Minnesota Skilled Nursing Facilities - Care Providers InnerView 2010 MN S… · My InnerView produces other state-based reports and a national report each year on nursing ... slightly

Includes:

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTIONQUALITY PROFILE™

Published date: March 9, 2011

RESIDENT SATISFACTION

previous initiatives.

initiate quality improvement efforts, track

referral sources, improve staff recruitment

and retention, and evaluate outcomes of FAMILY SATISFACTION

Minnesota Skilled Nursing Facilities

2010EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides information needed to

Prepared by

This CONFIDENTIAL Executive Summary was prepared by My InnerView.

MINNESOTAThis CONFIDENTIAL Executive Summary was prepared by My InnerView.

© My InnerView

FOREWORD

My InnerView, a subsidiary of National Research Corporation (NASDQ: NRCI), is the nation’s largest provider of performance measurement and benchmarking in the senior services sector. My InnerView currently conducts regular customer and staff satisfaction surveys in nearly half of the nation’s long-term care facilities, and possesses the largest private database of nursing home performance in existence. These surveys and other My InnerView evidence-based tools and programs are designed to assist service providers, government policy makers and consumers in their common efforts to enhance the quality and value available to the growing number of Americans who need reliable and affordable health and supportive services in nursing homes and other residential settings.

This Executive Summary Report presents aggregate measures of customer and employee satisfaction for large samples of Minnesota nursing facilities. Results are displayed for resident, family and employee satisfaction surveys conducted by My InnerView in 2010, with comparisons to similar data reported for 2009 and 2008. Surveys were conducted in coordination with Aging Services of Minnesota and Care Providers of Minnesota.

My InnerView produces other state-based reports and a national report each year on nursing home consumer and employee satisfaction levels. The 2009 National Survey of Consumer and Workforce Satisfaction in Nursing Homes can be viewed at www.myinnerview.com.

SATISFAcTION SuRvEy PARTIcIPATION IN 2010: MINNESOTA NuRSING FAcILITIES

MONTHLy PERFORMANcE DATA PARTIcIPATION

A total of 112 Minnesota nursing facilities used My InnerView's Quality Profile Web-based instrument to enter clinical, workforce and occupancy performance data on a monthly basis during 2010, as compared to 140 facilities in 2009.

SURVEY TYPEResidentFamily

Employee

FAC PARTICIPATING146187112

% STATE’S NF38%49%29%

RESPONDENTS2,6885,1647,928

MN RESPONSE RATE62%49%57%

MIV RESPONSE RATE*59%40%65%

* Most recent 12-month averages


© My InnerView

DISTRIBuTION: Each participating facility provided My InnerView with the number of resident, family and employee surveys needed. Individually sealed packets containing a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope were sent to residents’ family members or other responsible parties. Packets containing the employee survey and postage-paid envelopes were distributed at each participating facility to its current staff members. The survey process was designed to communicate and ensure that response was voluntary, anonymous and confidential.

QuALITy ASSuRANcE: Responses are electronically compiled into a database, analyzed for integrity and subjected to a variety of statistical analyses.

RESuLTS: Each facility and provider organization has access to its satisfaction survey results and other performance results on My InnerView’s members-only Web site. The results provide benchmark information, enabling the facility to compare its performance to the average performance of all participating Minnesota facilities and to My InnerView’s nationwide database. For individual facilities, My InnerView provides a Priority Action Agenda™ that highlights from the satisfaction surveys those areas of performance that represent priority opportunities for quality improvement. A comparable Priority Action Agenda is included with this report based on the aggregate satisfaction survey results for all participating Minnesota facilities.

RESIDENT AND FAMILy SATISFAcTION SuRvEyS: These surveys included items grouped in four areas: (1) Overall Satisfaction, (2) Quality of Life, (3) Quality of Care and (4) Quality of Service.

EMPLOyEE SATISFAcTION SuRvEyS: This survey covers five areas: (1) Overall Satisfaction, (2) Training, (3) Work Environment, (4) Supervision and (5) Management.

FOREWORD


© My InnerView

KEy FINDINGSInformation provided through regular assessments of customer and staff satisfaction help to fill a gap in traditional regulatory-based determinations of nursing home performance. Numerous research studies confirm that customer satisfaction in nursing homes is both an indicator of quality of care, and a component of quality of care. Further, customer satisfaction levels are strongly correlated with staff satisfaction. These findings reflect the reality that residents and their involved family members assess the motives and competence of caregivers through their personal interaction with them, rather than by reference to abstract standards of care. Staff satisfaction and commitment likewise turn on the quality of relationships with customers and other employees and their perception of the care and responsiveness of facility managers. Thus, the perceptions of direct users of nursing home care, and of the workers who provide that care, provide important guidance for continued quality improvement.

Global satisfaction domains: Percent “Excellent” or “Good”

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of the resident survey respondents gave an overall satisfaction rating of “excellent“ or “good,” with 86% also rating their willingness to recommend their facility to others as either “excellent” or “good.” Resident ratings during the year were nearly identical to My InnerView’s national benchmarks for resident global satisfaction when percentages of “excellent” and “good” ratings are combined.

Ninety percent (90%) of family survey respondents gave an overall rating of “excellent” or “good,” with 89% indicating a strong willingness to recommend to others the facility where their loved one was receiving care and services. These rating percentages were similar as compared to similar data from 2009, and exceeded the comparable national benchmarks. It is notable also that the vast majority of family survey respondents identified themselves as very frequent visitors to facilities.

Employee satisfaction levels declined smewhat during 2009 and are mixed relative to national norms. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of responding employees rated their overall satisfaction as either “excellent” or “good,” with 67% also giving an “excellent” or “good” recommendation of their facility to others as a place to work, and 75% saying they would recommend the facility as an “excellent” or “good” place to receive care.


© My InnerView

KEy FINDINGS

All domains and items: Weighted average scores

This report also displays weighted average scores for global satisfaction, as well as for all other survey domains. These scores account for all respondent ratings, whether “excellent,” “good,” “fair” or “poor,” on a scale of 100. These average resident, family and employee satisfaction ratings for Minnesota for 2010 maintained an improving trend. Average resident and employee ratings, despite marginal improvement, tracked slightly below the current My InnerView national average satisfaction ratings across most surveyed domains and items. Family scores exceeded the national norms by material margins

Geographic differentiations

This report contains tables which separate weighted average satisfaction levels based on whether facilities were located in rural, suburban or urban areas. Satisfaction levels for Minnesota nursing home residents and family members continue to be consistently higher in rural communities than other locations. Employee satisfaction levels continued to be highest in suburban facilities.

___

Detailed charts included in this report provide item-specific results and comparisons pointing to priority areas for further improvement, and display benchmarked results against My InnerView’s skilled nursing facility database numbering close to 5,500 facilities during 2010.

Monthly clinical measures

RESIDENTS WITHOUT FALLS — The Minnesota participating facilities had little distincion as compared to the average of all facilities in My InnerView's national database. This measure has remained essentially unchanged since 2006.

RESIDENTS WITHOUT ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUG USE — The Minnesota participant group continued to outperform the national benchmark by roughly 10 percentage points. Performance continues to be higher among facilities in rural and suburban locations.

RESIDENTS WITHOUT FACILITY-ACQUIRED CATHETERS — Both the Minnesota and My InnerView percentages remained relatively stable throughout 2010, differing by no more than one-and-a-half percentage points throughout the year

RESIDENTS WITHOUT ACQUIRED PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS — This metric is also one in which performance nationally and in Minnesota continues to be quite high in percentage terms, and where improvement has been continuous since 2006. The Minnesota restraint-avoidance record continued to climb in 2010.

RESIDENTS WITHOUT UNPLANNED WEIGHT GAIN OR LOSS — The Minnesota and national benchmarks were relatively unchanged from 2009 to 2010.


© My InnerView

KEy FINDINGS

RESIDENTS WITHOUT FACILITY-ACQUIRED PRESSURE ULCERS

At any time, slightly fewer than 3% of U.S. nursing home residents have pressure ulcers which they acquired while in their facility’s care. Residents of Minnesota facilities have been somewhat less likely to be among that category, as reflected in data for the past four years. However, My InnerView's national benchmark acontinues to close the gapw ith the Minnesota experience.

Monthly workforce measures

RN/LVN/LPN STABILITY — This measure accounts for the percentage of licensed nurses having tenures of one year or more at their facility. As a group, the Minnesota facilities providing data on this measure continued to show a much more favorable retention profile (78%) for licensed nurses when compared to My InnerView's database as a whole (69%). These percentages have remained largely unchanged from 2007.

RNS/LVNS/LPNS WITHOUT ABSENTEEISM — In 2010, reported licensed nurse absenteeism among Minnesota facilities remained at approximately 2% during a given month, closely approximating the benchmark average. Both state and national numbers exhibit what appear to be seasonal fluctuations.

RN/LVN/LPNS WITHOUT TURNOVER — Annualized turnover of licensed nurses in 2010 among the Minnesota reporting group was consistently one to two percentage points lower each month, as compared to the national My InnerView database.

CNA/NA STABILITY — The percentages of nursing assistants with tenures of at least one year in 2010 remained consistently around 70% among the Minnesota facility group, more favorable than the national benchmark of 63%. Current labor market conditions could be affecting this metric as well.

CNAS/NAS WITHOUT ABSENTEEISM — Like licensed nurses, nursing assistants were slightly less prone to absenteeism in Minnesota than elsewhere, although this difference disappeared by year's end. Both in Minnesota and the U.S., it appears that nurses aides were less likely to be absent in 2010 than in 2009.

CNA/NA TURNOVER — Minnesota data for 2010 reveal an average annual turnover rate among nursing assistants declining slightly from 2009, while the national benchmark rate improved slightly.

OCCUPANCY — My InnerView Quality Profile users also record changes in facility occupancy each month. Occupancy rates among U.S. nursing facilities reporting these data to My InnerView stayed around 82% in 2010, steadying from 2009. Minnesota occupancy rates remain higher by comparison, and also remained stable in 2010.

RESIDENT SATISFACTIONGLOBAL SATISFACTION AND RATINGS BY DOMAIN FOR 2010 1ITEMS RANKED BY PERCENT ''EXCELLENT'' FOR 2010 2QUADRANT ANALYSIS: STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIES 3ITEMS RANKED BY PERCENT ''EXCELLENT'' FOR 2008, 2009 AND 2010 4ITEMS RANKED WITHIN DOMAIN BY AVERAGE SCORES FOR 2010 5AVERAGE SCORES BY ITEM BY LOCATION TYPE FOR 2010 6DEMOGRAPHICS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR 2010 7AVERAGE SCORES FOR ''RECOMMENDATION TO OTHERS'' BY DEMOGRAPHICS FOR 2010 8DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSE RATES FOR 2010 9

SKILLED NURSING RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY REFERENCE

FAMILY SATISFACTIONGLOBAL SATISFACTION AND RATINGS BY DOMAIN FOR 2010 1ITEMS RANKED BY PERCENT ''EXCELLENT'' FOR 2010 2QUADRANT ANALYSIS: STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIES 3ITEMS RANKED BY PERCENT ''EXCELLENT'' FOR 2008, 2009 AND 2010 4ITEMS RANKED WITHIN DOMAIN BY AVERAGE SCORES FOR 2010 5AVERAGE SCORES BY ITEM BY LOCATION TYPE FOR 2010 6DEMOGRAPHICS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR 2010 7AVERAGE SCORES FOR ''RECOMMENDATION TO OTHERS'' BY DEMOGRAPHICS FOR 2010 8DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSE RATES FOR 2010 9

SKILLED NURSING FAMILY SATISFACTION SURVEY REFERENCE

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTIONGLOBAL SATISFACTION AND RATINGS BY DOMAIN FOR 2010 1ITEMS RANKED BY PERCENT ''EXCELLENT'' FOR 2010 2QUADRANT ANALYSIS: STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIES 3ITEMS RANKED BY PERCENT ''EXCELLENT'' FOR 2008, 2009 AND 2010 4ITEMS RANKED WITHIN DOMAIN BY AVERAGE SCORES FOR 2010 5AVERAGE SCORES BY ITEM BY LOCATION TYPE FOR 2010 6DEMOGRAPHICS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR 2010 7AVERAGE SCORES FOR ''RECOMMENDATION FOR JOB'' BY DEMOGRAPHICS FOR 2010 8DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSE RATES FOR 2010 9

SKILLED NURSING EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY REFERENCE

QUALITY PROFILE™

RESIDENTS WITHOUT FALLS FOR 2009 AND 2010 1RESIDENTS WITHOUT ANTI-PSYCHOTIC MEDICATION USE FOR 2009 AND 2010 2RESIDENTS WITHOUT ACQUIRED CATHETERS FOR 2009 AND 2010 3RESIDENTS WITHOUT ACQUIRED PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR 2009 AND 2010 4RESIDENTS WITHOUT UNPLANNED WEIGHT LOSS/GAIN FOR 2009 AND 2010 5RESIDENTS WITHOUT ACQUIRED PRESSURE ULCERS FOR 2009 AND 2010 6RNs/LVNs/LPNs: STABILITY FOR 2009 AND 2010 7RNs/LVNs/LPNs WITHOUT ABSENTEEISM FOR 2009 AND 2010 8RNs/LVNs/LPNs WITHOUT TURNOVER FOR 2009 AND 2010 9CNAs/NAs: STABILITY FOR 2009 AND 2010 10CNAs/NAs WITHOUT ABSENTEEISM FOR 2009 AND 2010 11CNAs/NAs WITHOUT TURNOVER FOR 2009 AND 2010 12OCCUPANCY FOR 2009 AND 2010 13

CHART NUMBER:

MINNESOTA

WHAT'S INSIDECHART

NUMBER:

CHART NUMBER:

CHART NUMBER:


2010 2009 200862% 48% 49%

146 133 159

2,688 1,751 1,856

MINNESOTA

SURVEYS RECEIVED

FACILITIES SURVEYED

RESIDENT

RESPONSE RATE

SATISFACTION


87% 86%

Averagescore

73

76

71

74

71

74

69

70

(May not total 100% due to rounding.)

POOR

(The total percentage listed may be higher or lower than individual rating totals due to rounding)

MINNESOTA

MN MIV MN MIV

GOOD

FOR GLOBAL SATISFACTION ITEMS

EXCELLENT

Overall satisfaction Recommendation to others89% 89%

FAIR

1GLOBAL SATISFACTION AND RATINGS BY DOMAIN FOR 2010RESIDENT SATISFACTION

PERCENT "EXCELLENT" AND "GOOD"

34%

32%

39%

32%

38%

33%

42%

37%

46%

48%

47%

52%

47%

51%

47%

49%

15%

15%

11%

13%

11%

12%

9%

11%

5%

3%

3%

3%

5%

3%

3%

2%

My InnerView

Minnesota

My InnerView

Minnesota

My InnerView

Minnesota

My InnerView

Minnesota

GLOBAL SATISFACTION

QUALITY OF LIFE

QUALITY OF CARE

QUALITY OF SERVICE

36% 41%

51% 48%

39% 44%

48% 45%


EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR

MINNESOTA

Items are ranked from highest to lowest on the percent of responses rated "Excellent." The percentages reflect averages survey respondents. (May not total 100% due to rounding.) See chart 4 for comparison to prior years.

2ITEMS RANKED BY PERCENT ''EXCELLENT'' FOR 2010RESIDENT SATISFACTION

22%

24%

27%

27%

28%

29%

31%

31%

31%

31%

31%

32%

32%

33%

33%

36%

36%

37%

40%

41%

42%

46%

52%

44%

50%

55%

55%

51%

56%

52%

49%

53%

54%

53%

53%

51%

51%

51%

51%

51%

48%

47%

47%

51%

48%

22%

19%

21%

16%

14%

14%

14%

11%

13%

14%

13%

11%

12%

12%

12%

11%

11%

9%

8%

9%

9%

7%

10%

5%

8%

4%

3%

4%

2%

4%

2%

3%

3%

44%

36%

39%

11%

10%

6%

6%

3%

3%

2%

3%

3%

1%

2%

2%

1%

2%

4%

Adequate staff to meet needs

Quality of dining experience

Quality of meals

Responsiveness of management

Attention to resident grooming

Choices/preferences

Meaningfulness of activities

Competency of staff

Quality of laundry services

Security of personal belongings

CNA/NA care

Resident-to-resident friendships

Resident-to-staff friendships

Rehabilitation therapy

Respect for privacy

Care (concern) of staff

Religious/spiritual opportunities

Commitment to family updates

RN/LVN/LPN care

Respectfulness of staff

Cleanliness of premises

Safety of facility

Overall satisfaction

Recommendation to others


Quadrant A shows items of lower importance to "Recommendation" with a higher average score

Quadrant B shows items of higher importance to "Recommendation" with a higher average score

Quadrant C shows items of lower importance to "Recommendation" with a lower average score

Quadrant D shows items of higher importance to "Recommendation" with a lower average score

MINNESOTA

PRIM

AR

Y OPPO

RTU

NITIES

3QUADRANT ANALYSIS: STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIESRESIDENT SATISFACTION

See actual satisfaction items and report labels at end of section

SEC

ON

DA

RY

OPP

OR

TUN

ITIE

S

LOW ← IMPORTANCE TO RECOMMEND THIS FACILITY TO OTHERS → HIGH

S

ECO

ND

AR

Y ST

REN

GTH

S

LO

W

←

Y

OU

R A

VER

AGE

SCO

RE

FOR

EAC

H IT

EM

→

HIG

HPR

IMA

RY STR

ENG

THS

The quadrant analysis plots the percentile rank of the average score on the satisfaction items against the percentile rank of the average "importance" score of each item and the question What is your recommendation of this facility to others? Items in the lower right quadrant are those that are most important to "Recommendation" but received the lowest scores.

1

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2021

22


4 Resident-to-resident friendships 14 Competency of staff5 Resident-to-staff friendships 15 Care (concern) of staff

13 Commitment to family updates 8 RN/LVN/LPN care10 Rehabilitation therapy 2 Respectfulness of staff7 Religious/spiritual opportunities 17 Safety of facility

19 Cleanliness of premises

18 Security of personal belongings20 Quality of meals6 Meaningfulness of activities3 Respect for privacy

22 Quality of laundry services

16

21

11

1129

Items with average scores below the midline but not as important to "Recommendation"

PRIMARY OPPORTUNITIESItems with average scores below the midline and more important to "Recommendation"

These are areas that represent a good opportunity for improvement.



CNA/NA care


Choices/preferences


MINNESOTA

3RESIDENT SATISFACTIONQUADRANT ANALYSIS: STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIES

SECONDARY STRENGTHSItems with average scores above the midlinebut not as important to "Recommendation"

CONTINUED

If Quadrant D has less than five items, the Priority Action Agenda will list only those items in the quadrant.

PRIORITY ACTION AGENDA ™The top FIVE items in Quadrant D (Primary Opportunities) comprise your Priority Action Agenda and provide a focus for improving willingness to recommend your facility to others.

SECONDARY OPPORTUNITIES

PRIMARY STRENGTHSItems with average scores above the midline and more important to "Recommendation"


2008 EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR2009 EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR2010 EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR

ITEMS RANKED BY PERCENT ''EXCELLENT'' FOR 2008, 2009 AND 2010 4

MINNESOTA


Items are ranked from highest to lowest on the percent of responses rated "Excellent" for the most recent year. (May not total 100% due to rounding.)

32%

30%

33%

32%

33%

31%

36%

34%

36%

35%

37%

38%

40%

38%

41%

39%

42%

40%

44%

44%

36%

33%

39%

35%

53%

55%

53%

53%

51%

52%

51%

52%

51%

50%

51%

48%

51%

51%

48%

49%

47%

50%

47%

48%

51%

54%

48%

51%

12%12%13%

12%12%

12%

12%10%

14%

11%10%12%

11%8%

12%

9%10%11%

8%8%

10%

9%8%

10%

9%8%9%

7%7%7%

11%10%11%

10%10%10%

2%3%

2%

4%

2%2%

2%

1%1%

2%

2%

2%1%

2%2%

4%

36%

37%

34%

38%

40%

40%

43%

42%

42%

45%

36%

38%

49%

49%

53%

49%

49%

48%

48%

48%

48%

46%

52%

49%

3%

3%

3%

3%3%

2%

3%

2%

3%3%

3%

1%

2%

2%

2%2%

1%

2%

4%4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Respect for privacy




RN/LVN/LPN care



Safety of facility





4ITEMS RANKED BY PERCENT ''EXCELLENT'' FOR 2008, 2009 AND 2010RESIDENT SATISFACTION

CONTINUED

MINNESOTA


22%

19%

24%

19%

27%

22%

27%

25%

28%

26%

29%

25%

31%

30%

31%

30%

31%

30%

31%

28%

31%

30%

32%

46%

47%

52%

54%

44%

46%

50%

51%

55%

57%

55%

56%

51%

51%

56%

56%

52%

54%

49%

49%

53%

53%

54%

53%

22%22%

24%

19%21%21%

21%22%

24%

16%16%

19%

14%12%

14%

14%14%

15%

14%14%

16%

11%12%12%

13%13%12%

14%13%

16%

13%13%

15%

11%13%

14%

10%10%

6%

8%

6%5%

3%

3%

3%3%

2%

4%

6%6%

2%2%

2%2%

23%

22%

25%

29%

29%

29%

34%

32%

31%

32%

34%

34%30%

46%

51%

46%

50%

56%

55%

49%

54%

53%

50%

51%

51%

10%

5%

5%

8%8%

6%

4%

3%

3%3%

4%

2%

2%

4%3%

6%

2%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Quality of meals



Choices/preferences


Competency of staff



CNA/NA care



20102009 2008 MIV

73 73 76

74 73 76

QUALITY OF LIFE 79 78 80

77 75 78

76 73 74

73 71 75

72 70 75

73 70 74

70 68 72

71 69 73

69 66 70

63 63 66

78 75 78

74 73 76

75 73 77

72 71 75

74 71 75

73 70 74

70 68 73

61 58 65

77 76 77

71 70 70

67 65 71

62 60 62QU

ALI

TY O

F SE

RVI

CE

MINNESOTA

5ITEMS RANKED WITHIN DOMAIN BY AVERAGE SCORES FOR 2010RESIDENT SATISFACTION

QU

ALI

TY O

F

LI

FEQ

UA

LITY

OF

C

AR

E

74

74

Recommendation toothers


63

66

70

77

60

69

71

72

72

74

74

76

65

69

70

70

72

72

72

73

76

78

Quality of meals






CNA/NA care


Competency of staff



RN/LVN/LPN care




Choices/preferences

Respect for privacy





Safety of facility


Minnesota Rural Suburban Urban

Overall satisfaction 74 75 72 70

Recommendation to others 74 76 73 68

Safety of facility 78 79 79 74

Respectfulness of staff 76 78 75 72

Religious/spiritual opportunities 73 76 71 68

Respect for privacy 72 73 71 69

Resident-to-resident friendships 72 73 72 70

Resident-to-staff friendships 72 72 72 69

Choices/preferences 70 71 69 66

Meaningfulness of activities 70 71 69 65

Security of personal belongings 69 70 66 66

Quality of dining experience 65 67 64 61

RN/LVN/LPN care 76 77 75 74

Commitment to family updates 74 75 73 70

Care (concern) of staff 74 75 72 71

Rehabilitation therapy 72 73 73 69

Competency of staff 72 73 71 70

CNA/NA care 71 73 69 69

Attention to resident grooming 69 70 68 66

Adequate staff to meet needs 60 60 60 59

Cleanliness of premises 77 78 75 75

Quality of laundry services 70 72 67 67

Responsiveness of management 66 68 66 62

Quality of meals 63 65 63 57

MINNESOTA

All scores represent average scores across survey respondents. Each item was measured on a four-point scale:Poor = 0 Fair = 33.3 Good = 66.7 Excellent = 100

QU

ALI

TY O

F

LI

FEQ

UA

LITY

OF

C

AR

EQ

UA

LITY

OF

SER

VIC

E

Items are listed by domain as they appear in the survey. The shading in the Rural, Suburban and Urban columns reflects a comparison to the state average: Green = higher than the state average; yellow = same as the state average; red = lower than the state average.

6AVERAGE SCORES BY ITEM BY LOCATION TYPE FOR 2010RESIDENT SATISFACTION


Female 67% 19 or under 0%Male 33% 20 to 29 0%

30 to 39 1%40 to 49 2%50 to 59 5%60 to 69 10%70 to 79 17%80 to 89 39%

90 or older 26%

None 50% Convenient location 38% Less than 1 month 4%Only this one 21% Good reputation 18% 1 to 3 months 10%

Two 18% Doctor or hospital 16% 3 to 6 months 8%Three 7% Relative or friend 12% 6 months to 1 year 17%Four 2% Insurance requirement 2% 1 to 3 years 34%

Five or more 2% Other reason 15% 3 or more years 27%

Spouse 14% Less than once a year 1%Child 50% Once a year 1%

Brother or sister 12% Once every 3 months 5%Grandchild 3% Once a month or more 19%

Friend 12% Once a week or more 49%Another person 10% Almost daily 25%

By myself 22%With facility staff 39%

With family or friend 20%With another resident 1%With another person 19%


VISITORPerson visiting most How often visited

MINNESOTA

Assistance with survey

74%

7

Gender of resident

FACILITY CHOICEHomes visited Reason for choosing

RESIDENT SATISFACTIONDEMOGRAPHICS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR 2010

61%

Age of residentRESIDENT

Length of stay

46%


8

MINNESOTA

RESIDENT SATISFACTIONAVERAGE SCORES FOR ''RECOMMENDATION TO OTHERS'' BY DEMOGRAPHICS FOR 2010

7375

737374

72

7574

717475

55

6658

7770

8472

6873

76

3 years or more

1 to 3 years

6 months to 1 year

3 to 6 months

1 to 3 months

Less than 1 month

Almost daily

Once a week or more

Once a month or more

Once every 3 months

Once a year

Less than once a year

Other reason

Insurance requirement

Relative or friend

Doctor or hospital

Good reputation

Convenient location

Urban

Suburban

Rural

REASON FOR CHOOSING

HOW OFTEN VISITED

LENGTH OF STAY

LOCATION TYPE


Response rate Number of facilities

96-100%

91-95%

86-90%

81-85%

76-80%

71-75%

66-70%

61-65%

56-60%

51-55%

46-50%

41-45%

36-40%

31-35%

26-30%

21-25%

16-20%

11-15%

6-10%

0-5%

SUMMARY

MINNESOTA

Lowest response rate

0%

Highest response rate100%

Overall state response rate62%

Results are for 146 participating facilities.

RESIDENT SATISFACTIONDISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSE RATES FOR 2010 9

11

0

3

3

5

7

11

10

10

12

3

3

10

6

3

8

5

4

9

23


ITEM NUMBER/LABEL ORIGINAL SURVEY STATEMENT

23 Overall satisfaction How would you rate your overall satisfaction with this facility?24 Recommendation to others What is your recommendation of this facility to others?

Rate this facility on ...1 Choices/preferences Meeting your choices and preferences2 Respectfulness of staff The respect shown to you by staff3 Respect for privacy Meeting your need for privacy4 Resident-to-resident friendships Offering you opportunities for friendships with other residents5 Resident-to-staff friendships Offering you opportunities for friendships with staff6 Meaningfulness of activities Offering you meaningful activities7 Religious/spiritual opportunities Meeting your religious and spiritual needs

17 Safety of facility How safe it is for you18 Security of personal belongings The security of your personal belongings21 Quality of dining experience How enjoyable your dining experience is

Rate this facility on ...8 RN/LVN/LPN care The quality of care provided by the nurses (RNs/LVNs/LPNs)9 CNA/NA care The quality of care provided by the nursing assistants (CNAs/NAs)

10 Rehabilitation therapy The quality of rehabilitation therapy (occupational, physical, speech)11 Adequate staff to meet needs Providing an adequate number of nursing staff to meet care needs12 Attention to resident grooming Meeting your grooming needs13 Commitment to family updates Keeping you and your family informed about you14 Competency of staff The competency of staff15 Care (concern) of staff The staff's care and concern for you

Rate this facility on ...16 Responsiveness of management Management's responsiveness to your suggestions and concerns19 Cleanliness of premises The cleanliness of your room and surroundings20 Quality of meals The quality of the meals22 Quality of laundry services The quality of laundry services

25 Length of stay How long have you lived at this facility?26 Person visiting most Who visits you most often?27 How often visited How often does this person visit the you?28 Homes visited How many nursing homes did you (or your family) visit

before choosing this facility?29 Reason for choosing What is the most important reason you (or your family)

chose this facility?30 Gender of resident What is your gender?31 Age of resident What is your age?32 Assistance with survey How is this survey being completed?


GLOBAL SATISFACTION DOMAIN

© 1/7/09, My InnerView • Reproduction or duplication requires written permission from My InnerView (715) 848-2713

QUALITY OF SERVICE DOMAIN

DEMOGRAPHICS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

QUALITY OF LIFE DOMAIN

QUALITY OF CARE DOMAIN

SKILLED NURSING RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY REFERENCE


2010 2009 200849% 45% 45%

187 158 195

5,164 4,661 5,514

MINNESOTA

SURVEYS RECEIVED

FACILITIES SURVEYED

FAMILY

RESPONSE RATE

SATISFACTION


90% 89%

Averagescore

76

74

75

73

74

73

71

68


FOR GLOBAL SATISFACTION ITEMS

EXCELLENT


FAIR

(The total percentage listed may be higher or lower than individual rating totals due to rounding.)

Recommendation to others87% 87%

MN MIV MN MIV

1GLOBAL SATISFACTION AND RATINGS BY DOMAIN FOR 2010FAMILY SATISFACTION

PERCENT "EXCELLENT" AND "GOOD"

MINNESOTA

POORGOOD

32%

33%

39%

41%

37%

39%

39%

41%

46%

49%

43%

45%

48%

48%

48%

48%

17%

14%

14%

12%

13%

11%

11%

8%

3%

3%

2%

2%

5%

4%

3%

3%

My InnerView

Minnesota

My InnerView

Minnesota

My InnerView

Minnesota

My InnerView

Minnesota

GLOBAL SATISFACTION

QUALITY OF LIFE

QUALITY OF CARE

QUALITY OF SERVICE

40% 38%

50% 49%

43% 41%

46% 46%



MINNESOTA

Items are ranked from highest to lowest on the percent of responses rated "Excellent." The percentages reflect averages across survey respondents. (May not total 100% due to rounding.) See chart 4 for comparison to prior years.

2ITEMS RANKED BY PERCENT ''EXCELLENT'' FOR 2010FAMILY SATISFACTION

24%

24%

27%

28%

29%

30%

35%

36%

37%

38%

39%

39%

42%

42%

43%

43%

44%

45%

48%

50%

52%

46%

53%

49%

48%

52%

50%

55%

46%

48%

46%

46%

50%

49%

48%

45%

47%

48%

45%

43%

42%

36%

41%

50%

46%

22%

19%

19%

19%

15%

16%

9%

13%

12%

12%

13%

10%

8%

9%

11%

8%

7%

8%

8%

6%

9%

5%

7%

3%

5%

4%

3%

1%

4%

3%

2%

1%

1%

54%

40%

43%

8%

8%

4%

3%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

3%

1%

2%

3%






Quality of meals

Choices/preferences






Competency of staff

Respect for privacy

CNA/NA care


Safety of facility



RN/LVN/LPN care










3QUADRANT ANALYSIS: STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIESFAMILY SATISFACTION


SEC

ON

DA

RY

OPP

OR

TUN

ITIE

S

LOW ← IMPORTANCE TO RECOMMEND THIS FACILITY TO OTHERS → HIGH

S

ECO

ND

AR

Y ST

REN

GTH

S

LO

W

←

YO

UR

AVE

RAG

E SC

OR

E FO

R E

ACH

ITEM

→

H

IGH

PRIM

AR

Y STREN

GTH

S

The quadrant analysis plots the percentile rank of the average score on the satisfaction items against the percentile rank of the average "importance" score of each item and the question What is your recommendation of this facility to others? Items in the lower right quadrant are those that are most important to "Recommendation" but received the lowest scores.

MINNESOTA

PRIM

AR

Y OPPO

RTU

NITIES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22


3 Respect for privacy 14 Competency of staff4 Resident-to-resident friendships 9 CNA/NA care

13 Commitment to family updates 15 Care (concern) of staff7 Religious/spiritual opportunities 8 RN/LVN/LPN care

17 Safety of facility5 Resident-to-staff friendships2 Respectfulness of staff

12 Attention to resident grooming21 Quality of dining experience18 Security of personal belongings10 Rehabilitation therapy20 Quality of meals22 Quality of laundry services6 Meaningfulness of activities

11

16

1

19

Items with average scores above the midline but not as important to "Recommendation"

3FAMILY SATISFACTIONQUADRANT ANALYSIS: STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIES

SECONDARY STRENGTHS PRIMARY STRENGTHSItems with average scores above the midline and more important to "Recommendation"

CONTINUED

MINNESOTA



Items with average scores below the midline and more important to "Recommendation"




PRIORITY ACTION AGENDA ™The top FIVE items in Quadrant D (Primary Opportunities) comprise your Priority Action Agenda and provide a focus for improving willingness to recommend your facility to others.


PRIMARY OPPORTUNITIES


Choices/preferences




MINNESOTA

FAMILY SATISFACTION


42%

40%

42%

38%

43%

39%

43%

44%

44%

41%

45%

43%

48%

46%

50%

47%

52%

49%

54%

50%

40%

38%

43%

41%

49%

49%

48%

50%

45%

46%

47%

46%

48%

49%

45%

46%

43%

43%

42%

44%

36%

37%

41%

42%

50%

51%

46%

47%

8%8%

9%

9%8%

10%

11%12%

13%

8%7%8%

7%7%

8%

8%8%

9%

8%8%

9%

6%6%

8%

9%9%

11%

5%5%

7%

8%9%

10%

8%9%

10%

1%1%

1%

2%

1%1%

1%

1%1%

1%

3%

0%1%

1%2%

3%

40%

39%

39%

45%

42%

43%

46%

48%

52%

52%

39%

42%

51%

51%

47%

46%

49%

48%

45%

45%

37%

42%

50%

47%

1%

2%

2%

2%2%

2%

1%

2%

1%1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

3%2%

1%

2%

3%2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Competency of staff

Respect for privacy

CNA/NA care


Safety of facility



RN/LVN/LPN care







4ITEMS RANKED BY PERCENT ''EXCELLENT'' FOR 2008, 2009 AND 2010

MINNESOTA


CONTINUED

FAMILY SATISFACTION

24%

21%

24%

22%

27%

25%

28%

27%

29%

27%

30%

29%

35%

33%

36%

34%

37%

36%

38%

37%

39%

39%

39%

46%

45%

53%

52%

49%

49%

48%

47%

52%

51%

50%

51%

55%

56%

46%

46%

48%

48%

46%

46%

46%

46%

50%

50%

22%24%

25%

19%21%

21%

19%20%19%

19%20%

21%

15%15%

17%

16%15%

16%

9%8%

10%

13%14%

15%

12%13%13%

12%13%

15%

13%12%12%

10%10%

10%

7%9%

3%

7%

4%5%

4%

4%

1%1%

3%

3%

2%3%

2%3%

1%2%

22%

23%

25%

26%

28%

30%

35%

35%

34%

38%

39%

39%38%

47%

53%

49%

49%

54%

52%

56%

47%

51%

47%

46%

50%

7%

3%

4%

5%6%

4%

4%

5%

3%3%

1%

4%

5%

3%3%

3%

2%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%






Quality of meals

Choices/preferences







20102009 2008 MIV

77 75 75

76 75 74


78 77 77

78 77 77

78 78 73

76 75 75

76 75 75

75 73 73

74 74 72

65 64 62

65 65 64

80 79 79

80 78 78

79 78 77

77 76 76

75 74 74

72 72 72

66 65 64

61 60 61

73 72 72

72 70 71

69 67 64

70 68 65QU

ALI

TY O

F SE

RVI

CE

MINNESOTA

5ITEMS RANKED WITHIN DOMAIN BY AVERAGE SCORES FOR 2010FAMILY SATISFACTION

QU

ALI

TY O

F

LI

FEQ

UA

LITY

OF

C

AR

E

76

77


Recommendation toothers

69

69

72

74

62

67

73

76

77

79

79

81

66

66

74

75

76

77

77

78

78

82

Quality of meals







CNA/NA care

Competency of staff



RN/LVN/LPN care




Choices/preferences


Respect for privacy


Safety of facility





Recommendation to others 77 78 77 72



Resident-to-staff friendships 78 79 78 76

Safety of facility 78 79 78 75

Respect for privacy 77 78 76 72

Religious/spiritual opportunities 77 78 77 74

Resident-to-resident friendships 76 77 74 72

Choices/preferences 75 76 75 71

Meaningfulness of activities 74 75 74 71

Security of personal belongings 66 69 64 61

Quality of dining experience 66 68 66 62

RN/LVN/LPN care 81 81 81 78

Commitment to family updates 79 81 79 74

Care (concern) of staff 79 80 79 76

Competency of staff 77 78 77 74

CNA/NA care 76 77 76 73

Rehabilitation therapy 73 74 74 72

Attention to resident grooming 67 68 67 63

Adequate staff to meet needs 62 63 63 60

Cleanliness of premises 74 76 72 67

Responsiveness of management 72 73 72 68

Quality of meals 69 70 70 64

Quality of laundry services 69 71 67 63

QU

ALI

TY O

F

LI

FEQ

UA

LITY

OF

C

AR

EQ

UA

LITY

OF

SER

VIC

E6AVERAGE SCORES BY ITEM BY LOCATION TYPE FOR 2010

FAMILY SATISFACTION


MINNESOTA

All scores represent average scores across survey respondents. Each item was measured on a four-point scale:Poor = 0 Fair = 33.3 Good = 66.7 Excellent = 100


Female 70% 19 or under 0%Male 30% 20 to 29 0%

30 to 39 0%40 to 49 1%50 to 59 2%60 to 69 5%70 to 79 14%80 to 89 40%

90 or older 38%

None 39% Convenient location 42% Less than 1 month 3%Only this one 15% Good reputation 23% 1 to 3 months 8%

Two 24% Doctor or hospital 13% 3 to 6 months 7%Three 13% Relative or friend 8% 6 months to 1 year 13%Four 4% Insurance requirement 1% 1 to 3 years 33%

Five or more 4% Other reason 13% 3 or more years 36%

Spouse 16% Spouse 19% Less than once a year 0%Child 62% Child 58% Once a year 1%

Brother or sister 7% Brother or sister 9% Once every 3 months 3%Grandchild 1% Grandchild 1% Once a month or more 15%

Friend 2% Friend 4% Once a week or more 51%Other relationship 12% Another person 9% Almost daily 30%


Length of stay

MINNESOTA

Person visiting mostVISITOR

How often visitedRelationship to residentSURVEY RESPONDENT

80%

69%

43%

FAMILY SATISFACTIONDEMOGRAPHICS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR 2010 7

Gender of residentRESIDENT

FACILITY CHOICEHomes visited Reason for choosing

Age of resident


8

MINNESOTA

FAMILY SATISFACTIONAVERAGE SCORES FOR ''RECOMMENDATION TO OTHERS'' BY DEMOGRAPHICS FOR 2010

7678787877

7576

7980

8889

6865

8375

8773

727778

763 years or more

1 to 3 years

6 months to 1 year

3 to 6 months

1 to 3 months

Less than 1 month

Almost daily

Once a week or more

Once a month or more

Once every 3 months

Once a year

Less than once a year

Other reason

Insurance requirement

Relative or friend

Doctor or hospital

Good reputation

Convenient location

Urban

Suburban

Rural

REASON FOR CHOOSING

HOW OFTEN VISITED

LENGTH OF STAY

LOCATION TYPE



96-100%

91-95%

86-90%

81-85%

76-80%

71-75%

66-70%

61-65%

56-60%

51-55%

46-50%

41-45%

36-40%

31-35%

26-30%

21-25%

16-20%

11-15%

6-10%

0-5%

SUMMARY

MINNESOTA


14%




FAMILY SATISFACTIONDISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSE RATES FOR 2010 9

9

0

1

1

4

4

11

15

26

32

31

26

12

11

3

0

0

0

0

1



23 Overall satisfaction How would you rate your overall satisfaction with this facility?24 Recommendation to others What is your recommendation of this facility to others?

Rate this facility on ...1 Choices/preferences Meeting the resident's/patient's choices and preferences2 Respectfulness of staff The respect shown to the resident/patient by staff3 Respect for privacy Meeting the resident's/patient's need for privacy4 Resident-to-resident friendships Offering the resident/patient opportunities for friendships 5 Resident-to-staff friendships Offering the resident/patient opportunities for friendships with staff6 Meaningfulness of activities Offering the resident/patient meaningful activities7 Religious/spiritual opportunities Meeting the resident's/patient's religious and spiritual needs

17 Safety of facility How safe it is for the resident/patient18 Security of personal belongings The security of the resident's/patient's personal belongings21 Quality of dining experience How enjoyable the dining experience is for the resident/patient

Rate this facility on ...8 RN/LVN/LPN care The quality of care provided by the nurses (RNs/LVNs/LPNs)9 CNA/NA care The quality of care provided by the nursing assistants (CNAs/NAs)

10 Rehabilitation therapy The quality of rehabilitation therapy (occupational, physical, speech)11 Adequate staff to meet needs Providing an adequate number of nursing staff to meet care needs12 Attention to resident grooming Meeting the resident's/patient's need for grooming13 Commitment to family updates Keeping you and your family informed about the resident/patient14 Competency of staff The competency of staff15 Care (concern) of staff The staff's care and concern for the resident/patient

Rate this facility on ...16 Responsiveness of management Management's responsiveness to your suggestions and concerns19 Cleanliness of premises The cleanliness of the room and surroundings20 Quality of meals The quality of the meals22 Quality of laundry services The quality of laundry services

25 Length of stay How long has the resident/patient lived at this facility?26 Person visiting most Who visits the resident/patient most often?27 How often visited How often does this person visit the resident/patient?28 Homes visited How many nursing homes did you (or your family) visit

before choosing this facility?29 Reason for choosing What is the most important reason you (or your family)

chose this facility?30 Gender of resident What is the resident's/patient's gender?31 Age of resident What is the resident's/patient's age?32 Relationship to resident What is your relationship to the resident/patient?




FAMILY SATISFACTIONSKILLED NURSING FAMILY SATISFACTION SURVEY REFERENCE

QUALITY OF LIFE DOMAIN

QUALITY OF CARE DOMAIN

QUALITY OF SERVICE DOMAIN


2010 2009 200857% 53% 44%

112 115 136

7,928 7,718 8,242

MINNESOTA

SURVEYS RECEIVED

FACILITIES SURVEYED

EMPLOYEE

RESPONSE RATE

SATISFACTION


67% 67% 67% 69% 75% 76%

MN MIV MN MIV MN MIV

POOR

62

63

56

59

58

59

60

61

50

51 (May not total 100% due to rounding.)

Average

for job

(The total percentage listed may be higher or lower than individual rating totals due to rounding.)

satisfaction

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 1

PERCENT "EXCELLENT" AND "GOOD"FOR GLOBAL SATISFACTION ITEMS

MINNESOTA

GLOBAL SATISFACTION AND RATINGS BY DOMAIN FOR 2010

EXCELLENT GOOD

Overall

FAIR

Recommendationfor care

Recommendation

score

18%

15%

30%

28%

23%

20%

21%

15%

26%

21%

35%

37%

36%

38%

42%

46%

45%

48%

45%

49%

29%

30%

22%

23%

23%

24%

25%

28%

23%

24%

18%

11%

11%

9%

7%

6%

18%

12%

12%

9%

My InnerView

Minnesota

My InnerView

Minnesota

My InnerView

Minnesota

My InnerView

Minnesota

My InnerView

Minnesota

GLOBAL SATISFACTION

TRAINING

WORK ENVIRONMENT

SUPERVISION

16% 21%

51% 46%

20% 25%

47% 44%

MANAGEMENT

27% 31%

48% 44%



MINNESOTA

Items are ranked from highest to lowest on the percent of responses rated "Excellent." The percentages reflect averages across facilities. (May not total 100% due to rounding.) See chart 4 for comparison to prior years.

2ITEMS RANKED BY PERCENT ''EXCELLENT'' FOR 2010EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

7%

9%

9%

9%

12%

14%

16%

16%

19%

19%

20%

21%

24%

25%

26%

31%

31%

37%

16%

20%

27%

30%

34%

40%

36%

44%

36%

38%

53%

49%

52%

45%

56%

57%

42%

34%

38%

55%

49%

51%

47%

48%

37%

35%

35%

37%

33%

31%

30%

25%

24%

20%

26%

19%

16%

24%

24%

21%

12%

12%

26%

25%

20%

25%

22%

16%

11%

19%

16%

6%

9%

9%

3%

3%

18%

9%

9%

15%

10%

2%

2%

7%

7%

5%

Comparison of pay

Assistance with job stress

Staff-to-staff communication

Quality of family-related training

Quality of resident-related training

Attentiveness of management

Care (concern) of management

Quality of orientation

Adequacy of equipment/supplies

Fairness of evaluations

Quality of teamwork

Quality of in-service education

Safety of workplace

Communication by supervisor

Appreciation of supervisor

Care (concern) of supervisor


Sense of accomplishment


Recommendation for job

Recommendation for care






3QUADRANT ANALYSIS: STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIESEMPLOYEE SATISFACTION


SEC

ON

DA

RY

OPP

OR

TUN

ITIE

S

LOW ← IMPORTANCE TO RECOMMEND FOR JOB → HIGH

S

ECO

ND

AR

Y ST

REN

GTH

S

LO

W

←

Y

OU

R A

VER

AGE

SCO

RE

FOR

EAC

H IT

EM

→

HIG

HPR

IMA

RY STR

ENG

THS

The quadrant analysis plots the percentile rank of the average score on the satisfaction items against the percentile rank of the average "importance" score of each item and the question What is your recommendation of this facility as a place to work? Items in the lower right quadrant are those that are most important to "Recommendation" but received the lowest scores.

MINNESOTA

PRIM

AR

Y OPPO

RTU

NITIES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18


12 Adequacy of equipment/supplies 15 Fairness of evaluations1 Quality of orientation 6 Care (concern) of supervisor2 Quality of in-service education 11 Safety of workplace

16 Respectfulness of staff 8 Communication by supervisor13 Sense of accomplishment

5 Comparison of pay4 Quality of family-related training

18 Staff-to-staff communication3 Quality of resident-related training

14 Quality of teamwork

17

10

9

7




Items with average scores above the midline but not as important to "Recommendation"


PRIMARY OPPORTUNITIESItems with average scores below the midline and more important to "Recommendation"


The top FIVE items in Quadrant D (Primary Opportunities) comprise your Priority Action Agenda and provide a focus for improving willingness to recommend this facility as a place to work.



3EMPLOYEE SATISFACTIONQUADRANT ANALYSIS: STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIES

SECONDARY STRENGTHS PRIMARY STRENGTHS

PRIORITY ACTION AGENDA ™

CONTINUED


Items with average scores above the midline and more important to "Recommendation"

MINNESOTA




MINNESOTA

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION


20%

21%

21%

22%

24%

24%

25%

25%

26%

28%

31%

32%

31%

30%

37%

39%

16%

15%

20%

19%

27%

27%

45%

44%

56%

55%

57%

58%

42%

42%

34%

34%

38%

38%

55%

54%

49%

48%

51%

52%

47%

49%

48%

50%

26%25%26%

19%19%

19%

16%15%

16%

24%22%

23%

24%23%23%

21%20%20%

12%12%

14%

12%10%11%

26%25%

26%

25%24%

25%

20%18%19%

9%9%

3%

3%

9%10%

15%

2%2%

1%

6%

5%7%

4%5%

21%

23%

25%

26%

29%

33%

31%

40%

18%

21%

28%

45%

55%

57%

43%

34%

38%

55%

49%

53%

49%

50%

9%

3%

4%

3%2%

9%

15%

14%

10%9%

9%

2%

2%

2%

7%5%

7%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Quality of teamwork

Quality of in-service education

Safety of workplace

Communication by supervisor


Care (concern) of supervisor


Sense of accomplishment






4ITEMS RANKED BY PERCENT ''EXCELLENT'' FOR 2008, 2009 AND 2010EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

CONTINUED

MINNESOTA


7%

8%

9%

8%

9%

8%

9%

8%

12%

11%

14%

14%

16%

16%

16%

16%

19%

19%

19%

19%

30%

30%

34%

34%

40%

38%

36%

34%

44%

43%

36%

36%

38%

39%

53%

52%

49%

48%

52%

52%

37%36%

37%

35%33%

35%

35%34%

35%

37%36%

37%

33%31%

33%

31%30%

31%

30%29%

30%

25%24%

26%

24%24%

25%

20%20%

20%

22%25%

21%

18%

18%20%

12%

20%

14%16%

5%

8%

8%9%

8%

10%

9%

9%

13%

15%

17%

18%

19%

20%

34%

36%

40%

37%

44%

39%

40%

53%

49%

52%

25%

22%

23%

16%17%

18%

11%

13%

19%17%

16%

6%

6%

9%8%

9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Comparison of pay


Staff-to-staff communication

Quality of family-related training





Adequacy of equipment/supplies



20102009 2008 MIV

67 66 67

62 60 62

61 59 61


61 59 63

53 51 56

45 43 52

75 75 75

72 71 71

68 67 68

61 60 60

60 59 58

59 59 58

47 46 49

45 42 46

43 40 45

65 64 64

62 61 62

59 58 58

54 51 53

51 48 50

TRA

ININ

G5ITEMS RANKED WITHIN DOMAIN BY AVERAGE SCORES FOR 2010

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTIONW

OR

K E

NVI

RO

NM

ENT

MINNESOTA

SUPE

RVI

SIO

NM

AN

EGE-

MEN

T

59

60

66




48

51

57

61

63

40

43

47

58

59

60

67

72

74

46

52

60

65

Attentiveness ofmanagement

Care (concern) ofmanagement

Appreciation ofsupervisor

Communication bysupervisor

Care (concern) ofsupervisor

Comparison of pay

Assistance with jobstress

Staff-to-staffcommunication

Quality of teamwork

Adequacy ofequipment/supplies


Safety of workplace


Sense ofaccomplishment

Quality of family-relatedtraining



Quality of in-serviceeducation



Recommendation for care 66 64 69 67

Recommendation for job 60 58 63 63


Quality of in-service education 65 63 66 68

Quality of orientation 60 58 65 62

Quality of resident-related training 52 50 55 55

Quality of family-related training 46 43 49 50

Sense of accomplishment 74 73 75 75


Safety of workplace 67 67 69 68

Fairness of evaluations 60 59 62 62

Adequacy of equipment/supplies 59 58 59 60

Quality of teamwork 58 56 62 60

Staff-to-staff communication 47 44 51 50

Assistance with job stress 43 41 45 46

Comparison of pay 40 37 46 42

Care (concern) of supervisor 63 62 66 65

Communication by supervisor 61 59 64 64

Appreciation of supervisor 57 55 59 60

Care (concern) of management 51 50 54 52

Attentiveness of management 48 46 52 50

SUPE

R-

VISI

ON

MA

NA

GE-

MEN

T

MINNESOTA


Poor = 0 Fair = 33.3 Good = 66.7 Excellent = 100All scores represent average scores across survey respondents. Each item was measured on a four-point scale:

TRA

ININ

GW

OR

K E

NVI

RO

NM

ENT

6AVERAGE SCORES BY ITEM BY LOCATION TYPE FOR 2010EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION


19 and under 5% Female 87% Yes 95%20 to 29 24% Male 13% No 5%30 to 39 18%40 to 49 21%50 to 59 22%

60 or older 10%

CNA 37% Days 64% Less than 10 hours 4%Nurse 20% Evenings 23% 10 to 20 hours 12%

Nursing Administration 3% Nights 6% 20 to 30 hours 18%Food Service 13% Rotating 7% 30 to 40 hours 51%

Social Services 2% More than 40 hours 14%Hskg./Lndry./Maint. 10%

Activities 4%Therapy/Rehabilitation 1%

Business Office 3%Administration 2%Other Position 7%

Less than 1 month 2% Just this one 79%1 to 3 months 5% 2 to 3 20%

3 months to 1 year 12% 4 or more 1%1 to 2 years 15%2 to 5 years 25%

5 to 10 years 16%More than 10 years 25%


7

English as first language

Job category Shift typically worked

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTIONDEMOGRAPHICS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR 2010

Gender of employeeEMPLOYEE

POSITION

Age of employee

Hours worked in typical week

MINNESOTA

66%

WORK HISTORY

65%

Homes worked in 3 yearsLength of employment


8

MINNESOTA

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTIONAVERAGE SCORES FOR ''RECOMMENDATION FOR JOB'' BY DEMOGRAPHICS FOR 2010

665859

6467

59595961

646869

5557

6162

6480

706768

6171

6277

5757

6363

58

More than 40 hours

30 to 40 hours

20 to 30 hours

10 to 20 hours

Less than 10 hours

More than 10 years

5 to 10 years

2 to 5 years

1 to 2 years

3 months to 1 year

1 to 3 months

Less than 1 month

Rotating

Nights

Evenings

Days

Other

Administration

Business Office

Therapy/Rehab

Activities

Hskg/Laund/Maint

Social Services

Food Service

Nursing Administration

Nurse

CNA/NA

Urban

Suburban

Rural

JOB CATEGORY

SHIFT TYPICALLY WORKED

LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT

LOCATION TYPE

HOURS WORKED IN A TYPICAL WEEK



96-100%

91-95%

86-90%

81-85%

76-80%

71-75%

66-70%

61-65%

56-60%

51-55%

46-50%

41-45%

36-40%

31-35%

26-30%

21-25%

16-20%

11-15%

6-10%

0-5%

SUMMARY

MINNESOTA


4%




EMPLOYEE SATISFACTIONDISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSE RATES FOR 2010 9

1

0

1

1

4

3

6

3

8

9

7

12

8

9

10

8

6

6

3

7



19 Overall satisfaction How would you rate your overall satisfaction with this facility?20 Recommendation for job What is your recommendation of this facility as a place to work?21 Recommendation for care What is your recommendation of this facility as a place to receive

care?

Rate this facility on ...5 Comparison of pay The pay as compared to other facilities

11 Safety of workplace The safety of the workplace12 Adequacy of equipment/supplies The adequacy of equipment and supplies to do your job13 Sense of accomplishment How your work allows you to make a difference in people’s lives14 Quality of teamwork How your co-workers work together as a team15 Fairness of evaluations The fairness of your performance evaluations16 Respectfulness of staff The respect shown to the resident by staff17 Assistance with job stress Helping you to deal with job stress and burnout18 Staff-to-staff communication Staff communication between shifts

Rate this facility on ...1 Quality of orientation The quality of new staff orientation2 Quality of in-service education The quality of in-service education3 Quality of resident-related training The quality of training you receive to deal with difficult residents4 Quality of family-related training The quality of training you receive to deal with difficult family members

Rate this facility on ...6 Care (concern) of supervisor How your direct supervisor cares about you as a person7 Appreciation of supervisor How your direct supervisor regularly shows you appreciation for

a job well done8 Communication by supervisor How your direct supervisor regularly gives you important

work-related information

Rate this facility on ...9 Attentiveness of management How well facility management listens to employees

10 Care (concern) of management How facility management cares about employees

22 Age of employee What is your age?23 Gender of employee What is your gender?24 Job category What is your job category?25 Shift typically worked Which shift do you normally work?26 Length of employment How long have you worked at this facility?27 Homes worked in 3 years How many nursing homes have you worked at during the last

three years?28 English as first language Do you speak English as your first language?29 Hours worked in typical week How many hours during a typical week do you normally work

at this facility?



WORK ENVIRONMENT DOMAIN

SUPERVISION DOMAIN

MANAGEMENT DOMAIN

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTIONSKILLED NURSING EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY REFERENCE

TRAINING DOMAIN



™QUALITY

MINNESOTA

PROFILE


1QUALITY PROFILE™RESIDENTS WITHOUT FALLS FOR 2009 AND 2010

MINNESOTA

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS

Minnesota My InnerView

20102009

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS

Rural Suburban Urban

20102009


2QUALITY PROFILE™RESIDENTS WITHOUT ANTI-PSYCHOTIC MEDICATION USE FOR 2009 AND 2010

MINNESOTA

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009


3QUALITY PROFILE™RESIDENTS WITHOUT ACQUIRED CATHETERS FOR 2009 AND 2010

MINNESOTA

96.5

97.0

97.5

98.0

98.5

99.0

99.5

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009

96.0

96.5

97.0

97.5

98.0

98.5

99.0

99.5

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009


4QUALITY PROFILE™RESIDENTS WITHOUT ACQUIRED PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR 2009 AND 2010

MINNESOTA

95.0

95.5

96.0

96.5

97.0

97.5

98.0

98.5

99.0

99.5

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009

96.5

97.0

97.5

98.0

98.5

99.0

99.5

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009


5QUALITY PROFILE™RESIDENTS WITHOUT UNPLANNED WEIGHT LOSS/GAIN FOR 2009 AND 2010

MINNESOTA

90.0

91.0

92.0

93.0

94.0

95.0

96.0

97.0

98.0

99.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009

86.0

88.0

90.0

92.0

94.0

96.0

98.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009


6QUALITY PROFILE™RESIDENTS WITHOUT ACQUIRED PRESSURE ULCERS FOR 2009 AND 2010

MINNESOTA

95.0

95.5

96.0

96.5

97.0

97.5

98.0

98.5

99.0

99.5

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009

94.0

95.0

96.0

97.0

98.0

99.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009


7QUALITY PROFILE™RNs/LVNs/LPNs: STABILITY FOR 2009 AND 2010

MINNESOTA

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009


8QUALITY PROFILE™RNs/LVNs/LPNs WITHOUT ABSENTEEISM FOR 2009 AND 2010

MINNESOTA

95.0

95.5

96.0

96.5

97.0

97.5

98.0

98.5

99.0

99.5

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009

94.0

95.0

96.0

97.0

98.0

99.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009


9QUALITY PROFILE™RNs/LVNs/LPNs WITHOUT TURNOVER FOR 2009 AND 2010

MINNESOTA

93.0

94.0

95.0

96.0

97.0

98.0

99.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009

93.0

94.0

95.0

96.0

97.0

98.0

99.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009


10QUALITY PROFILE™CNAs/NAs: STABILITY FOR 2009 AND 2010

MINNESOTA

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009


11QUALITY PROFILE™CNAs/NAs WITHOUT ABSENTEEISM FOR 2009 AND 2010

MINNESOTA

92.0

93.0

94.0

95.0

96.0

97.0

98.0

99.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009

91.0

92.0

93.0

94.0

95.0

96.0

97.0

98.0

99.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009


12QUALITY PROFILE™CNAs/NAs WITHOUT TURNOVER FOR 2009 AND 2010

MINNESOTA

90.0

91.0

92.0

93.0

94.0

95.0

96.0

97.0

98.0

99.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009

91.0

92.0

93.0

94.0

95.0

96.0

97.0

98.0

99.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009


13QUALITY PROFILE™OCCUPANCY FOR 2009 AND 2010

MINNESOTA

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009

75.0

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

PER

CEN

T O

F R

ESID

ENTS


20102009


Documents

Minnesota Skilled Nursing Facilities - Care Providers InnerView 2010 MN S… · My InnerView produces other state-based reports and a national report each year on nursing ... slightly