Download supportive living resident experience survey report PDF

Titlesupportive living resident experience survey report
LanguageEnglish
File Size4.5 MB
Total Pages300
Document Text Contents
Page 1

Promoting and improving patient safety and health service quality across Alberta.

SUPPORTIVE LIVING
RESIDENT EXPERIENCE
SURVEY REPORT

January 2015

Page 150

APPENDIX B

As such, all of the questions in the Ohio survey instrument and the majority of the questions in the
Alberta Supportive Living Resident Experience Survey (with few exceptions) have the following response
options:

 Yes, always

 Yes, sometimes

 No, hardly ever

 No, never

 Don’t know/not applicable

B.2.4 Survey scoring

The typical method for scoring the survey is to transform each response to a scaled measure between
0.0‐100.0, as shown in Table 44, where higher scores represent positive experiences and lower scores
represent more negative experiences. The Ohio scoring methodology involves the calculation of a
summary score for each Dimension of Care using a mean or average of the scaled‐response scores within
each Dimension of Care.

Table 44: Survey scale conversion

Answer choice Converted scaled value

Yes, always 100.0

Yes, sometimes 66.67

No, hardly ever 33.33

No, never 0.0

The Ohio group also implemented an “N‐2” rule in the calculation of Dimension of Care mean scores (and
subsequent analyses), which restricted the calculation of Dimensions of Care mean scores to individuals
who completed a specified number of questions conditional on the number of questions within a
particular Dimension of Care.34 The calculation of Dimension of Care means was limited to respondents
who provided a response to at least “N‐2” questions for each Dimension of Care, where N represents the
number of questions in a Dimension of Care. For example, for the Activities Dimension of Care, which
consists of four questions, Dimension of Care means were calculated for respondents that answered at
least 2 questions. A mean score was not generated for those that answered only one question and left the
other three blank or answered Don’t know/not applicable.





34 N‐2 rule does not apply to the Dimension of Care of Laundry, as this Dimension only consists of 2 questions.

Page 151

APPENDIX B

N‐2 Criterion:

[4 questions in Activities Dimension of Care] minus [2‐question criterion] = 2 questions minimum.



An alternative, second example for the Choice Dimension of Care:

N‐2 Criterion:

[6 questions in Choice Dimension of Care] minus [2‐question criterion] = 4 questions minimum.



Respondents who met the minimum criterion (N‐2), but who answered less than the complete number of
questions within a particular Dimension of Care had missing values replaced by the facility mean for that
question. Scaled responses were then summed and divided by the number of questions within each
Dimension of Care to arrive at a summary score.

B.3 Survey sampling design, promotion, and recruitment

B.3.1 Facility recruitment and visits

Personal care homes (SL1); group or family care homes or lodges (SL2); special care homes (including
mental health support homes and LTC only facilities) were excluded from participation. Facilities with
language barriers (i.e., English was not the first language of most or all residents at the facility) and
facilities which refused to participate were also excluded.

In order to meet time and budgetary constraints, criteria were applied at the facility level to limit the
number of standardized in‐person interviews conducted across the province. Specifically, supportive
living facilities were divided into remote and non‐remote facilities for the purpose of the study. Facilities
deemed geographically remote for travel (relative to other facilities) were limited to participation via
self‐administered paper surveys only. These facilities are referred to as remote facilities. Unlike remote
facilities, non‐remote facilities were visited by the survey team who conducted in‐person interviews or
delivered surveys to residents for self‐administration.

All eligible facilities were contacted via email prior to enrollment and were asked to identify a facility‐
based staff member that could act as the designated site liaison for the study. Further contacts (phone
and/or email) with site liaisons were made by the survey team to clarify and enlist their support with the
survey roll out at the facility level. Site liaisons were provided with specific written instructions with
regards to the following survey processes including: the dissemination of HQCA survey communication
materials (survey information letters to staff, residents, and families as well as posters to be placed in
facility common areas such as elevators, dining rooms, and message boards); verifying resident and
family information; and coding residents with respect to eligibility for participation.

Facility visits generally ranged from one to three days depending on the size of the facility and the
number of interviewers. All interviewers underwent security clearance and extensive training prior to
the roll out of the survey. These training sessions included information about the project, the HQCA’s role
and mandate, characteristics of the population under study, relevant Alberta legislation (such as the
Protection for Persons in Care Act), and ethical principles in research with vulnerable populations. Hands‐
on training with introductory study scripts and the survey instrument were also incorporated into these

Page 300

210, 811 – 14 Street NW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 2A4

T: 403.297.8162 F: 403.297.8258
E: [email protected] www.hqca.ca

Similer Documents