25.0 10 12.5 10 25.0 10 25.0 50 20.8
Total 40 40 80 40 40 240
Thebinomialprobabilitytestcompareswhether62.5percent(A),thosewhoansweredusually,issignificantlydifferentfromwhatisobservedintheAlbertapopulation(37.5%;B).Usingthistest,wecanseethat62.5percentissignificantlydifferentfromtheprovincialaverage(37.5%)atp<0.05.
Othernotes:
Percentagesmaynotalwaysaddto100percentduetorounding.
Referencestozonesrefertotheresident’sfacilityzone.
Facility,zone,andprovincialresultsarepresentedingraphswhichinclude95percentconfidenceintervals(95%CI).Theseintervalscanaidthereaderingaugingstatisticallysignificantdifferencesinresults.Asageneralrule,intervalsthatdonotoverlapreflectsignificantdifferencesbetweenmeasures.Incontrast,intervalsthatoverlapdonotreflectsignificantdifferencesbetweenmeasures.
A B
163
APPENDIX
F.1 S
F.1.1 Qo
Questionofyourvisofrespon
Amongthnurseora
Figure 39
Table 47
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Staffing, C
Question 11r aide when
11wasaskedsits,didyoutrdentssought
hosewhotriedaidewhenthe
9: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calgary(N = 288
%
0.3
s 9.7
43.4
46.5
100.0
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Care of Be
(Q11): In tn you wante
donlyofthosrytofindanutanurseorai
dtofindanueywantedon
summary of
mary of respo
y 8)
Cen(N =
%
0.
13
36.
49
100
Never
0.4
longings,
the last 6 med one?
ewhoresponurseoraidefoideinthepas
urseoraide,8ne(Table47)
responses fo
onses for Que
tral 410)
Ed(N
%
5
.2
.6*
.8
0.0
Someti
12.3
and Envi
months, how
ndedYEStoQoranyreason?tsixmonths.
87.3percents).
or Question
estion 11 (Q
dmonton N = 781)
%
0.5
9.5*
42.8
47.2
100.0
imes
3
ironment
w often were
Question10:I?Provincially
saidtheyalw
11 (Q11)
11)
North (N = 132)
%
1.5
24.2*
37.9
36.4
100.0
Usually
42.3
e you able
Inthelast6my,approximat
waysorusually
South (N = 574)
%
0.0
13.9
46.2
39.9*
100.0
to find a nu
months,duringtely80.1perc
ycouldfinda
)
Albe(N = 2,
%
0.4
12.
42.
45.
100
Always
45.0
urse
ganycent
a
rta,185)
4
3
3
0
.0
164
APPENDIX
F.1.2 Qa
Figure 40
Table 48
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q50: In the lnd aides in
0: Provincial
: Zone summ
Cal
(N =
%
4
s 13
56
25
10
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
last 6 montn the suppo
summary of
mary of respo
gary
= 350)
C
(N
%
.6*
3.7*
6.3*
5.4
00.0
Never
10.4
ths, how oftrtive living f
responses fo
onses for Q50
Central
N = 522)
%
8.6
19.9
47.7
23.8
100.0
Someti
20.4
ten did you facility?
or Q50
0
Edmonton
(N = 961)
%
7.9*
18.3
48.6
25.2*
100.0
imes
4
feel that th
North
(N = 159)
%
26.4*
21.4
40.3
11.9*
100.0
Usually
47.2
here were e
South
(N = 711
%
14.3*
26.6*
42.1*
17.0*
100.0
enough nurs
1)
Albe
(N = 2
%
10.
20.
47.
22.
100
Always
22.0
ses
erta
,703)
%
.4
.4
.2
.0
0.0
165
APPENDIX
F.1.3 Qs
Figure 41
Table 49
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q31: In the lmell clean?
1: Provincial
: Zone summ
Cal
(N =
%
2
s 9
46
42
10
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
last 6 mont?
summary of
mary of respo
gary
= 353)
C
(N
%
2.0
9.1
6.7
2.2
00.0
Never
1.7
ths, how oft
responses fo
onses for Q3
Central
N = 528)
%
1.7
9.1*
44.9
44.3*
100.0
Someti
12.4
ten did you
or Q31
1
Edmonton
(N = 982)
%
2.3
13.7
46.6
37.3
100.0
imes
4
r family me
North
(N = 165)
%
1.8
18.2*
45.5
34.5
100.0
Usually
46.4
ember`s roo
South
(N = 712
%
0.7*
13.3
47.3
38.6
100.0
om look and
2)
Albe
(N = 2
%
1.7
12.
46.
39.
100
Always
39.5
d
erta
,740)
%
7
.4
.4
.5
0.0
166
APPENDIX
F.1.4 Qc
Figure 42
Table 50
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q22: In the llean?
2: Provincial
: Zone summ
Cal
(N =
%
1
s 6
48
43
10
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
last 6 mont
summary of
mary of respo
gary
= 353)
C
(N
%
.4
.5*
8.2
3.9
00.0
Never
1.3
ths, how oft
responses fo
onses for Q22
Central
N = 529)
%
0.8
7.0*
47.3
45.0
100.0
Someti
9.6
ten did you
or Q22
2
Edmonton
(N = 983)
%
1.5
11.0
45.5
42.0
100.0
imes
6
r family me
North
(N = 166)
%
2.4
16.9*
47.6
33.1*
100.0
Usually
47.0
ember look
South
(N = 718
%
1.1
9.5
48.3
41.1
100.0
and smell
8)
Albe
(N = 2
%
1.3
9.6
47.
42.
100
Always
42.1
erta
,749)
%
3
6
.0
.1
0.0
167
APPENDIX
F.1.5 Qfa
Figure 43
Table 51
Never
Sometim
Usually
Always
T
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q34: In the lacility look a
3: Provincial
: Zone summ
es
Total
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
last 6 montand smell c
summary of
mary of respo
Calgary
(N = 352)
%
0.0
1.4
24.1
74.4
100.0
Never
0.3
ths, how oftclean?
responses fo
onses for Q34
Central
(N = 529)
%
0.4
1.1
21.0*
77.5*
100.0
Someti
2.3
ten did the
or Q34
4
)
Edmonto
(N = 980
%
0.4
3.4*
25.9
70.3
100.0
imes
3
public area
on
0)
North
(N = 16
%
0.0
2.4
35.5*
62.0*
100.0
Usually
25.5
as of the su
h
66)
Sout
(N = 71
%
0.4
2.1
26.8
70.7
0 100.0
pportive liv
th
14)
Albe
(N = 2,
%
0.3
2.3
8 25.
7 71.
0 100
Always
71.8
ving
rta
,741)
3
3
5
8
.0
168
APPENDIX
F.1.6 Qmlo
Figure 44
Table 52
Never
Once
Two or mo
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q36: In the lmedical beloost?
4: Provincial
: Zone summ
re times
Total
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
last 6 montongings (e.g
summary of
mary of respo
Calg
(N =
%
77
13
9.
100
Never
77.7
ths, how oftg., hearing
responses fo
onses for Q36
gary
345)
Cen
(N =
% %
.4 81.
.6 11
0 6.
0.0 100
ten were yoaids, eye-g
or Q36
6
ntral
521)
Edmo
(N =
% %
.6* 76
.7 14
7 8.
0.0 100
Once
13.5
our family mglasses, de
onton
971)
No
(N =
% %
6.8 75
4.4 12
.8 12
0.0 100
member's pentures, etc
orth
164)
So
(N =
% %
5.0 76
2.8 13
2.2 9
0.0 10
Two or m
8
ersonal .) damaged
outh
708)
Alb
(N = 2
% %
6.7 77
3.7 13
.6 8
0.0 10
more times
8.8
d or
berta
2,709)
%
7.7
3.5
8.8
00.0
169
APPENDIX
F.1.7 Qh
Questionfamilymepercentoclothes.
Amongthlost(Tabl
Figure 45
Table 53
Never
Once or tw
Three time
T
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q38: In the low often w
38wasaskedemberusetheofrespondent
hosewhousedle53).
5: Provincial
: Zone summ
wice
es or more
Total
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
last 6 montwere clothes
donlyofthossupportivelivtsstatedthat
dlaundryser
summary of
mary of respo
Calgary (N = 203)
%
65.0*
27.6
7.4
100.0
Never
57.6
ths, when ys damaged
ewhoresponvingfacility'stheirfamilyu
rvices,57.6pe
responses fo
onses for Q38
Central (N = 335)
%
62.1
29.3
8.7
100.0
your family mor lost?
ndedYEStoQlaundryserviusedsupport
ercentstated
or Q38
8
Edmonto(N = 628
%
57.0
30.9
12.1
100.0
Once or Tw
31.0
member us
Question37:Iicesforhisortivelivinglau
dthattheircl
on )
North(N = 10
%
53.8
30.2
16.0
100.0
wice
sed the laun
Inthelast6mr herclothes?Pundryservice
othesweren
h 06)
South(N = 46
%
52.8*
33.9
13.3
0 100.0
Three tim
1
ndry service
months,didyoProvincially,sforhisorhe
everdamaged
h 66)
Albe(N = 1
%
* 57.
31.
11.
0 100
mes or more
1.4
e,
our67.6er
dor
erta ,738)
%
.6
.0
.4
0.0
170
APPENDIX
F.2 K
F.2.1 Qfa
Figure 46
Table 54
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Kindness a
Q12: In the lamily memb
6: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calg
(N =
%
0
s 2
23
73
10
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
and Resp
last 6 montber with cou
summary of
mary of respo
gary
351)
Ce
(N
%
.6
.3
3.6 1
3.5 7
0.0 1
Never
0.9
ect
ths, how ofturtesy and
responses fo
onses for Q12
entral
= 528)
E
%
0.4
2.8
19.3*
77.5*
100.0
Someti
3.1
ten did you respect?
or Q12
2
Edmonton
(N = 979)
%
1.3
3.1
24.2
71.4
100.0
imes
1
see the nu
North
(N = 165)
%
2.4
4.8
34.5*
58.2*
100.0
Usually
24.3
urses and a
South
(N = 715)
%
0.7
3.5
26.2
69.7
100.0
aides treat y
)
Alber
(N = 2,7
%
0.9
3.1
24.3
71.6
100.
Always
71.6
your
rta
738)
3
6
0
171
APPENDIX
F.2.2 Qfa
Figure 47
Table 55
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q13: In the lamily memb
7: Provincial
: Zone summ
Cal
(N =
%
0
s 2
32
64
10
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
last 6 montber with kin
summary of
mary of respo
gary
= 346)
C
(N
%
0.6
2.6
2.1
4.7
00.0
Never
0.7
ths, how oftndness?
responses fo
onses for Q13
Central
N = 527)
%
0.0
2.7
23.5*
73.8*
100.0
Someti
4.1
ten did you
or Q13
3
Edmonton
(N = 978)
%
1.2
4.4
30.2
64.2
100.0
imes
1
see the nu
North
(N = 165)
%
1.8
7.3
36.4
54.5*
100.0
Usually
29.7
urses and a
South
(N = 714
%
0.3
4.9
30.8
64.0
100.0
aides treat y
4)
Albe
(N = 2
%
0.7
4.1
29.
65.
100
Always
65.5
your
erta
,730)
%
7
1
.7
.5
0.0
172
APPENDIX
F.2.3 Qc
Figure 48
Table 56
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q14: In the lared about
8: Provincial
: Zone summ
Cal
(N =
%
0
s 7
39
52
10
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
last 6 montyour family
summary of
mary of respo
gary
= 349)
C
(N
%
0.3
7.7
9.8
2.1
00.0
Never
1.2
ths, how ofty member?
responses fo
onses for Q14
Central
N = 530)
%
0.4
7.7
32.1*
59.8*
100.0
Someti
8.8
ten did you ?
or Q14
4
Edmonton
(N = 976)
%
1.6
8.9
39.8
49.7
100.0
imes
8
feel that th
North
(N = 164)
%
1.2
15.2*
39.0
44.5
100.0
Usually
38.4
he nurses a
South
(N = 716
%
1.5
8.4
40.2
49.9
100.0
and aides re
6)
Albe
(N = 2
%
1.2
8.8
38.
51.
100
Always
51.7
eally
erta
,735)
%
2
8
.4
.7
0.0
173
APPENDIX
F.2.4 Qfa
Figure 49
Table 57
Yes
No
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q15: In the lamily memb
9: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calgary
(N = 351)
%
6.8
93.2
100.0
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
last 6 montber or any o
summary of
mary of respo
Centra
(N = 52
%
7.2
92.8
100.0
Y
8
ths, did youother reside
responses fo
onses for Q15
al
27)
Edm
(N =
9
0 1
Yes
8.9
u ever see aent?
or Q15
5
monton
= 969)
%
9.0
91.0
00.0
any nurses
North
(N = 165)
%
12.1
87.9
100.0
or aides be
South
(N = 713)
%
10.4
89.6
100.0
No
91.1
e rude to yo
Alber
(N = 2,
%
8.9
91.1
100.
our
rta
725)
9
1
.0
174
APPENDIX
F.2.5 Qs
Questionanyresideprovidecabehavein
Amongrenursesan(Table58
Figure 50
Table 58
Never
Sometim
Usually
Always
T
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q24: In the lituation in a
24wasaskedent,includingare?Provincianadifficultma
espondentswndaides,89.38).
0: Provincial
: Zone summ
es
Total
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
last 6 monta way that y
donlyofthosyourfamilymally,21.3perannertoward
whostatedthepercentstat
summary of
mary of respo
Calgary (N = 62)
%
1.6
8.1
35.5
54.8
100.0
Never
0.9
ths, how oftyou felt was
ewhoresponmember,behacentofrespodsnursesand
eyhadwitnestedthatthesi
responses fo
onses for Q24
Central (N = 67)
%
0.0
13.4
26.9
59.7
100.0
Someti
9.9
ten did the s appropria
ndedYEStoQaveinawaythondentsrepordaides.
ssedaresidenituationwasu
or Q24
4
Edmonton(N = 242)
%
1.2
8.7
32.6
57.4
100.0
imes
9
nurses andate?
Question23:Ihatmadeithrtedthatthey
ntbehaveinausuallyoralw
n )
North(N = 54)
%
1.9
9.3
44.4
44.4
100.0
Usually
35.4
d aides han
Inthelast6mardfornursesyhadwitness
adifficultmanwayshandled
) South
(N = 15
%
0.0
11.2
40.1
48.7
100.0
ndle this
months,didyosandaidestosedaresiden
nnertowardsappropriatel
h 52)
Albe(N = 5
%
0.9
9.9
35.4
53.9
0 100
Always
53.9
ouseeot
sly
rta 577)
9
9
4
9
.0
175
APPENDIX
F.3 P
F.3.1 Qw
Questionwanttogeresponde
Amongreinformati
Figure 51
Table 59
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Tota
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Providing
Q27: In the lwanted?
27wasaskedetinformationntswantedto
espondentswonassoonas
1: Provincial
: Zone summ
C(N
s
al
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Informatio
last 6 mont
donlyofthosnaboutyourfogetinforma
whowantedinstheywanted
summary of
mary of respo
Calgary N = 295)
%
1.0
9.2
45.8
44.1
100.0
Never
1.5
on and En
ths, how oft
ewhoresponfamilymembationaboutth
nformation,8dit(Table59
responses fo
onses for Q27
Central (N = 411)
%
0.5
11.2
38.2
50.1
100.0
Someti
11.
ncouragin
ten did you
ndedYEStoQerfromanurheirfamilyme
7.4percents9).
or Q27
7
Edmonton (N = 794)
%
1.9
11.5
39.7
47.0
100.0
imes
1
ng Family
get this inf
Question26:Irseoraide.Premberfroma
statedthatth
North (N = 133)
%
2.3
12.8
45.9
39.1
100.0
Usually
40.9
Involvem
formation a
Inthelast6mrovincially,81anurseoraid
heyalwaysor
South(N = 58
%
1.9
11.0
41.0
46.0
100.0
ent
as soon as y
months,didyo1.6percentode.
usuallygotth
h 80)
Albe(N = 2
%
1.5
11
40
46
0 100
Always
46.5
you
ouof
he
erta 2,213)
%
5
.1
.9
.5
0.0
176
APPENDIX
F.3.2 Qw
Figure 52
Table 60
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q28: In the lway that wa
2: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calg
(N =
%
1
s 5
32
59
10
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
last 6 monts easy for y
summary of
mary of respo
gary
345)
Ce
(N
%
.7
.8
2.8 2
9.7 6
0.0 1
Never
2.1
ths, how oftyou to unde
responses fo
onses for Q28
entral
= 517)
E
%
2.1
4.8
25.5*
67.5*
100.0
Someti
6.0
ten did the erstand?
or Q28
8
Edmonton
(N = 955)
%
2.3
6.4
29.7
61.6
100.0
imes
0
nurses and
North
(N = 164)
%
2.4
9.8*
37.2*
50.6*
100.0
Usually
30.0
d aides exp
South
(N = 704)
%
1.8
5.4
30.5
62.2
100.0
plain things
)
Alber
(N = 2,6
%
2.1
6.0
30.0
62.0
100.
Always
62.0
in a
rta
685)
0
0
0
177
APPENDIX
F.3.3 Qa
Figure 53
Table 61
Yes
No
Tota
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q29: In the lsking ques
3: Provincial
: Zone summ
Cal
(N =
%
0
9
al 10
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
last 6 monttions about
summary of
mary of respo
lgary
= 354)
C
(N
%
0.8
9.2
00.0
Y
2
ths, did nurst your famil
responses fo
onses for Q29
Central
N = 527)
%
1.3
98.7
100.0
Yes
2.3
ses and aidy member?
or Q29
9
Edmonton
(N = 978)
%
2.1
97.9
100.0
des ever try?
North
(N = 163)
%
7.4*
92.6*
100.0
y to discour
South
(N = 716
%
2.7
97.3
100.0
No
97.7
rage you fro
)
Alber
(N = 2,7
%
2.3
97.7
100.0
om
rta
738)
7
0
178
APPENDIX
F.3.4 Qsw
Figure 54
Table 62
Yes
No
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q42: In the lupportive li
would take i
4: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calgary
(N = 135)
%
21.5
78.5
100.0
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
last 6 montving facilityt out on you
summary of
mary of respo
Centr
(N = 1
%
15.3
84.7
100.
Y
20
ths, did youy staff abouur family m
responses fo
onses for Q42
ral
96)
Edm
(N
3
7
0 1
Yes
0.6
u ever stop t your concember?
or Q42
2
monton
= 405)
%
19.3
80.7
100.0
yourself frocerns becau
North
(N = 83)
%
26.5
73.5
100.0
om talking tuse you tho
South
(N = 324)
%
23.5
76.5
100.0
No
79.4
to any ought they
Alber
(N = 1,
%
20.6
79.4
100.
rta
143)
6
4
.0
179
APPENDIX
F.3.5 Qto
Questionbeeninvolreportedt
Amongthorusually
Figure 55
Table 63
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Tota
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q45: In the lo be in the d
45wasaskedlvedindecisiothattheywer
hosewhostatyinvolvedasm
5: Provincial
: Zone summ
C(N
s
al
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
last 6 montdecisions a
donlyofthosonsaboutyoureinvolvedin
tedtheyweremuchasthey
summary of
mary of respo
Calgary N = 286)
%
0.0
4.9
35.3
59.8
100.0
Never
0.6
ths, how oftabout your f
ewhoresponurfamilymemndecisionsab
einvolvedindywantedtobe
responses fo
onses for Q45
Central (N = 430)
%
0.5
6.7
29.3
63.5*
100.0
Someti
7.6
ten were yofamily mem
ndedYEStoQmber'scare?Pbouttheirfam
decisionmake(Table63)
or Q45
5
Edmonton (N = 793)
%
0.5
7.6
33.0
58.9
100.0
imes
6
ou involvedmber's care?
Question44:Irovincially,8milymember’
king,91.8per.
North (N = 132)
%
1.5
12.9*
40.9
44.7*
100.0
Usually
33.5
as much a?
Inthelast6m84.1percentoscare.
centstatedth
South(N = 59
%
0.8
8.3
34.7
56.2
100.0
as you want
months,haveyofresponden
heywerealw
h 3)
Albe(N = 2
%
0.6
7.6
33
58
0 100
Always
58.3
ted
younts
ways
erta ,234)
%
6
6
.5
.3
0.0
180
APPENDIX
F.3.6 Qa
Questionthesupporesponde
Amongthusuallyor
Figure 56
Table 64
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
To
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q59: In the lbout payme
59wasaskedrtivelivingfantsrequested
hosewhoaskeralwaysgeta
6: Provincial
: Zone summ
s
otal
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
last 6 montents or exp
donlytothosacilityforinfordpaymentan
edforinformllinformation
summary of
mary of respo
Calgary (N = 67)
%
1.5
7.5
32.8
58.2
100.0
Never
4.0
ths, how oftpenses?
sewhoanswermationaboundexpensein
mationaboutpntheywanted
responses fo
onses for Q59
Central (N = 98)
%
2.0
9.2
26.5
62.2
100.0
Someti
10.8
ten did you
eredYEStoQutpaymentsanformationfro
paymentsored(Table64)
or Q59
9
Edmonton(N = 249)
%
6.0
14.1
28.5
51.4
100.0
imes
8
get all the
Question58:Inandexpenses?omthesuppo
expenses,85..
North(N = 38)
%
0.0
7.9
26.3
65.8
100.0
Usually
28.6
information
nthelast6m?Provincially,ortivelivingfa
.1percentsta
) South
(N = 12
%
4.1
8.3
28.9
58.7
100.0
n you wante
onths,didyou,21.6percenacility.
atedthatthey
h 21)
Albe(N = 5
%
4.
10
28
56
0 100
Always
56.5
ed
uaskntof
y
erta 573)
%
0
.8
.6
.5
0.0
181
APPENDIX
F.4 M
F.4.1 Qe
Questionmonths,dcentofre
Amongthnursesor
Figure 57
Table 65
Yes
No
Total
46Accordingbythatgateascertained:thosequestio
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Meeting Ba
Q17: Did yoither didn't
17wasaskedduringanyofyspondentssta
hosewhohelpaidesdidnot
7: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calgar
(N = 57
%
14.0
86.0
100.0
toCAHPS®clean(Q17)containedvQ16),andsubseqonswereretained
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
asic Need
u help yourhelp or ma
dofthosewhyourvisits,didatedthatthey
pedtheirfamthelpormad
summary of
mary of respo
ry
7)
Cent
(N =
%
25.
74.
100
ninginstructions:validresponses,tquentsurveyqued.
Y
22
ds
r family meade him or h
oseresponsedyoueverhelyhelpedtheir
ilymemberwdehimorher
responses fo
onses for Q17
tral
87)
Ed
(N
%
3
7
.0
:Ifagatequestiothevalidresponsestionscontrolled
Yes
2.4
mber with eher wait too
ewasYESorwlpyourfamilyrfamilymem
witheating,2waittoolong
or Q17
7
dmonton
N = 174)
%
20.7
79.3
100.0
n(Q16)wasanswesweresettomidbythatgateque
eating becao long?
wasmissingtymemberwithmberwitheati
2.4percentsg(Table65).
North
(N = 51)
%
21.6
78.4
100.0
wered"NO"andsissing.Ifagatequstioncontainedv
ause nurses
toQuestion1heating?Proing.
statedthatth.
South
(N = 207)
%
25.1
74.9
100.0
subsequentsurveuestionwasmissivalidresponses(Q
No
77.6
s or aides
16:46Inthelasvincially,21.
heyhelpedbe
Albe
(N = 5
%
22.4
77.6
100.
eyquestionsconting(blank,notQ17),therespons
st66per
cause
rta
576)
4
6
.0
rolled
sesfor
182
APPENDIX
F.4.2 Qe
Questionmonths,dpercento
Amongthbecausen
Figure 58
Table 66
Yes
No
Total
47Accordingbythatgateascertained:thosequestio
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q19: Did yoither didn't
19wasaskedduringanyofyofrespondent
hosewhohelpnursesoraide
8: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calgar
(N = 51
%
15.7
84.3
100.0
toCAHPS®clean(Q19)containedvQ18),andsubseqonswereretained
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
u help yourhelp or ma
dofthosewhyourvisits,didtsstatedthat
pedtheirfamesdidnothel
summary of
mary of respo
ry
1)
Cent
(N =
%
28.
71.
0 100
ninginstructions:validresponses,tquentsurveyqued.
Y
26
r family meade him or h
oseresponsedyoueverheltheyhelped
ilymemberwpormadehim
responses fo
onses for Q19
tral
73)
Ed
(N
%
.8
.2
0.0
:Ifagatequestiothevalidresponsestionscontrolled
Yes
6.0
mber with dher wait too
ewasYESorwlpyourfamilytheirfamilym
withdrinkingmorherwait
or Q19
9
dmonton
N = 145)
%
31.7
68.3
100.0
n(Q18)wasanswesweresettomidbythatgateque
drinking beco long?
wasmissingtymemberwithmemberwith
g,26.0percenttoolong(Ta
North
(N = 51)
%
31.4
68.6
100.0
wered"NO"andsissing.Ifagatequstioncontainedv
cause the n
toQuestion1hdrinking?Phdrinking.
ntstatedthatable66).
South
(N= 192)
%
21.9
78.1
100.0
subsequentsurveuestionwasmissivalidresponses(Q
No
74.0
nurses or a
1847:Inthelasrovincially,1
t theyhelped
Alber
(N = 5
%
26.0
74.0
100.
eyquestionsconting(blank,notQ19),therespons
aides
st618.2
rta
512)
0
0
.0
rolled
sesfor
183
APPENDIX
F.4.3 Qe
Questionmonths,dpercento
Amongthbecausen
Figure 59
Table 67
Yes
No
Total
48Accordingbythatgateascertained:thosequestio
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q21: Did yoither didn't
21wasaskedduringanyofyofrespondent
hosewhohelpnursesoraide
9: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calga
(N = 6
%
27.5
72.5
100.0
toCAHPS®clean(Q21)containedvQ20),andsubseqonswereretained
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
u help yourhelp or ma
dofthosewhyourvisits,didtsstatedthat
pedtheirfamesdidnothel
summary of
mary of respo
ary
69)
Ce
(N =
5 3
5 6
0 1
ninginstructions:validresponses,tquentsurveyqued.
Y
39
r family meade him or h
oseresponsedyoueverheltheyhelped
ilymemberwpormadehim
responses fo
onses for Q2
entral
= 110)
E
%
32.7
67.3
00.0
:Ifagatequestiothevalidresponsestionscontrolled
Yes
9.6
mber with ther wait too
ewasYESorwlpyourfamilytheirfamilym
withtoileting,morherwait
or Q21
1
Edmonton
(N = 177)
%
39.0
61.0
100.0
n(Q20)wasanswesweresettomidbythatgateque
toileting beco long?
wasmissingtymemberwithmemberwith
,39.6percenttoolong(Ta
North
(N = 46)
%
52.2
47.8
100.0
wered"NO"andsissing.Ifagatequstioncontainedv
cause the n
toQuestion2htoileting?Phtoileting.
ntstatedthatable67).
South
(N = 156
%
46.8
53.2
100.0
subsequentsurveuestionwasmissivalidresponses(Q
No
60.4
nurses or a
20:48Inthelasrovincially,2
theyhelped
6)
Albe
(N =
%
39
60
100
eyquestionsconting(blank,notQ21),therespons
ides
st60.6
erta
558)
%
9.6
0.4
0.0
rolled
sesfor
184
APPENDIX
F.5 O
F.5.1 O
F.5.1.2 Qro
Figure 60
Table 68
Never
Sometim
Usually
Always
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Other ques
Other questi
Q32: In the laoom accepta
0: Provincial
: Zone summ
es
Total
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
stions
ions related
ast 6 monthsable to you?
summary of
mary of respo
Calgary
(N = 352)
%
1.1
2.0
23.9
73.0
100.0
Never
0.8
d to Staffing
s, how often
responses fo
onses for Q32
Central
(N = 531)
%
0.6
0.9*
19.8*
78.7*
100.0
Someti
2.4
g, Care of B
was the noi
or Q32
2
)
Edmonto
(N = 982
%
0.8
2.3
21.6
75.3*
100.0
imes
4
Belongings,
ise level aro
on
2)
North
(N = 16
%
0.0
6.7*
37.0*
56.4*
100.0
Usually
23.9
, and Enviro
und your fam
h
65)
Sout
(N = 71
%
0.8
2.7
* 27.2
* 69.3
0 100.0
onment
mily membe
th
14)
Albe
(N = 2,
%
0.8
2.4
* 23.
* 73.
0 100
Always
73.0
r's
erta
,744)
%
8
4
9
0
.0
185
APPENDIX
F.5.1.2 Qm
Figure 61
Table 69
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q33: In the lamember in pr
1: Provincial
: Zone summ
Cal
(N =
%
0
s 1
1
86
10
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ast 6 monthsrivate?
summary of
mary of respo
gary
= 349)
C
(N
%
0.9
.1
1.5
6.5
00.0
Never
0.4
s, how often
responses fo
onses for Q33
Central
N = 526)
%
0.4
1.0
8.0*
90.7*
100.0
Someti
1.3
were you ab
or Q33
3
Edmonton
(N = 979)
%
0.2
1.4
10.5
87.8
100.0
imes
3
ble to find pl
North
(N = 161)
%
0.6
0.6
14.3
84.5
100.0
Usually
11.2
laces to talk
South
(N = 711
%
0.4
1.5
13.5
84.5
100.0
k to your fam
1)
Albe
(N = 2
%
0.4
1.3
11.
87.
100
Always
87.2
mily
erta
,726)
%
4
3
.2
.2
0.0
186
APPENDIX
F.5.1.3 Qo
Figure 62
Table 70
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q30: In the laf staff?
2: Provincial
: Zone summ
Cal
(N =
%
0
s 19
66
14
10
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ast 6 months
summary of
mary of respo
gary
= 330)
C
(N
%
0.3
9.1
6.4
4.2
00.0
Never
0.6
s, how often
responses fo
onses for Q30
Central
N = 492)
%
0.6
16.5
62.6*
20.3
100.0
Someti
18.7
is your fami
or Q30
0
Edmonton
(N = 925)
%
0.5
18.2
64.3
17.0
100.0
imes
7
ily member c
North
(N = 159)
%
1.9
24.5
57.9
15.7
100.0
Usually
63.7
cared for by
South
(N = 683
%
0.6
19.5
63.5
16.4
100.0
y the same te
3)
Albe
(N = 2
%
0.6
18.
63.
17.
100
Always
17.0
eam
erta
,589)
%
6
.7
.7
.0
0.0
187
APPENDIX
F.5.2 O
F.5.2.1 Qrea
Figure 63
Table 71
Yes
No
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Other questi
Q35: In the laesident's privrea?
3: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calgary
(N = 337
%
1.8
98.2
100.0
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ions related
ast 6 monthsvacy while th
summary of
mary of respo
y
7)
Cen
(N =
%
2.
97
100
Y
2
d to Kindne
s, did you evhe resident w
responses fo
onses for Q35
tral
517)
Ed
(N
%
1
.9
0.0
Yes
2.9
ess and Res
ver see the nwas dressing
or Q35
5
monton
N = 961)
%
2.2
97.8
100.0
spect
nurses and ag, showering
North
(N = 163)
%
6.1*
93.9*
100.0
aides fail to pg, bathing, o
South
(N = 707)
%
4.1
95.9
100.0
No
97.1
protect any or in a public
Albert
(N = 2,6
%
2.9
97.1
100.0
c
ta
685)
0
188
APPENDIX
F.5.2.2 Qw
Figure 64
Table 72
Never
Sometim
Usually
Always
Alb
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q25: In the lawith courtesy
4: Provincial
: Zone summ
es
Total
berta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ast 6 monthsy and respec
summary of
mary of respo
Calgary
(N = 355)
%
0.0
0.3
22.5
77.2
100.0
Never
0.3
s, how often ct?
responses fo
onses for Q25
Central
(N = 532)
%
0.0
1.3
14.1*
84.6*
100.0
Somet
1.5
did the nurs
or Q25
5
)
Edmonto
(N = 973
%
0.6
1.6
17.7
80.1
100.0
times
5
ses and aide
on
3)
North
(N = 16
%
0.6
1.8
28.3*
69.3*
100.0
Usually
19.6
es treat you [
h
66)
Sout
(N = 71
%
0.1
2.0
* 22.7
* 75.2
0 100.0
[the respond
th
14)
Albe
(N = 2,
%
0.3
1.5
* 19.
* 78.
0 100
Always
78.6
dent]
erta
,740)
%
3
5
6
6
.0
189
APPENDIX
F.5.3 OIn
F.5.3.1 Qby
Figure 65
Table 73
Yes
No
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Other questinvolvement
Q46: In the lay phone?
5: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calgary
(N = 353)
%
80.7*
19.3*
100.0
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ions relatedt
ast 12 month
summary of
mary of respo
Central
(N = 528
%
61.7*
38.3*
100.0
Y
68
d to Providi
hs, have you
responses fo
onses for Q46
l
8)
Edmo
(N =
%
67
32
10
Yes
8.8
ng Informa
u been part o
or Q46
6
onton
= 974)
%
7.2
2.8
00.0
tion and En
of a care con
North
(N = 157)
%
59.2*
40.8*
100.0
ncouraging
nference, eit
South
(N = 714)
%
72.4*
27.6*
100.0
No
31.2
Family
ther in perso
Albert
(N = 2,7
%
68.8
31.2
100.0
on or
ta
726)
0
190
APPENDIX
F.5.3.2 Qm
Question
Amongthopportun
Figure 66
Table 74
Yes
No
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q47: Were yomonths either
47wasasked
hosewhodiditytoparticip
6: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calgary
(N = 62)
%
29.0
71.0
100.0
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ou given ther in person o
donlyofthos
notparticipapateinacare
summary of
mary of respo
Cent
(N = 1
%
13.6
86.4
100
Y
20
e opportunityor by phone?
ewhorespon
ateinacarecoconference(
responses fo
onses for Q47
tral
176)
Edm
(N
6*
4*
.0 1
Yes
0.5
y to be part o?
ndedYEStoQ
onference,79(Table47).
or Q47
7
monton
= 302)
%
20.5
79.5
100.0
of a care con
Question46.
9.5percents
North
(N = 58)
%
20.7
79.3
100.0
nference in t
aidtheywere
South
(N = 176)
%
24.4
75.6
100.0
No
79.5
the last 12
enotgiventh
Albe
(N = 7
%
20.5
79.5
100.
he
rta
774)
5
5
.0
191
APPENDIX
F.5.3.3 Q
Althoughimportanttofurthertocarecolast12mo(Wereyouphone?).T
1. P
2. D
Provinciagiventhe
Whenresmostinvoresponde
Figure 67
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q46 and Q47
familymembtthatafacilitrsummarizetonferenceparonths,haveyougiventheopThesetwoqu
articipated,o
idnotpartici
lly,23.2percopportunity.
ponseswereolvedintheirntsdidnotpa
7: Provincial
Particto (bu
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7: Summary
bersmaydecltyprovidesfathequestionsrticipationweoubeenpartopportunitytobestionswere
orgiventheo
ipateinacare
centofrespon
limitedtothfamilymembarticipateina
summary of
cipated, or givut declined), in
76
of care conf
linetoparticiamilymembesrelatedtocaerecombinedofacareconfebepartofacacollapsedint
pportunityto
econference
ndentsdidno
osewhoanswbers’care),thacareconfere
responses fo
ven the oppon a care confe
6.8
ference part
ipateinacarerstheopportareconferencd.Figure67aferenceeitherareconferenctotwocatego
oparticipate,
becausethey
otparticipate
weredYEStohepercentageencebecause
or Q46 and 4
rtunityerence
ticipation
econferencetunitytopartceparticipatioandTable75bypersonorceinthelast1ories:
inacarecon
ywerenotgiv
einacarecon
Q64(i.e.,thoeremainedsietheywereno
47
Did notconference
give
foranynumbticipateiftheyon,thetwoqu5combineQubyphone?)an12monthseith
nference.
ventheoppor
nferencebeca
osewhostatemilar:22.3peotgiventheo
t participate ine because theen the opportu
23.2
berofreasonychoose.Inouestionsrelaestion46(InndQuestion4herbyperson
rtunity.
ausetheywer
dtheyweretercentofopportunity.
n a careey were notunity
s,itisordertedthe47norby
renot
the
192
APPENDIX F
Table 75: Zone summary of responses for Q46 and 47
Calgary
(N = 346)
Central
(N = 502)
Edmonton
(N = 953)
North
(N = 150)
South
(N = 693)
Alberta
(N = 2,644)
% % % % % %
Participated, or given the opportunity to (but declined), in a care conference
87.3* 69.7* 75.0 69.3* 80.8* 76.8
Did not participate in a care conference because they were not given the opportunity to
12.7* 30.3* 25.0 30.7* 19.2* 23.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
193
APPENDIX
F.5.3.4 Qfa
Figure 68
Table 76
Yes
No
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q39: At any tamily membe
8: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calgary
(N = 351)
%
27.9
72.1
100.0
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
time during ter received a
summary of
mary of respo
Centra
(N = 52
%
24.8*
75.2*
100.0
Y
30
the last 6 moat the suppo
responses fo
onses for Q39
al
24)
Edm
(N =
* 3
* 6
0 1
Yes
0.1
onths, were ortive living f
or Q39
9
monton
= 974)
%
30.8
69.2
00.0
you ever unfacility?
North
(N = 158)
%
37.3
62.7
100.0
nhappy with
South
(N = 709)
%
32.6
67.4
100.0
No
69.9
the care you
Alber
(N = 2,
%
30.1
69.9
100.
ur
rta
716)
1
9
.0
194
APPENDIX
F.5.3.5 Qth
Questiontalktoanytalkedto
Amongthalwayssa
Figure 69
Table 77
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Tot
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q41: How ofthese problem
41wasaskedysupportivelsupportiveliv
hosewhotalktisfiedwithth
9: Provincial
: Zone summ
s
tal
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ten were youms?
donlyofthoslivingfacilitysvingfacilitys
kedtostaffabhewaysuppo
summary of
mary of respo
Calgary
(N = 89)
%
5.6
37.1
40.4
16.9
100.0
Never
8.9
u satisfied w
ewhoresponstaffaboutthstaffaboutthe
outtheirconortivelivings
responses fo
onses for Q4
Central
(N = 115)
%
12.2
36.5
39.1
12.2
100.0
Someti
36.5
with the way t
ndedYEStoQhisconcern?Peirconcerns.
ncerns,54.5pstaffhandled
or Q41
1
Edmonton
(N = 260)
%
10.0
33.8
47.7
8.5
100.0
imes
5
the supporti
Question40:IProvincially,9
ercentstatedproblems(T
n
North
(N = 53
%
13.2
49.1
24.5*
13.2
100.0
Usually
42.4
ive living fac
Inthelast6m90.2percent
dthattheywable78).
h
3)
Sout
(N = 21
%
6.2
36.5
43.1
14.2
100.0
cility staff han
months,didyoofresponden
wereusuallyor
h
11)
Albe
(N =
%
8.
5 36
42
2 12
0 100
Always
12.1
ndled
ounts
r
erta
728)
%
9
6.5
2.4
2.1
0.0
195
APPENDIX
F.5.4 O
F.5.4.1 (Q
Anadditiotherearecaptureswcategorize
1. [Rd
2. [Rh
Itwasfouleastoneunavailab
Figure 70
Table 78
Did not assisto staff unav
Assisted res
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Other questi
Q17, Q19, a
onalitemwasmanyreasonwhethertheredasfollows
Respondentdrinkingortoi
Respondentaelpingorresp
undthat15.8ofthebasicnbilityofstaff.
0: Provincial
: Zone summ
st resident, or asvailability
sident due to staf
Total
Did n
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ions related
nd Q21): Su
screatedtosnsthatafamilrespondenta:
didnotassistileting,butno
assistedineatpondentwait
percentofreneeds(eating,
summary of
mary of respo
ssisted not due
ff unavailability
ot assist residdue to staff
84
d to Meeting
ummary of M
ummarizethlymembermassisteddueto
ineating,driotduetonurs
ting,drinkingtedtoolongto
espondentsst,drinking,or
responses fo
onses for Q17
Calgary
(N = 279)
%
89.6*
10.4*
100.0
dent or assistunavailability
4.2
g Basic Ne
Meeting Basi
equestionsrmightassistinotheunavaila
nking,andtosesoraidesn
gortoileting]ohelp]
tatedthatthetoileting)int
or Q17, Q19
7, Q19, and
Central
(N = 415)
%
87.7
12.3
100.0
ted noty
eds
ic Needs
representingthecareofaabilityofstaf
oileting]OR[Rnothelpingor
AND[helpw
eydidhelpththepastsixm
, and Q21
Q21
Edmonton
(N = 777) (
%
86.5
13.5
100.0
Assisted
MeetingBasiresident,thisff.Thesixque
Respondentarwaitingtool
wasduetonur
heirfamilymemonthsdueto
North
(N = 120)
S
(N
%
75.0*
25.0*
100.0
d resident dueunavailability
15.8
icNeeds.Whisquestionestionswere
assistedineatlongtohelp]
rsesoraides
emberwithaothe
South
N = 511)
Al
(N =
%
76.9* 8
23.1* 1
100.0 1
e to staffy
ile
ting,
not
t
berta
= 2,102)
%
84.2
15.8
00.0
196
APPENDIX
F.5.4.2 Qvi
Figure 71
Table 79
Yes
No
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q51: In the laisited?
1: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calgary
(N = 350)
%
54.9*
45.1*
100.0
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ast 6 months
summary of
mary of respo
Central
(N = 530
%
59.1*
40.9*
100.0
Y
63
s, did you he
responses fo
onses for Q5
l
0)
Edmo
(N =
%
64
35
10
Yes
3.7
elp with the c
or Q51
1
onton
= 970)
%
4.4
5.6
00.0
care of your
North
(N = 165)
%
70.3
29.7
100.0
family mem
South
(N = 711)
%
69.1*
30.9*
100.0
No
36.3
mber when yo
Albert
(N = 2,7
%
63.7
36.3
100.0
ou
ta
726)
0
197
APPENDIX
F.5.4.3 Qyo
Figure 72
Table 80
Yes
No
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q52: Do you our family m
2: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calgary
(N = 346)
%
11.8
88.2
100.0
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
feel that supmember when
summary of
mary of respo
Central
(N = 518
%
13.1
86.9
100.0
Y
14
pportive livinn you visit?
responses fo
onses for Q52
l
8)
Edmo
(N =
%
14
85
10
Yes
4.4
ng facility sta
or Q52
2
onton
= 955)
%
4.1
5.9
00.0
aff expects y
North
(N = 160)
%
21.9*
78.1*
100.0
you to help w
South
(N = 704)
%
15.2
84.8
100.0
No
85.6
with the care
Albert
(N = 2,6
%
14.4
85.6
100.0
e of
ta
683)
0
198
APPENDIX
F.5.4.4 Qse
Figure 73
Table 81
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q54: In the laervices and
3: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calg
(N =
%
0
s 2.
36
60
10
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ast 6 monthstreatments t
summary of
mary of respo
gary
351)
Ce
(N
%
.3
8*
6.8 3
0.1 6
0.0 1
Never
0.4
s, how often they needed
responses fo
onses for Q54
entral
= 524)
E
%
0.4
4.8
30.9*
63.9*
100.0
Someti
6.2
did your famd?
or Q54
4
Edmonton
(N = 968)
%
0.8
6.8
37.9
54.4
100.0
imes
2
mily member
North
(N = 163)
%
0.0
9.2
50.3*
40.5*
100.0
Usually
36.5
r receive all
South
(N = 714)
%
0.1
7.3
35.6
57.0
100.0
of the medic
)
Alber
(N = 2,7
%
0.4
6.2
36.5
56.8
100.
Always
56.8
cal
rta
720)
5
8
0
199
APPENDIX
F.5.5 M
F.5.5.1 Qm
Figure 74
Table 82
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Total
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Medications
Q55: In the lamedication?
4: Provincial
: Zone summ
Cal
(N =
%
53
s 4
2
2
10
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ast 6 months
summary of
mary of respo
gary
= 353)
C
(N
%
3.3
1.9
2.0
2.8
00.0
Never
50.4
s, how often
responses fo
onses for Q55
Central
N = 522)
%
51.7
41.6
3.6
3.1
100.0
Someti
42.9
did you hav
or Q55
5
Edmonton
(N = 972)
%
50.8
43.0
3.8
2.4
100.0
imes
9
ve concerns
North
(N = 161)
%
44.1
44.7
5.0
6.2
100.0
Usually
3.8
about your f
South
(N = 705
%
48.7
43.7
4.5
3.1
100.0
family memb
5)
Albe
(N = 2
%
50.
42.
3.8
3.0
100
Always
3.0
ber's
erta
,713)
%
.4
.9
8
0
0.0
200
APPENDIX
F.5.5.2 Qm
Questionyoutalkwconcernstheattent
Amongthconcerns
Figure 75
Table 83
Never
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Tot
Albe
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q57: In the lamedication re
57wasaskedwithanysuppo(49.7%ofrestionofstaff.
hosewhobrouwereusually
5: Provincial
: Zone summ
C
(
s
tal
N
erta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ast 6 monthsesolved?
donlyofthosortivelivingfaspondents),8
ughtmedicatoralwaysres
summary of
mary of respo
Calgary
N = 144)
%
2.1
6.3
37.5
54.2
100.0
Never
2.9
s, how often
ewhoresponfacilitystaffab89.4percent
tionconcernssolved(Table
responses fo
onses for Q57
Central
(N = 223)
%
2.2
9.9
37.7
50.2
100.0
Someti
11.3
were your c
ndedsometimboutthesemereportedtha
totheattente83).
or Q57
7
Edmonton
(N = 408)
%
3.2
13.0
38.5
45.3
100.0
imes
3
concerns abo
mes,usually,oedicationconcttheyhadbr
tionofstaff,8
North
(N = 74)
%
0.0
12.2
36.5
51.4
100.0
Usually
37.4
out your fam
oralways,toQcerns?Ofthosroughtmedica
85.5percents
South
(N = 327
%
4.0
12.2
36.1
47.7
100.0
mily member
Question56:Dsewhohadationconcern
statedthatth
7)
Albe
(N = 1,
%
2.9
11.
37.4
48.4
100
Always
48.4
r’s
Did
nsto
heir
rta
176)
9
3
4
4
.0
201
APPENDIX
F.5.6 Q
Figure 76
Table 84
Yes
No
Don’t know
Not applica
Total
Albe
0.
10.
20.
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
90.
100.
Per
cen
tag
e (%
)
F
Q43: In your
6: Provincial
: Zone summ
Calg
(N = 3
%
72.
12.
w 13.3
able 1.7
100
Y
erta 6
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
r opinion, is
summary of
mary of respo
ary
346)
Ce
(N
%
.8
.1
3*
7
0.0 1
Yes
68.4
s the overal
responses fo
onses for Q43
entral
= 508)
E
%
67.5
17.3
14.1
1.0
100.0
No
16.1
ll cost of liv
or Q43
3
Edmonton
(N = 958)
%
66.9
16.8
14.7
1.6
100.0
ving at this f
North
(N = 153)
%
56.9*
24.8*
16.3
2.0
100.0
Don't know
14.1
facility reas
South
(N = 701
%
71.5
14.1
13.3
1.1
100.0
w No
sonable?
1)
Albe
(N = 2,
%
68.
16.
14.
1.4
100
ot applicable
1.4
erta
,660)
%
4
1
1
4
0.0
202
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX G: GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING REGRESSION MODELS
G.1 Model description – Dimension of Care variables
Tosimplifytheinterpretationofthedata,questionswhichmeasuresimilarconstructswerecombinedintosinglevariablescalledDimensionsofCare.Suchamodelexploresthestrengthofassociationbetweenmorespecificqualityvariables(thedimensionsinthiscase)withtheoutcomevariable(theGlobalOverallCarerating).
DimensionsofCarevariablesaretheweightedaveragescoresofallquestionswithineachdimension.Theyprovideasummaryrecordforthecommonattributeofcarerepresentedbythedimension.Inthissection,aregressionmodelwasdevelopedtoidentifydimensionswiththestrongestrelationshiptotheGlobalOverallCarerating.ThisprovidesabetterunderstandingofwhichfactorsimpactGlobalOverallCareratingsandmayprovideusefulinformationforqualityimprovementactivities.
SeeAppendixB.2.3andB.2.4formoreinformationonsurveyresponsescoring.
G.2 Regression Models
AregressionmodelwasusedtoidentifyrelationshipswiththeGlobalOverallCarerating.Thismodelwascalculatedfrom2,869respondentsfrom128facilitiesandexplains61.7percentofthevarianceintheGlobalOverallCareratingscore.
Themodelincludedthefollowingconfoundingvariables:Age,gender,languagespokenathome,sharedroom,facilitysize(numberofbeds),ownershiptype(AHS,private,voluntary),andresidentpermanencyinthefacility.TheselectionofconfoundingvariableswasinitiallybasedonvariablesdescribedinResidentandRespondentcharacteristics(AppendixC).ThesevariableswerethenanalyzedinaccordancetothestrengthoftheirrelationshiptoGlobalOverallCareratingsbasedonthep‐valuesandstandardizedbetacoefficients.Selectvariablesexcludedfromthemodel:
i) werenotsignificantlyrelatedtoGlobalOverallCareratings(p>0.05)andhadthesmallestbetacoefficientsrelativetootherconfounders.
ii) didnotsubstantiallyimpactthevarianceexplainedupontheirremovalfromthemodel(61.5%whenallconfounderswereincludedversus61.7percentwhenlimitedtothefinalselectionofconfounders).
Confoundersthatwereexcludedwere:memoryproblems,whetherrespondentwasthemostexperiencedpersonwithcare,residentlengthofstay,visitfrequency,andeducation.
203
APPENDIX G
Theregressionmodel(Table85)offersevidencethatrespondents’scoresonthefourDimensionsofCareandtheFoodRatingScalearesignificantpredictorsofGlobalOverallCareratings.OrderedfromstrongesttoweakestinfluencewiththeGlobalOverallCarerating:
1. Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment
2. KindnessandRespect
3. FoodRatingScale
4. ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement
5. MeetingBasicNeeds
Table 85: Regression model- Dimensions of Care versus Global Overall Care rating adjusted for confounders
Dimension of Care Standardized beta coefficients
Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment 0.337*
Kindness and Respect 0.240*
Food Rating Scale (0 to 100) 0.222*
Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement
0.151*
Meeting Basic Needs 0.066*
Constant 7.82
N 2,228
R-Sqared 0.620
Ajusted R-Squared 0.617
p-value < 0.001
Note:Confoundingvariablesinclude:age,gender,languagespokenathome,sharedroom,facilitysize(numberofbeds),ownershiptype(AHS,private,voluntary),andresidentpermanencyinfacility.
204
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX H: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
H.1 Detailed methodology
Eachresponsetotheopen‐endedquestionwasanalyzedusingNVivoversion10.NVivo10isaqualitativedataanalysissoftwarepackage.Theanalysistookplaceintwoparts.Inpartone,apreliminaryanalysisof619responseswascompleted.Throughthisanalysis,patternsinfamilymembers’commentswereidentifiedandthemesandsubthemesweredeveloped.Themeswerenotpredetermined.Intotal,12themesemergedfromfamilymemberscomments.Thesewere:
Activities
Careandservices
Choice
Communications
Dailyoperations
Food
Cost
Residentenvironment
Safetyandsecurity
Staff
Workfamilymembersdo
Other
Inparttwo,all1,736commentswereexaminedformultiplethemesandideas.Theanalysiswasiterative.Duringthisanalysis,thethemesandsubthemesidentifiedinthepreliminaryanalysiswerefurtherrefined.Nonewthemesweregeneratedduringthisphase.Analysiswasdeemed‘complete’whencommentswerenolongercodedorrecodeddifferently.
Toenablecomparisonwithquestionnairefindings,the12emergentthemeswerecategorizedwithinoneofthefourexistingdimensions.TheDimensionsofCarewere:(1)Staffing,CareofBelongings,andEnvironment,(2)KindnessandRespect,(3)ProvidingInformationandEncouragingFamilyInvolvement,and(4)MeetingBasicNeeds.Attimes,athemewasrelevanttoaDimensionofCarebutitwasnotanexistingcomponentofit.Forexample,anemergenttheme‘accesstohealthservices’wasincludedunderthedimension‘MeetingBasicNeeds’–toreflectthis,thecriterionthatguideshowtocodeacommentwithineachdimensionwasmodified(seeTable88forcodingbyDimensionsofCareandadditionalthemes).WhenanemergentthemecouldnotbecategorizedintooneofthefourDimensionsofCare,thethemewasretainedandcategorizedas‘Other’.Two‘Other’themeswereidentifiedandincluded1)Activitiesand2)Funding.Inaddition,thethemeSafetyandSecuritywasretainedandhighlightedindependentofthefourDimensionsofCare.Familymembers’commentswerethenclassifiedasbeingarecommendationforchangeand/orconcernor,complimentaryorneutralasfollows:
205
APPENDIX H
Commentswereclassifiedasbeingarecommendationforchangeand/orconcernwhenfamilymembersclearlyconveyedtheyweredissatisfiedwiththecareprovidedtoaresident,indicatingroomforimprovement.Additionally,thesecommentswereclassifiedassuchiffamilymembersexpressedadesireforchangeorimprovementand/orprovidedasuggestionforhowcareandservicescouldbeimprovedorchanged.
Complimentaryorneutralwhenfamilymembersexpressedsatisfactionorneutralitywithcareandservices.
H.2 Additional results
Table86summarizesthecommentsbyDimensionsofCareandadditionalthemes.Acrossallregions,familymemberscommentedmostfrequentlyontopicsrelevantto:(1)theStaffing,CareofBelongings,andResidentEnvironmentdimension,and(2)theMeetingBasicNeedsdimension.Familymembersmostoftenprovidedrecommendationsforchangeand/orconcernasopposedtocomplimentaryorneutralstatements,bothprovinciallyandacrossallzones.
Table87representsthenumberofthematicstatementsinfamilymembers’comments,byDimensionsofCareandadditionalthemesaccordingtorecommendationtype.Thematicstatementswerethethemesandideascontainedinacommentthatwererelevanttooneormoredimensions.Atotalof3,696thematicstatementswereidentified(anaverageof2.1thematicstatementsperpersonwhoprovidedacomment).
Figure77providesasummaryofthetoptenfamilymembersuggestionsforchangeandconcerns,bytheme.
206
AP
PE
ND
IX H
Tab
le 8
6: R
egio
nal c
ompa
rison
of b
reak
dow
n of
com
men
ts b
y D
imen
sion
s of
Car
e an
d re
com
men
datio
n ty
pe
Region
Su
mm
ary
of
co
mm
ents
by
Dim
ensi
on
s o
f C
are
Sta
ffing
, Car
e of
B
elo
ngin
gs, a
nd
Env
ironm
ent
Kin
dne
ss a
nd
Res
pec
t
Pro
vidi
ng
Info
rmat
ion
and
Enc
oura
ging
F
amily
In
volv
emen
t
Mee
ting
Bas
ic N
eeds
S
afet
y an
d S
ecur
ity
Oth
er
To
tal
Calgary
Co
mp
limen
tary
or
neu
tral
sta
tem
ents
%
2.
2
2.2
1.
6
3.5
0.
3
4.8
14
.6
Rec
om
men
dat
ion
s fo
r ch
ang
e an
d/o
r co
nce
rn
%
26.6
4.
0
13.4
27
.2
1.6
12
.6
85.4
To
tal
%
28.8
6.
2
15.1
30
.6
1.9
17
.5
100.
0
Central
Co
mp
limen
tary
or
neu
tral
sta
tem
ents
%
2.
5
1.5
0.
3
5.4
0.
2
5.9
15
.8
Rec
om
men
dat
ion
s fo
r ch
ang
e an
d/o
r co
nce
rn
%
29.9
2.
5
8.2
29
.6
1.3
12
.7
84.2
To
tal
%
32.4
3.
9
8.6
35
.0
1.5
18
.6
100.
0
Edmonton
Co
mp
limen
tary
or
neu
tral
sta
tem
ents
%
1.
9
1.8
1.
2
3.7
0.
2
3.8
12
.6
Rec
om
men
dat
ion
s fo
r ch
ang
e an
d/o
r co
nce
rn
%
29.3
4.
2
12.1
24
.6
1.9
15
.4
87.5
To
tal
%
31.2
5.
9
13.2
28
.3
2.1
19
.3
100.
0
North
Co
mp
limen
tary
or
neu
tral
sta
tem
ents
%
0.
9
0.4
0.
0
3.9
0.
0
2.6
7.
8
Rec
om
men
dat
ion
s fo
r ch
ang
e an
d/o
r co
nce
rn
%
37.2
3.
0
11.7
25
.5
2.2
12
.6
92.2
To
tal
%
38.1
3.
5
11.7
29
.4
2.2
15
.2
100.
0
207
AP
PE
ND
IX H
Region S
um
mar
y o
f c
om
men
ts b
y D
imen
sio
ns
of
Car
e
Sta
ffing
, Car
e of
B
elo
ngin
gs, a
nd
Env
ironm
ent
Kin
dne
ss a
nd
Res
pec
t
Pro
vidi
ng
Info
rmat
ion
and
Enc
oura
ging
F
amily
In
volv
emen
t
Mee
ting
Bas
ic N
eeds
S
afet
y an
d S
ecur
ity
Oth
er
To
tal
South
Co
mp
limen
tary
or
neu
tral
sta
tem
ents
%
2.
3
1.4
0.
7
4.8
0.
0
4.2
13
.4
Rec
om
men
dat
ion
s fo
r ch
ang
e an
d/o
r co
nce
rn
%
35.7
2.
7
8.0
25
.7
2.1
12
.3
86.5
To
tal
%
38.1
4.
1
8.7
30
.5
2.1
16
.5
100.
0
Alberta
Co
mp
limen
tary
or
neu
tral
sta
tem
ents
%
2.
1
1.6
0.
9
4.3
0.
1
4.3
13
.3
Rec
om
men
dat
ion
s fo
r ch
ang
e an
d/o
r co
nce
rn
%
31.4
3.
4
10.4
26
.2
1.8
13
.6
86.8
To
tal
%
33.4
4.
9
11.3
30
.5
2.0
17
.9
100.
0
208
APPENDIX H
Table 87: Breakdown of thematic statements by Dimensions of Care and additional themes according to recommendation type in Alberta
Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment Complimentary or neutral statements
Recommendations for change and/or
concern Total
Theme % % %
Staffing levels 0.2 37.7 37.8
Additional training and continuous education for staff 0.2 11.6 11.7
Staff accountability to resident care 0.0 0.8 0.8
Resident’s ability to be cared for by same staff 0.0 6.9 6.9
Cleanliness and condition of resident’s room and common areas
0.5 17.9 18.4
Resident’s belongings 0.0 1.8 1.8
Laundry services 0.2 2.8 2.9
Smoking 0.0 0.5 0.5
Volunteering 0.0 0.8 0.8
Quality of staff 5.3 1.1 6.4
Leadership and supervision of staff 0.6 5.9 6.6
Delegation of work for staff 0.0 2.2 2.2
Transportation of residents 0.0 1.4 1.4
Noise levels 0.0 0.5 0.5
Temperature and air quality 0.2 1.2 1.3
Total 7.2 93.1 100.0
Kindness and Respect Complimentary or neutral statements
Recommendations for change and/or
concern Total
Theme % % %
Interpersonal relations including kindness, respect, courtesy and concern or resident’s wellbeing
31.1 62.2 93.3
Privacy 0.0 4.3 4.3
Respect between residents 0.0 2.4 2.4
Total 31.1 68.9 100.0
209
APPENDIX H
Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement
Complimentary or neutral statements
Recommendations for change and/or
concern Total
Theme % % %
Involving family in resident care 3.0 27.8 30.8
Language barriers between staff and the family 0.7 12.9 13.6
Information about payments or expenses 0.0 2.0 2.0
General quality of communication 0.2 5.0 5.2
How concerns are handled 2.5 19.9 22.3
Communication between staff 0.0 13.2 13.2
Staff availability to answer questions 1.0 10.4 11.4
Staff identification 0.0 1.5 1.5
Total 7.4 92.7 100.0
Meeting Basic Needs Complimentary or neutral statements
Recommendations for change and/or
concern Total
Theme % % %
Help and supervision with Meeting Basic Needs including help with eating, drinking and toileting
0.4 13.7 14.1
General quality of care 10.8 4.2 15.1
Work family members do to help the resident 0.3 7.6 7.8
Consistent delivery of resident care plans 0.0 1.2 1.2
Food 1.2 33.7 34.9
Hygiene and grooming 0.4 10.9 11.3
Healthcare needs 0.5 14.1 14.6
Speed of care delivery 0.0 1.0 1.0
Total 13.6 86.4 100.0
210
APPENDIX H
Safety and Security Complimentary or neutral statements
Recommendations for change and/or
concern Total
Theme % % %
Safety and security measures in the facility 0.0 37.3 37.3
Harm to resident within facility 0.0 49.3 49.3
Sense of security within facility 4.5 9.0 13.4
Total 4.5 95.6 100.0
Other Complimentary or neutral statements
Recommendations for change and/or
concern Total
Theme % % %
Activities 1.0 32.4 33.4
Provision of resources 0.0 3.4 3.4
Cost of living at the facility 1.0 21.7 21.8
Maintaining documents and records 0.0 3.3 3.3
General quality of facility 22.6 3.6 26.2
Access to the facility 0.0 1.8 1.8
Scheduling of resident’s day 0.0 0.5 0.5
Couple suites 0.0 1.1 1.1
Facility policies and procedures 1.0 3.6 3.7
Resident’s ability to have choice 0.0 3.4 3.4
Non-classifiable, miscellaneous 0.0 1.3 1.3
Total 25.6 76.1 100.0
211
AF AP
PE
ND
IX H
Fig
ure
77:
Top
1 S
Per
cent
age
(%)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.
0
Percentage (%)
10 r
ecom
men
da
Sta
ffing
leve
ls (
n=
494
)F
ood
17.4
tions
for
chan
ge
d (n
= 3
83)
Cle
anlin
esco
nditi
on o
faci
lity
(n =
13.5
8.4e
s an
dof
the
= 2
37)
Invo
lvin
g fa
mily
ire
side
nt c
are
(n
222)
7.8
in =A
ctiv
ities
(n
=19
9)H
e
7.0
ealth
care
nee
ds(n
= 1
60)
He l
supe
rvba
sic
n 1
5.6
5lp a
ndvi
sion
with
need
s (n
=15
7)
Add
ition
atr
aini
ng a
cont
inu e
educ
atio
n st
aff (
n =
1
5.5
5.4
al nd edfo
r52
)
Res
iden
t'shy
gien
e an
dgr
oom
ing
(n =
125)
4.4
Inte
rper
sona
lsk
ills
of th
e st
aff
(n =
102
)
3.6
212
APPENDIX H
Table 88: Guidelines used to code comments by Dimensions of Care and additional themes
Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment
Staffing levels Quality of staff
Additional training and continuous education for staff Leadership and supervision of staff
Staff accountability to resident care Cleanliness and condition of resident’s room and
common areas
Resident’s ability to be cared for by same staff Delegation of work for staff
Resident’s belongings Transportation of residents
Laundry services Noise levels
Volunteering Temperature and air quality
Smoking
Kindness and Respect
Interpersonal relations including kindness, respect, courtesy and concern for resident’s wellbeing
Privacy
Respect between residents
Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement
Involving family in resident care How concerns are handled
Language barriers between staff and the family Communication between staff
Information about payments or expenses Staff availability to answer questions
General quality of communication Staff identification
Meeting Basic Needs
Help and supervision with basic needs including help with eating, drinking, and toileting
Food
General quality of care Hygiene and grooming
Work family members do to help the resident Healthcare needs
Consistent delivery of resident care plans Speed of care delivery
Safety and Security
Safety and security measures in the facility Sense of security within facility
Other
Activities Access to the facility
Provision of resources Scheduling of resident’s day
Cost of living at the facility Couple suites
Maintaining documents and records Facility policies and procedures
General quality of facility Resident’s ability to have choice
Non-classifiable, miscellaneous
213
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX I: DIMENSIONS OF CARE BY OVERALL CARE RATING QUARTILES
Note:Forthetablesbelow,asingleasterisk(*)indicatesthattheupperquartileresultsaresignificantlydifferentthanlowerquartileresultsatp<0.05.
I.1 Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment by Global Overall Care rating quartile
Table 89: Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment - by Global Overall Care rating quartile
Quartiles Staffing, Care of Belongings, and
Environment mean (out of 100)
95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Upper (27 facilities; 305 respondents) 87.0* 85.9 88.2
Upper middle (27 facilities; 565 respondents) 81.8 80.7 82.8
Lower middle (27 facilities; 841 respondents) 74.7 73.7 75.7
Lower (26 facilities; 963 respondents) 69.4 68.4 70.4
214
APPENDIX I
Table 90: Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile
Questions Total
Upper quartile
27 facilities
Lower quartile
26 facilities
Upper minus Lower
% n % n % n %
Q11: In the last 6 months, how often were you able to find a nurse or aide when you wanted one? (Among those who answered YES to Q10)
% Usually or Always
87.3 1,908 96.7 203 80.4 644 16.3*
Q50: In the last 6 months, how often did you feel that there were enough nurses and aides in the supportive living facility?
% Usually or Always
69.2 1,871 91.4 276 56.3 524 35.1*
Q31: In the last 6 months, how often did your family member`s room look and smell clean?
% Usually or Always
85.9 2,353 97.4 295 78.6 750 18.8*
Q22: In the last 6 months, how often did your family member look and smell clean?
% Usually or Always
89.1 2,449 97.0 293 82.8 792 14.2*
Q34: In the last 6 months, how often did the public areas of the supportive living facility look and smell clean?
% Usually or Always
97.4 2,669 100.0 301 95.1 907 4.9*
Q36: In the last 6 months, how often were your family member's personal medical belongings (e.g., hearing aids, eye-glasses, dentures, etc.) damaged or lost?
% Never
77.7 2,104 84.3 253 72.2 680 12.1*
Q38: In the last 6 months, when your family member used the laundry service, how often were clothes damaged or lost? (Among those who answered YES to Q37)
% Never
57.6 1,001 77.4 147 47.9 299 29.5*
Additional related questions not included in the dimension
Q32: In the last 6 months, how often was the noise level around your family member's room acceptable to you?
% Usually or Always
96.9 2,658 98.0% 298 95.6 911 2.4
Q33: In the last 6 months, how often were you able to find places to talk to your family member in private?
% Usually or Always
98.3 2,680 99.0% 299 97.6 922 1.4
Q30: In the last 6 months, how often is your family member cared for by the same team of staff?
% Usually or Always
80.7 2,089 92.8% 269 72.4 644 20.4*
215
APPENDIX I
I.2 Kindness and Respect by Global Overall Care rating quartile
Table 91: Kindness and Respect - by Global Overall Care rating quartile
Quartiles Kindness and Respect mean
(out of 100)
95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Upper (27 facilities; 304 respondents) 91.3* 90.1 92.4
Upper middle (27 facilities; 565 respondents) 87.8 86.6 89.0
Lower middle (27 facilities; 837 respondents) 85.5 84.4 86.6
Lower (26 facilities; 958 respondents) 81.4 80.3 82.5
Table 92: Kindness and Respect - Individual questions - by Global Overall Care rating quartile
Questions Total
Upper quartile
27 facilities
Lower quartile
26 facilities
Upper minus Lower
% n % n % n %
Q12: In the last 6 months, how often did you see the nurses and aides treat your family member with courtesy and respect?
% Usually or Always
95.9 2,626 99.0 299 94.4 894 4.6*
Q13: In the last 6 months, how often did you see the nurses and aides treat your family member with kindness?
% Usually or Always 95.2 2,598 99.7 301 92.9 877 6.8*
Q14: In the last 6 months, how often did you feel that the nurses and aides really cared about your family member?
% Usually or Always 90.1 2,463 99.0 300 84.7 802 14.3*
Q15: In the last 6 months, did you ever see any nurses or aides be rude to your family member or any other resident?
% No
91.1 2,482 95.7 288 88.8 837 6.9*
Q24: In the last 6 months, how often did the nurses and aides handle this situation in a way that you felt was appropriate?
% Usually or Always
89.3 515 100.0 31 85.4 222 14.6*
Additional related questions not included in the dimension
Q35: In the last 6 months, did you ever see the nurses and aides fail to protect any resident's privacy while the resident was dressing, showering, bathing, or in a public area?
% No
97.1 2,608 98.6 292 96.1 897 2.5*
Q25: In the last 6 months, how often did the nurses and aides treat you [the respondent] with courtesy and respect?
% Usually or Always
98.2 2,691 100 304 96.9 919 3.1*
216
APPENDIX I
I.3 Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement by Global Overall Care rating quartile
Table 93: Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement - by Global Overall Care rating quartile
Quartiles Providing Information and
Encouraging Family Involvement mean (out of 100)
95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Upper (27 facilities; 304 respondents) 90.4* 89.3 91.4
Upper middle (27 facilities; 565 respondents) 85.7 84.8 86.7
Lower middle (27 facilities; 838 respondents) 82.6 81.7 83.5
Lower (26 facilities; 961 respondents) 80.0 79.1 81.0
Table 94: Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile
Questions Total
Upper quartile
27 facilities
Lower quartile
26 facilities
Upper minus Lower
% n % n % n %
Q27: If YES to Q25, In the last 6 months, how often did you get this information as soon as you wanted?
% Usually or Always 87.4 1,934 96.7 231 81.9 649 14.8*
Q28: In the last 6 months, how often did the nurses and aides explain things in a way that was easy for you to understand?
% Usually or Always
92.0 2,469 97.3 289 88.5 824 8.8*
Q29: In the last 6 months, did nurses and aides ever try to discourage you from asking questions about your family member?
% No
97.7 2,676 100 304 96.1 915 3.9*
Q42: In the last 6 months, did you ever stop yourself from talking to any supportive living facility staff about your concerns because you thought they would take it out on your family member?
% No
79.4 908 88.2 60 78.2 390 10.0
Q45: In the last 6 months, how often were you involved as much as you wanted to be in the decisions about your family member's care?
% Usually or Always
91.9 2,052 97.1 238 89.4 717 7.7*
Q59: If YES to Q58, In the last 6 months, how often did you get all the information you wanted about payments or expenses?
% Usually or Always
85.2 488 96.7 59 80.9 195 15.8*
217
APPENDIX I
Additional related questions not included in the dimension
Care conference participation (Q46 and Q47)
% Participation or given the opportunity to participate 76.8 2,031 72.1 207 83.2 765 -11.1*
Q39: At any time during the last 6 months, were you ever unhappy with the care your family member received at the supportive living facility?
% No
69.9 1,898 89.4 270 58.8 551 30.6*
Q41: Among those who brought concerns to the attention of staff (YES on Q40), how often were you satisfied with the way the supportive living facility staff handled these problems?
% Usually or Always
54.5 397 79.3 23 46.7 165 32.6*
218
APPENDIX I
I.4 Meeting Basic Needs by Global Overall Care rating quartile
Table 95: Meeting Basic Needs - by Global Overall Care rating quartile
Quartiles Meeting Basic Needs mean (out of
100)
95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Upper (27 facilities; 304 respondents) 99.0* 98.4 99.5
Upper middle (27 facilities; 565 respondents) 97.0 96.0 98.0
Lower middle (27 facilities; 839 respondents) 93.9 92.7 95.1
Lower (26 facilities; 960 respondents) 92.0 90.6 93.4
Table 96: Meeting Basic Needs - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile
Questions Total
Upper quartile
27 facilities
Lower quartile
26 facilities
Upper minus Lower
% n % n % n %
Q16 and Q17: Helped family member with eating because nurses or aides either didn't help or made him or her wait too long
% No
77.6 447 96.8 30 70.9 175 25.9*
Q18 and Q19: Helped family member with drinking because nurses or aides either didn't help or made him or her wait too long
% No
74.0 379 93.8 30 71.1 162 22.7*
Q20 and Q21: Helped family member with toileting because nurses or aides either didn't help or made him or her wait too long
% No
60.4 337 78.7 37 53.8 119 24.9*
Additional related questions not included in the dimension
Q51: In the last 6 months, did you help with the care of your family member when you visited?
% No 36.3 989 49.3 148 30.8 292 18.5*
Q52: Do you feel that supportive living facility staff expects you to help with the care of your family member when you visit?
% No
85.6 2,297 92.3 275 81.3 750 11.0*
Q54: In the last 6 months, how often did your family member receive all of the medical services and treatments they needed?
% Usually or Always
93.4 2,540 98.3 295 90.7 861 7.6*
Q57: In the last 6 months, how often were your concerns about your family member's medication resolved?
% Usually or Always
85.8 1,009 92.8 90 81.6 372 11.2*
219
AP
PE
ND
IX J
AP
PE
ND
IX J
: F
AC
ILIT
Y S
IZE
RE
LA
TIV
E T
O G
LO
BA
L O
VE
RA
LL
CA
RE
RA
TIN
GS
, DIM
EN
SIO
N O
F C
AR
E
AN
D F
OO
D R
AT
ING
SC
AL
E
Regressionanalysiswasusedtoproducearegressionline,whichestimatesandvisuallydepictstherelationshipbetweenfacilitysize,Global
OverallCarerating,FoodRatingScale,andeachoftheDimensionofCaremeanscores.Facility‐levelmeanswerecomputedbyaddingthescores
forallfacilitiesandthendividingthisnum
berbythenumberoffacilitiesintheprovince.
Fig
ure
78:
Glo
bal O
vera
ll C
are
ratin
g sc
ores
as
a fu
nctio
n of
fac
ility
siz
e
Note:Quadraticpolynom
ial(redline)andcubicpolynom
ialproducesacurvilinearregressionlinewhichestimatesandvisuallydepictstherelationshipbetweenfacilitysizeandGlobal
OverallCareratingscores.Thequadraticpolynom
ialvertexisthelowestpointofapolynom
ial.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
111
2131
4151
6171
8191
101
111
121
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
211
221
231
241
251
261
271
281
Global Overall Care rating mean score (0 to 10)
Fac
ility
Siz
e (n
um
ber
of
bed
s)
Qua
drat
ic P
olyn
omia
lF
acili
ties
Qua
drat
ic P
olyn
om
ial V
ert
ex
at 1
04 B
eds
Cu
bic
Po
lyno
mia
lS
ite L
evel
Fac
ility
Mea
n (8
.4)
Adj‐R2= 0.248
Adj‐R2= 0.256
220
AP
PE
ND
IX J
Fig
ure
79:
Sta
ffing
, C
are
or B
elon
ging
s, a
nd E
nviro
nmen
t sc
ores
as
a fu
nctio
n of
fac
ility
siz
e
Note:Quadraticpolynom
ial(redline)andcubicpolynom
ialproducesacurvilinearregressionlinewhichestimatesandvisuallydepictstherelationshipbetweenfacilitysizeandStaffing,
CareofBelongings,andEnvironmentscores.Thequadraticpolynom
ialvertexisthelowestpointofapolynom
ial.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.
0
111
2131
4151
6171
8191
101
111
121
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
211
221
231
241
251
261
271
281
Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment mean score (0-100)
Fac
ility
Siz
e (n
um
ber
of
bed
s)
Qua
drat
ic P
olyn
omia
lF
acili
ties
Qua
drat
ic P
olyn
om
ial V
ert
ex
at 1
05 B
eds
Cu
bic
Po
lyno
mia
lS
ite L
evel
Me
an fo
r S
taffi
ng (
78.
3)
Adj‐R2= 0.239
Adj‐R2= 0.249
221
AP
PE
ND
IX J
Fig
ure
80:
Kin
dnes
s an
d R
espe
ct s
core
s as
a fu
nctio
n of
fac
ility
siz
e
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.
0
111
2131
4151
6171
8191
101
111
121
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
211
221
231
241
251
261
271
281
Kindness and Respect mean score (0-100)
Fac
ility
Siz
e (n
um
ber
of
bed
s)
Line
ar P
redi
ctio
nS
ite L
evel
Mea
n fo
r K
indn
ess
(85.
8)F
acili
ties
Adj‐R2= 0.042
222
AP
PE
ND
IX J
Fig
ure
81:
Pro
vidi
ng I
nfor
mat
ion
and
Enc
oura
ging
Fam
ily I
nvol
vem
ent
as a
fun
ctio
n of
fac
ility
siz
e
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.
0
111
2131
4151
6171
8191
101
111
121
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
211
221
231
241
251
261
271
281
Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement mean score (0-100)
Fac
ility
Siz
e (n
um
ber
of
bed
s)
Qua
drat
ic P
olyn
omia
lS
ite L
evel
Mea
n fo
r In
fo (
84.6
)F
acili
ties
Adj‐R2 = 0.079
223
AP
PE
ND
IX J
Fig
ure
82:
Mee
ting
Bas
ic N
eeds
as
a fu
nctio
n of
faci
lity
size
Note:Facilitiesinyellowareidentifiedoutliers,identifiedviaboxplotandweregreaterthanthreestandarddeviationsfrom
themeanor1.5timestheinterquartilerange.Facilitymeansof
outlierfacilitiesdidnotsignificantlydifferfrom
facilitiesthatwerenotoutliers;how
ever,thelinearprediction(red)excludesthesefacilities.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.
0
111
2131
4151
6171
8191
101
111
121
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
211
221
231
241
251
261
271
281
Meeting Basic Needs mean score (0-100)
Fac
ility
Siz
e (n
um
ber
of
bed
s)
Qua
drat
ic P
olyn
omia
lS
ite L
evel
Mea
n fo
r In
fo (
95.8
)F
acili
ties
Adj‐R2= 0.096
224
AP
PE
ND
IX J
Fig
ure
83:
Foo
d R
atin
g S
cale
as
a fu
nctio
n of
faci
lity
size
Note:Quadraticpolynom
ial(redline)andcubicpolynom
ialproducesacurvilinearregressionlinewhichestimatesandvisuallydepictstherelationshipbetweenfacilitysizeandFoodRating
Scalescores.Thequadraticpolynom
ialvertexisthelowestpointofapolynom
ial.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
111
2131
4151
6171
8191
101
111
121
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
211
221
231
241
251
261
271
281
Food Rating Scale mean score (0 to 10)
Fac
ility
Siz
e (n
um
ber
of
bed
s)
Qua
drat
ic P
olyn
omia
lF
acili
ties
Qua
drat
ic P
olyn
om
ial V
ert
ex
at 1
13 B
eds
Cu
bic
Po
lyno
mia
lS
ite L
evel
Fac
ility
Mea
n (7
.2)
Adj‐R2= 0.319
Adj‐R2= 0.295
225
AP
PE
ND
IX J
Fig
ure
84:
Pro
pens
ity to
rec
omm
end
as
a fu
nctio
n of
faci
lity
size
Note:Facilitiesinyellowareidentifiedoutliers,identifiedviaboxplotandweregreaterthanthreestandarddeviationsfrom
themeanor1.5timestheinterquartilerange.Facility
percentagesofoutlierfacilitiesdidnotsignificantlydifferfrom
facilitiesthatwerenotoutliers;how
everthelinearprediction(red)excludesthesefacilities..
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.
0
111
2131
4151
6171
8191
101
111
121
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
211
221
231
241
251
261
271
281
Percentage (%)
Fac
ility
Siz
e (n
um
ber
of
bed
s)
Line
ar r
ela
tion
ship
Fac
ilitie
sS
ite L
evel
Fa
cilit
y M
ean
(93.
2%
)
Adj‐R2= 0.062
226
APPENDIX K
APPENDIX K: QUESTION-LEVEL RESULTS BY OWNERSHIP TYPE
Table 97: Facility ownership - Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment
Question Measure AHS Private Voluntary Significant differences
Q11: In the last 6 months, how often were you able to find a nurse or aide when you wanted one? (Among those who answered YES to Q10)
% Usually or Always 87.7 86.3 88.7
N 154 1,189 842
Q50: In the last 6 months, how often did you feel that there were enough nurses and aides in the supportive living facility?
% Usually or Always 62.9 69.9 69.6
N 186 1,434 1,083
Q31: In the last 6 months, how often did your family member`s room look and smell clean?
% Usually or Always 88.3 85.1 86.5
N 188 1,459 1,093
Q22: In the last 6 months, how often did your family member look and smell clean?
% Usually or Always 95.2 89.1 88.0
%AHS > %Priv and %Vol
N 189 1,460 1,100
Q34: In the last 6 months, how often did the public areas of the supportive living facility look and smell clean?
% Usually or Always 99.5 97.5 96.9
N 189 1,459 1,093
Q36: In the last 6 months, how often were your family member's personal medical belongings (e.g., hearing aids, eye-glasses, dentures, etc.) damaged or lost?
% Never 75.0 77.3 78.6
N 184 1,l40 1,085
Q38: In the last 6 months, when your family member used the laundry service, how often were clothes damaged or lost? (Among those who answered YES to Q37)
% Never 55.1 57.4 58.4
N 127 898 713
Additional related questions not included in the dimension
Q32: In the last 6 months, how often was the noise level around your family member's room acceptable to you?
% Usually or Always 97.9 97.2 96.3
N 190 1,459 1,095
Q33: In the last 6 months, how often were you able to find places to talk to your family member in private?
% Usually or Always 98.9 98.4 98.1
N 188 1,447 1,091
Q30: In the last 6 months, how often is your family member cared for by the same team of staff?
% Usually or Always 76.4 81.6 80.3
N 182 1,378 1,029
227
APPENDIX K
Table 98: Facility ownership - Kindness and Respect
Question Measure AHS Private Voluntary Significant differences
Q12: In the last 6 months, how often did you see the nurses and aides treat your family member with courtesy and respect?
% Usually or Always 97.4 96.2 95.3
N 191 1,453 1,094
Q13: In the last 6 months, how often did you see the nurses and aides treat your family member with kindness?
% Usually or Always 95.7 95.5 94.7
N 188 1,451 1,091
Q14: In the last 6 months, how often did you feel that the nurses and aides really cared about your family member?
% Usually or Always 90.3 90.2 89.8
N 186 1,456 1,093
Q15: In the last 6 months, did you ever see any nurses or aides be rude to your family member or any other resident?
% No 87.8% 91.6% 91.0%
N 188 1,449 1,088
Q24: In the last 6 months, how often did the nurses and aides handle [difficult situations] in a way that you felt was appropriate?
% Usually or Always 97.1 87.3 90.7
N 34 306 237
Additional related questions not included in the dimension
Q35: In the last 6 months, did you ever see the nurses and aides fail to protect any resident's privacy while the resident was dressing, showering, bathing, or in a public area?
% No 98.3 97.1 97.0
N 181 1,426 1,078
Q25: In the last 6 months, how often did the nurses and aides treat you [the respondent] with courtesy and respect?
% Usually or Always 99.5 98.5 97.6
N 191 1,459 1,090
228
APPENDIX K
Table 99: Facility ownership - Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement
Question Measure AHS Private Voluntary Significant differences
Q27: If YES to Q25, In the last 6 months, how often did you get […] information as soon as you wanted?
% Usually or Always 90.6% 87.4% 86.8%
N 159 1,180 874
Q28: In the last 6 months, how often did the nurses and aides explain things in a way that was easy for you to understand?
% Usually or Always 94.2% 91.9% 91.6%
Total N 188 1,425 1,072
Q29: In the last 6 months, did nurses and aides ever try to discourage you from asking questions about your family member?
% No 99.0% 97.5% 97.8%
N 191 1,460 1,105
Q42: In the last 6 months, did you ever stop yourself from talking to any supportive living facility staff about your concerns because you thought they would take it out on your family member?
% No 78.8% 79.1% 80.1%
N 85 622 436
Q45: In the last 6 months, how often were you involved as much as you wanted to be in the decisions about your family member's care?
% Usually or Always 96.3% 91.8% 91.2%
N 160 1,192 882
Q59: If YES to Q58, In the last 6 months, how often did you get all the information you wanted about payments or expenses?
% Usually or Always 86.4% 85.9% 84.1%
N 22 319 232
Additional related questions not included in the dimension
Care conference participation (Q46 and Q47)
% Participated or given the
opportunity to participate
90.4 75.4 76.1 %AHS > %Priv and %Vol
Total N 187 1,391 1,066
Q39: At any time during the last 6 months, were you ever unhappy with the care your family member received at the supportive living facility?
% No 63.8 69.1 72.0
%Vol > %AHS
N 189 1,447 1,098
Q41: Among those who brought concerns to the attention of staff (YES on Q40), how often were you satisfied with the way the supportive living facility staff handled these problems?
% Usually or Always 58.6 53.0 55.9
N 58 398 272
229
APPENDIX K
Table 100: Facility ownership - Meeting Basic Needs
Question Measure AHS Private Voluntary Significant differences
Q17: Helped family member with eating because nurses or aides either didn't help or made him or her wait too long
% No to Q17 or Q16 91.0% 95.2% 96.1%
%AHS < %Priv and %Vol
Mean (0 to 100) 91.0 95.2 96.1
N 188 1,447 1,088
Q19: Helped family member with drinking because nurses or aides either didn't help or made him or her wait too long
% No to Q18 or Q19 91.0% 94.8% 96.3%
%Vol > %AHS and %Priv Mean (0 to 100) 91.0 94.8 96.3
Total N 189 1,456 1,095
Q21: Helped family member with toileting because nurses or aides either didn't help or made him or her wait too long
% No to Q20 or Q21 86.8% 91.3% 93.7%
%Vol > %AHS and %Priv
%Priv > %AHS Mean (0 to 100) 86.8 91.3 93.7
Total N 190 1,459 1,093
Additional related questions not included in the dimension
Q51: In the last 6 months, did you help with the care of your family member when you visited?
% No 32.8 35.3 38.2
Total N 186 1,456 1,084
Q52: Do you feel that supportive living facility staff expects you to help with the care of your family member when you visit?
% No 85.9 86.1 84.9
Total N 184 1,424 1,075
Q54: In the last 6 months, how often did your family member receive all of the medical services and treatments they needed?
% Usually or Always 95.7 93.8 92.4
Total N 188 1,445 1,087
Q57: In the last 6 months, how often were your concerns about your family member's medication resolved?
% Usually or Always 90.4 86.9 83.3
Total N 94 640 442
230
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Facility size quintile groupings ........................................................................................ 16 Table 2: Comprehensive summary of facility results ..................................................................... 17 Table 3: Guide for interpretation ................................................................................................... 24 Table 4: Summary of facility mean Global Overall Care ratings by zone ...................................... 25 Table 5: Guide for interpretation ................................................................................................... 29 Table 6: Summary of facility means for Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment .............. 30 Table 7: Guide for interpretation ................................................................................................... 34 Table 8: Summary of facility means for Kindness and Respect .................................................... 35 Table 9: Guide for interpretation ................................................................................................... 39 Table 10: Summary of facility means for Food Rating Scale .......................................................... 40 Table 11: Guide for interpretation ................................................................................................... 44 Table 12: Summary of facility means for Providing Information and Encouraging Family
Involvement .................................................................................................................... 45 Table 13: Guide for interpretation ................................................................................................... 49 Table 14: Summary of facility means for Meeting Basic Needs ...................................................... 50 Table 15: Additional questions ........................................................................................................ 56 Table 16: Mean number of beds by Global Overall Care rating quartiles ....................................... 74 Table 17: Mean number of beds by Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment Dimension
of Care quartiles ............................................................................................................. 74 Table 18: Mean number of beds by Kindness and Respect Dimension of Care quartiles .............. 75 Table 19: Mean number of beds by Food Rating Scale quartiles ................................................... 75 Table 20: Mean number of beds by Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement
Dimension of Care quartiles ............................................................................................ 75 Table 21: Mean number of beds by Meeting Basic Needs Dimension of Care quartiles ................ 76 Table 22: Zone summary of responses for propensity to recommend ............................................ 82 Table 23: Summary of the percentage of respondents who would recommend the facility by
Global Overall Care rating .............................................................................................. 83 Table 24: Number of beds by percentage of respondents who would recommend the facility
(median 96%) ................................................................................................................. 88 Table 25 Survey scale conversion ............................................................................................... 126 Table 26: Response rate .............................................................................................................. 128 Table 27: Response proportions by wave ..................................................................................... 130 Table 28: Reasons for non-response by wave ............................................................................. 130 Table 29: Zone summary of responses for survey Q1 .................................................................. 134 Table 30: Zone summary of responses for survey Q9 .................................................................. 135 Table 31: Missing responses to Q9 versus frequency of visits ..................................................... 136 Table 32: Zone summary of responses for survey Q64 ................................................................ 137 Table 33: Zone summary of responses for survey Q60 ................................................................ 138 Table 34: Zone summary of responses for survey Q61 ................................................................ 139 Table 35: Q62. Zone summary of responses for survey Q62 ....................................................... 140 Table 36: Zone summary of responses for survey Q63 ................................................................ 141 Table 37: Respondent characteristics and differences in Global Overall Care ratings ................. 142 Table 38: Zone summary of responses for survey Q4 .................................................................. 144
231
LIST OF TABLES
Table 39: Zone summary of responses for survey Q5 .................................................................. 145 Table 40: Zone summary of responses for survey Q6 .................................................................. 146 Table 41: Zone summary of responses for survey Q7 .................................................................. 147 Table 42: Zone summary of responses for survey Q8 .................................................................. 148 Table 43: Resident characteristics and differences in Global Overall Care ratings ...................... 149 Table 44: Facility inclusion criteria ................................................................................................ 150 Table 45: Facilities excluded from provincial reporting ................................................................. 154 Table 46: Example table of binomial probability test interpretation ............................................... 163 Table 47: Zone summary of responses for Question 11 (Q11) ..................................................... 164 Table 48: Zone summary of responses for Q50 ........................................................................... 165 Table 49: Zone summary of responses for Q31 ........................................................................... 166 Table 50: Zone summary of responses for Q22 ........................................................................... 167 Table 51: Zone summary of responses for Q34 ........................................................................... 168 Table 52: Zone summary of responses for Q36 ........................................................................... 169 Table 53: Zone summary of responses for Q38 ........................................................................... 170 Table 54: Zone summary of responses for Q12 ........................................................................... 171 Table 55: Zone summary of responses for Q13 ........................................................................... 172 Table 56: Zone summary of responses for Q14 ........................................................................... 173 Table 57: Zone summary of responses for Q15 ........................................................................... 174 Table 58: Zone summary of responses for Q24 ........................................................................... 175 Table 59: Zone summary of responses for Q27 ........................................................................... 176 Table 60: Zone summary of responses for Q28 ........................................................................... 177 Table 61: Zone summary of responses for Q29 ........................................................................... 178 Table 62: Zone summary of responses for Q42 ........................................................................... 179 Table 63: Zone summary of responses for Q45 ........................................................................... 180 Table 64: Zone summary of responses for Q59 ........................................................................... 181 Table 65: Zone summary of responses for Q17 ........................................................................... 182 Table 66: Zone summary of responses for Q19 ........................................................................... 183 Table 67: Zone summary of responses for Q21 ........................................................................... 184 Table 68: Zone summary of responses for Q32 ........................................................................... 185 Table 69: Zone summary of responses for Q33 ........................................................................... 186 Table 70: Zone summary of responses for Q30 ........................................................................... 187 Table 71: Zone summary of responses for Q35 ........................................................................... 188 Table 72: Zone summary of responses for Q25 ........................................................................... 189 Table 73: Zone summary of responses for Q46 ........................................................................... 190 Table 74: Zone summary of responses for Q47 ........................................................................... 191 Table 75: Zone summary of responses for Q46 and 47 ................................................................ 193 Table 76: Zone summary of responses for Q39 ........................................................................... 194 Table 77: Zone summary of responses for Q41 ........................................................................... 195 Table 78: Zone summary of responses for Q17, Q19, and Q21 ................................................... 196 Table 79: Zone summary of responses for Q51 ........................................................................... 197 Table 80: Zone summary of responses for Q52 ........................................................................... 198 Table 81: Zone summary of responses for Q54 ........................................................................... 199 Table 82: Zone summary of responses for Q55 ........................................................................... 200 Table 83: Zone summary of responses for Q57 ........................................................................... 201 Table 84: Zone summary of responses for Q43 ........................................................................... 202
232
LIST OF TABLES
Table 85: Regression model- Dimensions of Care versus Global Overall Care rating adjusted for confounders .................................................................................................................. 204
Table 86: Regional comparison of breakdown of comments by Dimensions of Care and recommendation type ................................................................................................... 207
Table 87: Breakdown of thematic statements by Dimensions of Care and additional themes according to recommendation type in Alberta ............................................................... 209
Table 88: Guidelines used to code comments by Dimensions of Care and additional themes ..... 213 Table 89: Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment - by Global Overall Care rating
quartile .......................................................................................................................... 214 Table 90: Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment - Individual questions by Global Overall
Care rating quartile ....................................................................................................... 215 Table 91: Kindness and Respect - by Global Overall Care rating quartile .................................... 216 Table 92: Kindness and Respect - Individual questions - by Global Overall Care rating quartile . 216 Table 93: Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement - by Global Overall Care
rating quartile ................................................................................................................ 217 Table 94: Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement - Individual questions by
Global Overall Care rating quartile ................................................................................ 217 Table 95: Meeting Basic Needs - by Global Overall Care rating quartile ...................................... 219 Table 96: Meeting Basic Needs - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile ...... 219 Table 97: Facility ownership - Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment ............................. 227 Table 98: Facility ownership - Kindness and Respect .................................................................. 228 Table 99: Facility ownership - Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement ......... 229 Table 100: Facility ownership - Meeting Basic Needs .................................................................... 230
233
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Streams of continuing care ............................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment Dimension of Care by Global Overall
Care rating quartile ......................................................................................................... 70 Figure 3: Kindness and Respect Dimension of Care by Global Overall Care rating quartile .......... 71 Figure 4: Food Rating Scale by Global Overall Care rating quartile ............................................... 71 Figure 5: Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement Dimension of Care by
Global Overall Care rating quartile .................................................................................. 72 Figure 6: Meeting Basic Needs Dimension of Care by Global Overall Care rating quartile ............ 72 Figure 7: Global Overall Care ratings as a function of ownership type .......................................... 77 Figure 8: Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment as a function of ownership type ............ 78 Figure 9: Kindness and Respect as a function of ownership type .................................................. 78 Figure 10: Food Rating Scale as a function of ownership type ........................................................ 79 Figure 11: Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement as a function of ownership
type ................................................................................................................................. 79 Figure 12: Meeting Basic Needs as a function of ownership type .................................................... 80 Figure 13: Provincial summary of responses for propensity to recommend ..................................... 82 Figure 14: Percentage who would recommend their family members’ facility by Global Overall
Care rating quartile ......................................................................................................... 87 Figure 15: Percentage who would recommend facility by ownership type ....................................... 89 Figure 16: Word cloud – Qualitative analysis ................................................................................... 90 Figure 17: Study flow-chart ............................................................................................................ 129 Figure 18: Response flow-chart by wave ....................................................................................... 131 Figure 19: Survey response rates by AHS zone and province ....................................................... 132 Figure 20: Provincial summary of responses for survey Q1 ........................................................... 134 Figure 21: Provincial summary of responses for survey Q9 ........................................................... 135 Figure 22: Provincial summary of responses for survey Q64 ......................................................... 137 Figure 23: Provincial summary of responses for survey Q60 ......................................................... 138 Figure 24: Provincial summary of responses for survey Q61 ......................................................... 139 Figure 25: Provincial summary of responses for survey Q62 ......................................................... 140 Figure 26: Provincial summary of responses for survey Q63 ......................................................... 141 Figure 27: Provincial summary of responses for survey Q4 ........................................................... 144 Figure 28: Provincial summary of responses for survey Q5 ........................................................... 145 Figure 29: Provincial summary of responses for survey Q6 ........................................................... 146 Figure 30: Provincial summary of responses for survey Q7 ........................................................... 147 Figure 31: Provincial summary of responses for survey Q8 ........................................................... 148 Figure 32: Global Overall Care ratings by AHS zone ..................................................................... 155 Figure 33: Staffing, Care of Belongings, and Environment Dimension of Care scores by AHS
zone .............................................................................................................................. 156 Figure 34: Kindness and Respect Dimension of Care scores by AHS zone .................................. 157 Figure 35: Food Rating Scale Mean Dimension of Care scores by AHS zone .............................. 158 Figure 36: Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement Dimension of Care
scores by AHS zone ..................................................................................................... 159 Figure 37: Meeting Basic Needs Dimension of Care scores by AHS zone .................................... 160
234
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 38: Percentage who would recommend facility by AHS zone ............................................. 161 Figure 39: Provincial summary of responses for Question 11 (Q11) .............................................. 164 Figure 40: Provincial summary of responses for Q50 .................................................................... 165 Figure 41: Provincial summary of responses for Q31 .................................................................... 166 Figure 42: Provincial summary of responses for Q22 .................................................................... 167 Figure 43: Provincial summary of responses for Q34 .................................................................... 168 Figure 44: Provincial summary of responses for Q36 .................................................................... 169 Figure 45: Provincial summary of responses for Q38 .................................................................... 170 Figure 46: Provincial summary of responses for Q12 .................................................................... 171 Figure 47: Provincial summary of responses for Q13 .................................................................... 172 Figure 48: Provincial summary of responses for Q14 .................................................................... 173 Figure 49: Provincial summary of responses for Q15 .................................................................... 174 Figure 50: Provincial summary of responses for Q24 .................................................................... 175 Figure 51: Provincial summary of responses for Q27 .................................................................... 176 Figure 52: Provincial summary of responses for Q28 .................................................................... 177 Figure 53: Provincial summary of responses for Q29 .................................................................... 178 Figure 54: Provincial summary of responses for Q42 .................................................................... 179 Figure 55: Provincial summary of responses for Q45 .................................................................... 180 Figure 56: Provincial summary of responses for Q59 .................................................................... 181 Figure 57: Provincial summary of responses for Q17 .................................................................... 182 Figure 58: Provincial summary of responses for Q19 .................................................................... 183 Figure 59: Provincial summary of responses for Q21 .................................................................... 184 Figure 60: Provincial summary of responses for Q32 .................................................................... 185 Figure 61: Provincial summary of responses for Q33 .................................................................... 186 Figure 62: Provincial summary of responses for Q30 .................................................................... 187 Figure 63: Provincial summary of responses for Q35 .................................................................... 188 Figure 64: Provincial summary of responses for Q25 .................................................................... 189 Figure 65: Provincial summary of responses for Q46 .................................................................... 190 Figure 66: Provincial summary of responses for Q47 .................................................................... 191 Figure 67: Provincial summary of responses for Q46 and 47 ........................................................ 192 Figure 68: Provincial summary of responses for Q39 .................................................................... 194 Figure 69: Provincial summary of responses for Q41 .................................................................... 195 Figure 70: Provincial summary of responses for Q17, Q19, and Q21 ............................................ 196 Figure 71: Provincial summary of responses for Q51 .................................................................... 197 Figure 72: Provincial summary of responses for Q52 .................................................................... 198 Figure 73: Provincial summary of responses for Q54 .................................................................... 199 Figure 74: Provincial summary of responses for Q55 .................................................................... 200 Figure 75: Provincial summary of responses for Q57 .................................................................... 201 Figure 76: Provincial summary of responses for Q43 .................................................................... 202 Figure 77: Top 10 recommendations for change ........................................................................... 212 Figure 78: Global Overall Care rating scores as a function of facility size ..................................... 220 Figure 79: Staffing, Care or Belongings, and Environment scores as a function of facility size ..... 221 Figure 80: Kindness and Respect scores as a function of facility size ........................................... 222 Figure 81: Providing Information and Encouraging Family Involvement as a function of facility
size ............................................................................................................................... 223
235
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 82: Meeting Basic Needs as a function of facility size ........................................................ 224 Figure 83: Food Rating Scale as a function of facility size ............................................................. 225 Figure 84: Propensity to recommend as a function of facility size.................................................. 226
236
210, 811 – 14 Street NW Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 2A4
T: 403.297.8162 F: 403.297.8258 E: info@hqca.ca www.hqca.ca
top related