Supportive Living Resident Experience Survey Report Jan 2015

8/9/2019 Supportive Living Resident Experience Survey Report Jan 2015

1/300

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

SUPPORTIVE LIVING

RESIDENT EXPERIENCE

SURVEY REPORT

January 2015


2/300


3/300

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 1

2.0 REPORT ORGANIZATION ..................................................................................................... 7

3.0 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 8

3.1

Continuing care streams ............................................................................................... 8

3.2 Supportive living surveys .............................................................................................. 9

4.0 SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 11

4.1 The survey instrument (Appendix A) .......................................................................... 114.2 Survey protocol and sampling .................................................................................... 114.3 Quantitative analytical approach ................................................................................. 124.4 Qualitative analytical approach ................................................................................... 18

5.0 USING THE RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 19

6.0 OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................... 20

7.0 FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OFCARE .................................................................................................................................... 25

7.1

Global Overall Care rating .......................................................................................... 26

7.2 General Satisfaction ................................................................................................... 317.3 Meals and Dining ........................................................................................................ 367.4 Resident Environment ................................................................................................ 417.5 Activities ..................................................................................................................... 467.6 Relationship with Employees ...................................................................................... 507.7 Facility Environment ................................................................................................... 557.8 Communication ........................................................................................................... 607.9 Choice ........................................................................................................................ 657.10 Employee Responsiveness ........................................................................................ 707.11 Care and Services ...................................................................................................... 757.12 Laundry ....................................................................................................................... 80

8.0 ADDITIONAL CARE QUESTIONS ....................................................................................... 859.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIMENSIONS OF CARE AND GLOBAL OVERALL CARE

RATING ................................................................................................................................ 92

9.1 General Satisfaction ................................................................................................... 929.2 Meals and Dining ........................................................................................................ 939.3 Resident Environment ................................................................................................ 939.4 Activities ..................................................................................................................... 949.5 Relationship with Employees ...................................................................................... 949.6 Facility Environment ................................................................................................... 959.7 Communication ........................................................................................................... 959.8 Choice ........................................................................................................................ 969.9 Employee Responsiveness ........................................................................................ 96

9.10

Care and Services ...................................................................................................... 97

9.11

Laundry ....................................................................................................................... 97

10.0 FACILITY-LEVEL EFFECTS: FACILITY SIZE AND OWNERSHIP TYPE ............................ 98

10.1 Facility size ................................................................................................................. 9910.2 Facility ownership ..................................................................................................... 104

11.0 PROPENSITY TO RECOMMEND FACILITY ..................................................................... 112

11.1 Propensity to recommend provincial and zone results (Q49) ................................ 11311.2 Propensity to recommend by Global Overall Care rating quartile ............................. 11811.3 Propensity to recommend by facility size and ownership type .................................. 119


4/300

12.0 QUALITATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS ............................................................................ 121

12.1 General Satisfaction ................................................................................................. 12212.2 Meals and Dining ...................................................................................................... 12212.3 Resident Environment .............................................................................................. 123

12.4

Activities ................................................................................................................... 12312.5 Relationship with Employees .................................................................................... 123

12.6 Facility Environment ................................................................................................. 12312.7 Communication ......................................................................................................... 12412.8 Choice ...................................................................................................................... 12412.9 Employee Responsiveness ...................................................................................... 12412.10 Care and Services .................................................................................................... 12412.11 Laundry ..................................................................................................................... 12412.12 Other......................................................................................................................... 125

13.0 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 126

13.1 Limitations of the quantitative analyses .................................................................... 12613.2 Limitations of the qualitative analyses ...................................................................... 126

14.0

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION ................................................................ 127

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................. 133

APPENDIX A: Survey documents ....................................................................................... 135

APPENDIX B: Survey process and methodology ............................................................... 144

APPENDIX C: Exclusion criteria applied by facility staff and administrators ....................... 153

APPENDIX D: Survey modality ........................................................................................... 155

APPENDIX E: Criteria for inclusion in facility-level analyses ............................................... 158

APPENDIX F: Respondents versus non-respondents ........................................................ 164

APPENDIX G: Additional respondent details ...................................................................... 171

APPENDIX H: Provincial and zone-level dimensions of care summary means andpropensity to recommend .................................................................................................... 182

APPENDIX I: Summary of provincial and zone level responses to individual surveyquestions ............................................................................................................................. 195

APPENDIX J: Qualitative analysis detailed results .......................................................... 256

APPENDIX K: Global overall care rating regression models ............................................... 261

APPENDIX L: Dimensions of care by overall care rating quartile ....................................... 263

APPENDIX M: Facility size relative to global overall care ratings and dimensions of care . 275

APPENDIX N: Question-level results by ownership type .................................................... 282

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................ 287

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... 291


5/300

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The SupportiveLivingResidentExperienceSurveywas conducted by the Health Quality Council of Alberta

in collaboration with Alberta Health and Alberta Health Services (AHS). The intent of the survey is to

establish a baseline measurement for supportive living residents experiences (supportive living level 3

and 4 residents)1that can be used for benchmarking and ongoing monitoring as measured by the Global

Overall Care rating and the 11 Dimensions of Care. This report presents an overview of overall facility

performance across the province from the supportive living residents perspective. This information can

be used to assess performance relative to peers, to identify opportunities for improvement, and to

identify higher performing facilities.

Survey process and methodology

Residents were surveyed using the OhioResidentialCareFacility2013Survey. This is a 49question

instrument that assesses the residents overall evaluation of their supportive living facility, along with 11

Dimensions of Care: General Satisfaction, Meals and Dining, Resident Environment, Activities,Relationship with Employees, Facility Environment, Communication, Choice, Employee Responsiveness,

Care and Services, and Laundry.

Eligible respondents were identified using the interRAITMResidentAssessmentInstrument(RAI) obtained

from AHS along with predefined exclusion criteria applied by facility staff and administrators. The

questionnaire was completed either as: (1) a selfadministered paper survey or (2) an inperson

interview. The response rate for this survey was 58.7 per cent.

Results

Global Overall Care rating

The Global Overall Care rating reflects residents overall evaluation of the supportive living facility. The

Global Overall Care rating for the province was 7.8 out of 10. There was variation among the facilities

throughout the province with individual facility scores ranging from 6.2 to 9.5 out of 10.

At the provincial level, the 11 Dimensions of Care vary in their influence on resident experience and

residents overall evaluation of the supportive living facility. The greatest gains at the provincial level

may be realized by focusing on the strongest influencers of Global Overall Care.

1Supportive living level 3 is for individuals whose medical condition is stable and appropriately managed without 24hour onsite

nursing staff, but who have limited independence. Supportive living level 4 is for individuals with more complex medical conditions.

1


6/300

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

These are listed in order of decreasing influence and include:2,3

1. Meals and Dining

2. Resident Environment

3. Activities

4. Relationship with Employees

5. Facility Environment

6. Communication

7. Choice

8. Employee Responsiveness

9. Care and Services

10.Laundry

In addition, each facility has their own unique areas of focus, which may differ from those identified forthe province. These are highlighted in facilitylevel reports, which have been provided to each facility

that participated in the survey.

General Satisfaction

The General Satisfaction Dimension of Care has the strongest influence on the Global Overall Care rating.

This dimension reflects resident experiences with their sense of comfort at the facility, whether the

resident thinks they are getting their moneys worth, and whether they would recommend the facility.

The score for the province on this dimension was 85.2 out of 100. There was variability among the

facilities throughout the province with individual facility scores ranging from 60.4 to 96.7 out of 100.

This Dimension of Care accounted for the greatest number of interviewer comments. Although themajority of comments revealed residents were generally satisfied or had no complaints about their

supportive living facility, some of the comments included constructive feedback and indicated there was

room for improvement.

Meals and Dining

The Meals and Dining Dimension of Care has the second most influence on the Global Overall Care rating.

This dimension reflects resident experiences with food and food services at their facility. The score for

the province on this dimension was 79.9 out of 100. There was variability among the facilities

throughout the province with individual facility scores ranging from 60.4 to 95.5 out of 100. The Meals

2The General Satisfaction Dimension of Care was most strongly associated with Global Overall Care; this is expected given the questions

that comprise this Dimension of Care reflect overall opinions about the facility (correlation coefficient r= 0.643). However, with the goal

of identifying specific areas for improvement, General Satisfaction, and the questions that comprise this Dimension of Care, is not

amenable to this type of evaluation or interpretation, limiting its utility when targeting meaningful aspects of care to potentially change

for the benefit of residents.3Choice, Employee Responsiveness, Care and Services, and Laundry Dimensions of Care were not significantly associated with Global

Overall Care ratings in the provincial analyses.

2


7/300

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

and Dining Dimension of Care accounted for approximately eight per cent of all interviewer comments.

Most of these comments were related to residents satisfaction with the food served at their facility.

Whereas some of the residents complimented the quality of food served at their facility, other residents

expressed that the quality of the food could be improved.

Resident Environment

The Resident Environment Dimension of Care reflects resident experiences with privacy, their room at

the facility, their personal safety, and the safety of their belongings. The score for the province on this

dimension was 91.6 out of 100. Individual facility scores ranged from 76.4 to 98.6 out of 100. The

Resident Environment Dimension of Care accounted for approximately eight per cent of all interviewer

comments. Most of these comments were related to the safety of residents belongings.

Activities

The Activities Dimension of Care reflects resident experiences with the activities at their facility. The

score for the province on this dimension was 81.1 out of 100. Individual facility scores ranged from 56.5

to 98.7 out of 100. The Activities Dimension of Care accounted for approximately six per cent of all

interviewer comments. Most of these comments were related to number and type of activities available

at their facility. In general, residents desired a greater number and variety of available activities and for

activities to be inclusive of all residents.

Relationship with Employees

The Relationship with Employees Dimension of Care reflects resident experiences with the

courteousness, friendliness, and dependability of employees at their facility. The score for the province

on this dimension was 92.2 out of 100. Individual facility scores ranged from 76.9 to 100 out of 100. The

Relationship with Employees Dimension of Care accounted for approximately nine per cent of all

interviewer comments. Some residents described employees as being wonderful, kind, and respectful,

while other residents felt that the way they were treated by employees could be improved.

Facility Environment

The Facility Environment Dimension of Care reflects resident opinions about the facilitys location,

attractiveness, noise levels, and cleanliness. The score for the province on this dimension was 91.6 out of

100. Individual facility scores ranged from 74.7 to 99.4 out of 100. The Facility Environment Dimension

of Care accounted for approximately five per cent of all interviewer comments. Most of these comments

were constructive feedback related to the maintenance of facility grounds, facility design, and cleanliness

of the facility.

Communication

The Communication Dimension of Care reflects resident experiences with facility management. The

score for the province was 87.7 out of 100. Individual facility scores ranged from 63.8 to 98.5 out of 100.

The Communication Dimension of Care accounted for approximately seven per cent of all interviewer

comments. Some of these comments described management staff as approachable and willing to address

requests and concerns, whereas other residents said that communication with management could be

improved.

3


8/300

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Choice

The Choice Dimension of Care reflects resident experiences with having choice, such as the freedom to go

to bed, to come and go from the facility whenever they choose to, and to have the ability to choose what

clothes to wear. This Dimension of Care also explores whether employees encourage residents to do

things they are able to and to leave residents alone when they dont want to do anything. The score for

the province on this dimension was 91.4 out of 100. Individual facility scores ranged from 82.3 to 100

out of 100. The Choice Dimension of Care accounted for approximately four per cent of all interviewer

comments. Some residents reported they were able to make their own choices while others reported

feeling that their choices were constrained.

Employee Responsiveness

The Employee Responsiveness Dimension of Care reflects resident experiences with the availability of

employees during the day, the evenings, and the weekends. The score for the province on this dimension

was 88.7 out of 100. Individual facility scores ranged from 69.3 to 99.0 out of 100. The Employee

Responsiveness Dimension of Care accounted for approximately 10 per cent of all interviewer

comments. Most of these comments were related to staffing levels at the facility and how low staffinglevels negatively affected care and services.

Care and Services

The Care and Services Dimension of Care reflects resident experiences with timely medication delivery,

whether employees explain the care and services the respondents are receiving, the ability to get snacks

and drinks whenever they want, and whether employees are familiar with resident preferences. The

score for the province on this dimension was 82.9 out of 100. Individual facility scores ranged from 60.7

to 96.8 out of 100. The Care and Services Dimension of Care accounted for approximately seven per cent

of all interviewer comments. Most of these comments were related to the delivery of care and services.

While some residents thought care and services were excellent, others provided constructive feedback inareas where care and services can be improved.

Laundry

The Laundry Dimension of Care reflects resident experiences with the laundry services at their facility.

The score for the province on this dimension was 92.2 out of 100. Individual facility scores ranged from

69.1 to 100 out of 100. The Laundry Dimension of Care was the Dimension least commented on and

accounted for approximately one per cent of all interviewer comments. In general, residents said their

laundry was not returned to them and as a result, clothing had gone missing.

Quartile analyses

Facilities that were categorized in the upper quartile (i.e., upper 25 per cent of scores) on their Global

Overall Care rating were also rated more positively in each of the 11 Dimensions of Care, relative to

facilities that were categorized in the lower quartile (i.e., lower 25 per cent of scores). This analysis will

assist lower quartile facilities in determining the importance and focus of quality improvement

initiatives. Upper quartile performers can be used as examples of how to achieve improved performance

in various areas. Differences in means between the upper and lower performing facilities, in each of the

11 Dimensions of Care are:

4


9/300

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

General Satisfaction: 17.3 out of 100

Meals and Dining: 13.6 out of 100

Resident Environment: 7.3 out of 100

Activities: 10.9 out of 100

Relationship with Employees: 9.1 out of 100

Facility Environment: 9.4 out of 100

Communication: 11.9 out of 100

Choice: 4.8 out of 100

Employee Responsiveness: 11.1 out of 100

Care and Services: 12.1 out of 100

Laundry: 4.3 out of 100

Facil ity size

Overall, results showed that facility size is an important factor that influences all Dimensions of Care and

the Global Overall Care rating. As facility size increases(i.e., number of beds), the Global Overall Care

rating and scores for the Dimensions of Care decrease. Typically, smaller facilities (i.e., fewer beds) have

more favorable ratings than larger facilities. This is similar to a finding previously reported by the Health

Quality Council of Alberta for the long term care sector.4However, it was noted that there were a few

large facilities that received relatively high scores and a few small facilities that received relatively low

scores on the Global Overall Care rating.

Ownership typeAlthough there were differences among ownership types for some of the individual questions in the

survey, no evidence was found to suggest that the Global Overall Care and Dimensions of Care scores

differed by ownership type (i.e., AHS, privately owned, or voluntary owned).

Propensity to recommend

Provincially, 88.9 per cent of respondents stated that they would recommend their facility. A greater

percentage of respondents from facilities categorized in the upper quartile of Global Overall Care ratings

would recommend their facility relative to respondents from lower quartile facilities (98.4% versus

76.6%).

4For further details please refer to: http://hqca.ca/surveys/continuingcareexperience/

5


10/300

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Conclusion

Results presented in this report are intended to guide reflection on performance by identifying the

factors that contribute to the overall evaluation of a facility from the residents perspective. Going

forward, results from facilitylevel reports, this report, and the 2014SupportiveLivingFamilyExperience

SurveyReportprovide a benchmark by which to compare future survey results and to measure

improvement outcomes. The ongoing evaluation of a facility against itself, and its peers, will provide

opportunities to identify areas of success and to determine the importance and focus of quality

improvement initiatives. This can support a culture of continual quality improvement based on family

and resident feedback.

At a provincial level, the greatest gains may be realized by focusing on improvement to the following, in

order of decreasing priority and influence on Global Overall Care rating:5,6

1. Meals and Dining


3. Activities



6. Communication

Each individual facility has their own unique areas for improvement, which may differ from those

identified for the province. Facilities should refer to their facilitylevel reports to better determine where

to focus quality improvement efforts to best meet the needs of their residents and family members.

Resident experience data alone should not be used to judge facility performance in the absence of other

information such as levelofneed of the resident population, services provided, other quality measures

such as those derived from the interRAITMResidentAssessmentInstrument, complaints and concerns, and

compliance with provincial continuing care standards.

5The General Satisfaction Dimension of Care was most strongly associated with Global Overall Care; this is expected given the questions

that comprise this Dimension of Care reflect overall opinions about the facility (correlation coefficient r= 0.643). However, with the goal

of identifying specific areas for improvement, General Satisfaction and the questions that comprise this Dimension of Care, is not

amenable to this type of evaluation or interpretation, limiting its utility when targeting meaningful aspects of care to potentially change

for the benefit of residents.6Choice, Employee Responsiveness, Care and Services, and Laundry Dimensions of Care were not significantly associated with Global

Overall Care ratings in the provincial analyses.

6


11/300

REPORT ORGANIZATION

2.0 REPORT ORGANIZATION

The provincial report consists of the following sections:

1. Executivesummary

2.

Reportorganization: description of the sections of the report.

3. Background: description of continuing care in Alberta and purpose and objectives of the

supportive living resident experience survey.

4. Surveyprocessandmethodology:overview of the survey tools used, recruitment protocols,

and analytical methods. Details can be found inAppendixB.

5. Usingtheresults:purpose of the report and alternative ways of using the results.

6. Overviewofsurveyresults: overview of facilitylevel results.

7. FacilityresultsbyGlobalOverallCareratingandDimensionsofCare: detailed results of the

Global Overall Care rating question and the 11 Dimensions of Care are outlined in this section,including facility results by zone and quartile (provincial).

8. Additionalcarequestions: description of eight additional questions; independent from

questions related to the 11 Dimensions of Care.

9. RelationshipbetweenDimensionsofCareandGlobalOverallCarerating:presents results

of lower and upper quartile facilities on the Global Overall Care rating for each of the Dimensions

of Care and the individual components (survey questions) that comprise each Dimension of Care.

10.FacilityleveleffectsFacilitysizeandownershiptype:information about whether and how

facility characteristics such as size (i.e., number of beds) and ownership type (i.e., private, public,

and voluntary) influence Global Overall Care rating and ratings of the Dimensions of Care.

11.Propensitytorecommendfacility:summary results of question 49:Wouldyourecommendthis

placetoafamilymemberorfriend?YesorNo?This section provides facility results within each

zone and provincially for the percentage of residents who would recommend the facility.

12.Qualitativeanalyticalresults: describes qualitative analytical results for interviewer

comments about resident experiences.

13.Limitations:describes important limitations to consider when interpreting survey results.

14.Summaryoffindingsandconclusion

7


12/300

BACKGRO

3.0

3.1

Albertas

personalquality of

and/or li

those still

recognizi

nursing h

Figure 1:

Supportiv

too isolat

some exte

assessme

room in p

publicly f

other opti

nurses or

7Continuing8Designated

under contra

ND

ACKGR

ontinuin

ontinuing ca

are, and acclife. There ar

itations: ho

able to live i

g different d

me setting.

Streams of

e living is an

d in their o

nt, individua

t of their ne

blicly funde

nded, reside

onal services

regularly sch

are Standards 2

ssistedLivingor

ct with AHS. Indi

UND

g care st

re system pr

modation see three strea

e care, supp

dependentl

egrees of ind

he focus of t

ontinuing c

option for in

n home, or h

s can choose

ds by Albert

d Designated

nts are gener

. Supportive

eduled visits

008: http://ww

DesignatedSuppiduals are asses

eams

vides Alber

rvices they ns of contin

ortive living,

; supportive

ependence; a

his report is

re7

ividuals wh

ave more co

which supp

a Health Ser

Supportive

ally responsi

iving faciliti

by physician

.health.alberta.c

ortiveLivingrefe

ed and placed b

ans of advan

eed to suppoing care in A

and facility l

living is pro

nd facility li

on levels 3 a

want a mai

plex needs

rtive living

ices (AHS), i

iving.8Altho

ble for payin

s are not re

s.

/documents/Co

rs to designated

AHS based on a

ced age or di

rt their dailylberta tailor

iving (Figur

ided in a sh

ing or long t

d 4 of the su

tenancefre

han those p

ption is righ

dividuals m

ugh services

g for their ro

uired to pro

ntinuingCareSt

ooms in the sup

n individuals he

sability with

activities, ind to the clie

1). Home c

red accomo

erm care, is p

pportive livi

e environme

ovided for b

t for them. B

ay be eligible

for assessed

om, meals, h

ide onsite 2

andards2008.p

portive living str

lthcare needs.

the healthca

ependence,ts level of n

re is provide

ation setting

rovided in a

g stream.

t, feel they a

home care.

sed on an

for a space

care needs a

ousekeeping

hour regist

f

eam that are ope

e,

anded

d to

re

To

r a

re

and

ered

ated

8


13/300

BACKGROUND

The four defined levels in the SupportiveLivingstream9are:

SupportiveLivingLevel1(SL1):this level of care is also referred to as ResidentialLiving and is

designed for individuals who are independent, can manage most daily tasks, and are responsible

for making decisions around their daytoday activities. Publically funded home care may be

provided, but there is no onsite 24hour staffing.

SupportiveLivingLevel2(SL2):this level of care is also referred to as Lodge Living and is

designed for individuals who are generally independent (e.g., can manage some daily tasks), and

can arrange, manage, and/or direct their own care. Publically funded home care may be

continually provided, but there is no onsite 24hour staffing.

SupportiveLivingLevel3(SL3):this level of care is for individuals whose medical condition is

stable and appropriately managed without 24hour onsite nursing staff, but who have limited

independence. These individuals need help with many tasks and/or decisionmaking in dayto

day activities. Personal care at this level is generally provided within a set schedule; however,

unscheduled personal assistance may also be provided. Publically funded scheduled home care is

provided and trained and certified healthcare aide staff is onsite on a 24hour basis (registerednurse oncall).

SupportiveLivingLevel4(SL4):this level of care is also referred to as Enhanced Assisted

Living and is for individuals with more complex medical conditions. These individuals tend to

have very limited independence, have significant limitations, and need help with most or all

tasks, as well as decisions about daytoday activities. Publically funded scheduled home care

may be provided and a trained licensed practical nurse and/or healthcare aide is onsite on a 24

hour basis.

SupportiveLivingLevel4Dementia(SL4D):this level of care is a subset of SL4 and is

designed for persons who have significant limitations due to dementia.

3.2 Supportive living surveys

The SupportiveLivingFamilyandResidentExperienceSurveyswere conducted by the Health Quality

Council of Alberta (HQCA), in collaboration with AHS and Alberta Health (AH). The surveys assist

providers in meeting the Continuing Care Health Service Standards that require providers to have

processes to gather client and family experience feedback regarding the quality of care and service

provided.

3.2.1 Purpose

The overall purpose of this survey was to obtain feedback from residents about the quality of care and

services received at supportive living facilities across Alberta and to provide supportive living facilities

and other stakeholders with information that can be used for ongoing quality monitoring and

9For more information, see http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/Seniors/ifsenlivingoptionguidelines.pdf

9


14/300

BACKGROUND

improvement.This report focuses on responses from residents who require more than minimal care and

live in supportive living levels 3 and 4.10

3.2.2 Objectives

The objectives of the survey were to:

Establish a baseline measurement for supportive living residents experiences that can be used

for ongoing benchmarking and monitoring.

Identify and report on improvement opportunities and best practices at supportive living

facilities across Alberta to inform quality improvement efforts in various topics including:

resident involvement, privacy, and choice; facility environment; employee relations and

responsiveness to residents; communication between residents and management; meals and

dining; laundry; and quality of care and services in general.

10SL1 and 2 clients are excluded because those who require publicly funded care services receive them from Home Care, not Supportive

Living.

10


15/300

SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

4.0 SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

4.1 The survey instrument (Appendix A)

Residents of supportive living facilities were surveyed using the OhioResidentialCareFacility2013

Survey(AppendixA) developed by the Scripps Gerontology Center and funded by the Ohio Department

of Aging. This is a 49question instrument that assesses the residents overall evaluation of the

supportive living facility (i.e., Global Overall Care rating), along with 11 Dimensions of Care: Activities,

Choice, Care and Services, Relationship with Employees, Employee Responsiveness, Communication,

Meals and Dining, Laundry, Facility Environment, Resident Environment, and General Satisfaction.

4.1.1 Additional questions

As a result of findings in the literature and consultation with stakeholders, eight additional questions

related to care and services were added and used in the present survey (AppendixA). These questions

were constructed with response and wording consistent with the core instrument.

The Global Overall Care rating 0 to 10 scale was taken from the ConsumerAssessment

of

Healthcare

ProvidersandServices(CAHPS)NursingHomeSurvey:FamilyMemberInstrument11for the purposes of

comparison with other instruments used in the measurement of satisfaction in continuing care (such as

the SupportiveLivingFamilyExperienceSurveyReportand the LongTermCareFamilyExperienceSurvey

Report).

Standard demographic questions (Question 5965) were also added.

4.2 Survey protocol and sampling12

The survey was conducted as a census of all eligible participants from April 2013 to September 2013.

Eligible respondents were identified using the interRAITMResidentAssessmentInstrument(RAI) obtained

from AHS along with predefined exclusion criteria applied by facility staff and administrators. The

following individuals were excluded:13

Residents living in personal care homes (SL1); group or family care homes or lodges (SL2); special

care homes (including mental health support homes and long temr care only facilities); SL4

dementia residents.

Residents from facilities with language barriers (English was not the first language in the facility).

Residents who no longer resided at the facility.

Residents who were too ill, in hospital, or in palliative care.

Residents who posed a risk of harm to the interviewer.

11For further details on CAHPS please refer to: https://cahps.ahrq.gov/12 For full details of this section, seeAppendixB.13 For full exclusion criteria, seeAppendixC.

11


16/300


Residents who lived in the facility for less than one month or were considered a transitional

resident.

Residents with a Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS) score of 5 to 6 (severe impairment or very

severe impairment).

The questionnaire was completed either as: 1) a selfadministered paper survey, or 2) an inpersoninterview. Data from the RAI was used to assign residents to either a selfadministered paper survey or

inperson interview (referred to in this report asmodality).14Priority was given to selfadministered

paper surveys, however an inperson interview was offered to those meeting the following criteria:

A CPS score of 3 to 4 (moderate to moderatesevere impairment).

Residents with CPS of 0, 1, or 2 (intact to mild impairment) and a vision score of 3 to 4 (highly to

severely impaired).

Residents with CPS of 0, 1, or 2 (intact to mild impairment) and no vision score.

To accommodate resident preference, eligible residents were provided with the option of choosing the

alternate modality at the time of the facility visit. In addition, residents who refused to participate wereoffered the alternate modality to which they were assigned.

Residents from the three supportive living ownership models (i.e., those which provide publically funded

supportive living care in Alberta) were surveyed. The three ownership categories were identified using

data obtained from AHS 2012 data, and are:

Public operated by or wholly owned subsidiary of AHS (10 facilities).

Private owned by a private organization (69 facilities).

Voluntary owned by a notforprofit or faithbased organization (75 facilities).

The response rate for this survey was 58.7 per cent (2,035 out of a possible 3,518 eligible residentscompleted and returned the survey or completed an inperson interview). The main mode of

participation was through inperson interviews (N = 1,432; 70.4% of all respondents). For a breakdown

of sampling by zone, seeAppendixB.

4.3 Quantitative analytical approach

For this report, a test was deemed statistically significant (i.e., differences referred to as significant

throughout the report) if the probability of the event occurring by chance alone was less than or equal to

5 per cent (p< 0.05).

14The decision to implement a dualmodality survey delivery protocol was informed by a pilot study that found in general there were no

significant differences in responses among survey questions depending on how the survey instrument was administered, which

supported treating both paper survey and inperson interviews as equally valid modes for completing the survey. For a similar analysis to

the current survey, seeAppendixD.

12


17/300


To maximize the reliability of facilitylevel results and to maintain respondent anonymity, a facilitys data

was included in facilitylevel analyses only if:

The facility yielded five or more respondents, AND

The facility response margin of error was equal to or less than 10 per cent and/orthe facility had

a response rate of over 50 per cent among eligible respondents. For more details on thedetermination of facility sample reliability and for a list of facility response rates and sample

margin of errors seeAppendixE.

To conserve data from facilities which did not meet the above inclusion criteria, responses from all

facilities (with at least one respondent; 124 facilities in total) were included in descriptive analyses of

zone and provincial results where appropriate (analyses which include data from all facilities are

labelled throughout). Unless otherwise stated, all analyses in this report are based onlyon those facilities

which met the inclusion criteria (N = 80 facilities).15

Othernotes:

Percentages may not always add to 100 per cent due to rounding. Facility, zone, and provincial results are presented in graphs which include 95 per cent

confidence intervals (95% CI). These intervals are meant to aid the reader in gauging statistically

significant differences in results. As a general rule, intervals that do not overlap reflect significant

differences between measures. In contrast, intervals that do overlap reflect nonsignificant

differences between measures.

Lower limits of the 95 per cent CI that range below zero will be reported as zero. Upper limits of

the 95 per cent CI that range above 100 will be reported as 100. These changes will be marked

with .

4.3.1 Global Overall Care ratingThe Global Overall Care rating reflects the respondents overall evaluation of the supportive living

facility. This is a single item measure intended to reflect a respondents summative opinion about the

facility. The Global Overall Care rating question asks: Usinganynumberfrom0to10,where0istheworst

and10isthebestcarepossible,whatnumberwouldyouusetoratethecareatthesupportiveliving

facility?

15Included facilities account for 80.4 per cent of all respondents (1,636 of 2,035) and 73.2 per cent of all eligible respondents (2,574 of

3,518). Survey findings did not differ significantly relative to residents who resided in facilities who were included and residents who

resided in facilities that were excluded. For additional details, see AppendixE.

13


18/300


4.3.2 Dimensions of Care

The Ohio Residential Care Facility 2013 Survey collects respondent ratings from 11 Dimensions of Care.

The 49 questions used to compute the 11 Dimensions of Care are described below:

1. General Satisfaction

a) (Q46) Do you feel comfortable here?

b) (Q47) Do you feel you are getting your moneys worth here?

c) (Q48) Overall, do you like living here?

d) (Q49) Would you recommend this place to a family member or friend?

2. Meals and Dining

a) (Q28) Do you get enough to eat?

b) (Q29) Is the food here tasty?

c) (Q30) Can you get the foods you like?

d) (Q31) Is your food served at the right temperature?

e) (Q32) Do you like the way your meals are served here?


a) (Q40) Do you have enough privacy in your room or apartment?

b) (Q41) Are you satisfied with your room or apartment?

c) (Q42) Do you feel safe here?

d) (Q43) Are your belongings safe here?

e) (Q44) Do you think this is a pleasant place for people to visit?

f) (Q45) Is the room temperature comfortable for you?

4. Activities

a) (Q1) Do you have enough to do here?

b) (Q2) Do you get enough information about the activities offered here?

c) (Q3) Are you satisfied with the activities offered here?

d) (Q4) Can you choose what activities you do here?


a) (Q15) Are the employees courteous to you?

b) (Q16) Can you depend on the employees?

c) (Q17) Are the people who work here friendly?

d) (Q18) Do the employees treat you with respect?

14


19/300


20/300


11.Laundry

a) (Q33) Do you get clothing back from the laundry?

b) (Q34) Does your clothing come back in good condition?

For each respondent, a score on each of the 11 Dimensions of Care was computed as follows:

1. Mean scores for each Dimension of Care were calculated by scaling the relevant survey items

(i.e., questions) to a 0 to 100 scale, where zero was the least positive or most undesired

outcome/response and 100 was the most positive or most desired outcome/response (for more

information on scaling procedures, see AppendixB).

2. Dimension scores were then calculated by summing individual scaled survey items and dividing

the total score by the number of items within each Dimension of Care (mean or average scores).

A Dimension of Care score was generated for all respondents who answered a minimum number of

questions within the Dimension of Care (N2).16Respondents who met the minimum criterion had

missing values replaced by the facility mean for that question. Scaled responses were then summed and

divided by the number of items within each Dimension of Care to arrive at a summary score (seeAppendixBfor more details). Weights for each question were determined according to factor loading in

a factor analysis using a promax rotation.

For complete questionlevel results, see the following appendices:

AppendixF:Respondentversusnonrespondent:a comparison on differences between

respondents and nonrespondents.

AppendixG:Additionalrespondentdetails:details respondent characteristics including

gender, age, education, RAI (CPS and vision scores), shared room, and selfreported overall

health and mental/emotional health.

AppendixI:

Summary

of

provincial

and

zone

level

results:

includes complete questionlevel

details of the survey tool.

4.3.3 Facility comparison to zone and provincial averages

For each facility, scores for the Global Overall Care rating and each of the 11 Dimensions of Care were

compared to the average for facilities that participated in the survey within their respective AHS zone

and the provincial average as follows:

Below/abovezonemean: A zone mean was created by adding the scores for all facilities within a

zone and then dividing by the number of facilities within the zone. For each facility, the report

indicates whether the facility score fell below or above the zone mean.

Below/aboveprovincialmean: A provincial mean was created by adding the scores for all

facilities within the province and then dividing by the number of facilities within the

16N2 criterion is the standard minimum question criterion for the Ohio tool.

16


21/300


province (N = 80). For each facility, the report indicates whether the facility score fell below or

above the provincial mean.

4.3.4 Facility categorization by quartile

Facilities (N = 80) were categorized into four quartiles17based on their mean Global Overall Care rating:

Upper (top 25% of facilities)

Upper middle

Lower middle

Lower (bottom 25% of facilities)

4.3.5 Modeling

A regression model was constructed to examine the relative influence of the Dimensions of Care on the

Global Overall Care rating. This analysis showed an association between the 11 Dimensions of Care of the

Ohio Survey with the Global Overall Care rating (for detailed results of this analysis, see AppendixK).

Dimensions of Care are listed in order of decreasing strength of association with the Global Overall Care

rating:

1. General Satisfaction18

2. Meals and Dining


4. Activities



7. Communication

8. Choice


10.Care and Services

11.Laundry

17A quartile represents four equal groups into which a population can be divided according to the distribution of values of a particular

measure; each group comprises 25 per cent of the data.18General Satisfaction was the most strongly associated with Global Overall Care ratings. This is expected given that the questions that

comprise this Dimension of Care reflect overall or general opinions about the facility. However, with the goal of identifying specific areas

for improvement, General Satisfaction and the questions that comprise this Dimension of Care is not amenable to this type of evaluation

or interpretation, limiting its utility when targeting meaningful aspects of care to potentially change for the benefit of residents. Despite

the importance of General Satisfaction in the prediction of Global Overall Care ratings (correlation coefficientr= 0.643), the Dimension of

General Satisfaction will be excluded in the formulation of the final adjusted model (AppendixK).

17


22/300


Within this report, results are presented in order of their strength of association with the Global Overall

Care rating.

4.4 Qualitative analytical approach

As part of the study protocol, interviewers were instructed to document any and all details related to the

interview or interview attempt. In total, interviewers recorded 2,352 comments. The majority of these

comments were related to residents motivations to participate or not participate in the survey, were

comments detailing survey status including need for followup with residents, or were general

comments about the survey. In a minority of cases (166 of the 2,352 comments), interviewers

documented informative comments relevant to resident experiences. These comments offered additional

insights not captured in survey responses, and as a result, a qualitative analysis was undertaken. The

purpose of this portion of the analysis was to supplement survey findings and present prominent themes

about residents experiences, as recorded by interviewers, in relation to facility living. Because it was not

the original intended purpose to collect comments to inform the study, considerations associated with

their use (scope, privacy, confidentiality, and ethical use) are discussed in AppendixJ.

4.4.1 Method and analysis of comments

The comments documented during interviews were examined for multiple themes and ideas and were

classified in accordance to one of the 11 Dimensions of Care. When a comment could not be categorized

within any of the Dimensions of Care, a new theme was identified. New themes included: Transportation,

Safety and Security, and Healthcare Services. Each theme was defined by a list of attributes that guided

how comments were coded (see Table120inAppendixJfor coding by theme). Detailed qualitative

results can be found in Section12andAppendixJ.

18


23/300

USING THE RESULTS

5.0 USING THE RESULTS

The focus of this report is to establish a baseline measurement for supportive living residents

experiences that can be used for ongoing benchmarking and monitoring. The report presents factors that

drive the Global Overall Care rating, represented by the 11 Dimensions of Care, which can subsequently

be used to identify improvement opportunities and best practices at supportive living facilities across

Alberta.

Readers should be aware that many additional factors may contribute to both the residents and family

members experience of a facility. Ultimately, facilitylevel results are intended to guide reflection on

performance and identify quality improvement opportunities at the facility level. Resident experience

data alone should not be used to judge facility performance in the absence of other information, such as

levelofneed of the resident population, other quality measures, such as those derived from the RAI,

complaints and concerns, and compliance with provincial continuing care standards.

This report examines facilitylevel results and provides a single perspective of several possible

interpretations of these findings. Facilities and other stakeholders may choose to examine and interpretthe findings differently. Examples may include:

Provinciallevel comparisons only

One Dimension of Care (or questions within) over others, irrespective of provincial or peer

group comparisons

One or more Dimensions of Care irrespective of how the facility scored

If facilities and other stakeholders are mindful of the limitations of the data, there are a number of ways

the results can be interpreted and used.

19


24/300

OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS

6.0 OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS

Table2provides a comprehensive summary of facilitylevel results based on the 11 Dimensions of Care

and the mean Global Overall Care rating for each facility. It incorporates information from all areas of

care and services measured in the survey and provides the most complete representation of overall

facility performance.

Criteriaemphasizewithinzonefacilitycomparisons.19Detailed results of the Global Overall Care

rating and individual Dimensions of Care are provided in Section7. Facilities are ordered according to

the following criteria. Criteria are listed in order of priority. In the event of a tie on one level, the next

sorting level was used:

1. The number of instances in which a facility had a Dimension of Care score lower than its

associated zone mean (i.e., average), ordered from lowest to highest.

2. The number of instances a facility had a Dimension of Care score lower than the provincial mean,

ordered from lowest to highest.

3. The number of instances a facility was in the lower quartile of facilities on a Dimension of Care,

from lowest to highest.

4. The facility mean Global Overall Care rating from highest to lowest.

Other variables included in this table are the number of surveys collected and facility size. Facility size

was measured by the total number of beds at the facility (e.g., including long term care).20Facilities are

grouped by quintile where the first quintile represents the 20 per cent of facilities with the smallest

number of beds, and the fifth quintile represents the 20 per cent of facilities with the highest number of

beds (Table1).

Table 1:Facility size quintile groupings

Quinti le (# facili ties out of 80) Number of beds reported as of March 2012

1 (5) 0 to 19 beds

2 (23) 20 to 31 beds

3 (16) 32 to 50 beds

4 (19) 51 to 84 beds

5 (17) 85+ beds

19It was determined that the most relevant comparisons are between peers (facilities within the same zones) and therefore the criteria

emphasize withinzone facility comparisons. It is important to note some readers may want to emphasize a comparison to provincial

result. In this case, the absolute values of the criteria columns can be examined on their own. 20Information on the number of beds was retrieved from AHS using current data as of March 2012, data from which the original sample

size was estimated from. It is recognized that there is a certain degree of uncertainty in the bed count, for example, downsizing and

upsizing of some facilities throughout the study period. However, it is believed that, in general, bed numbers reflect a reasonable estimate

of the size of the facility.

20


25/300

O V E R V I E W

O F S U R V E Y R E S U

L T S

Table2:Comprehensive

summaryoffacilityresults

Orderingcriterion

Criterion1

Criterion2

Criterion3

Criterion4

#outof11

DimensionsofCarewherefacilityis:

Order

Calgary

(N

=12facilities)

Facilitysiz

e

quintile

Respondents

(N)

BelowZonemean

onadimension

Belowprovincial

meanona

dimension

Atlowerquartile

ofprovincialmean

onadimension

Facilitymean

GlobalOverall

Carerating

(0to10)

1

AspenRidgeLodge

2

12

1

1

1

8.1

2

MillrisePlace

3

19

2

1

0

8.3

3

EdgemontRetirem

entResidence

2

18

3

2

0

7.5

4

EauClaireRetirem

entResidence

4

21

4

2

0

7.7

5

SagewoodSupportiveLiving

4

22

5

1

0

8.2

6

PrinceofPeaceM

anor

3

20

5

2

0

8.0

7

SilverWillowLodg

e

3

12

5

4

2

7.9

8

WhitehornVillage

4

13

5

5

0

7.6

9

ScenicAcresRetirementResidence

2

14

7

7

5

6.8

10

WentworthManor/TheResidenceandThe

Court

5

11

9

7

3

7.6

11

WaldenSupportiveLivingCommunity

5

50

10

10

4

7.9

12

MontereyPlace

5

35

10

10

5

7.0

Order

Central

(N

=22facilities)

Facilitysiz

e

quintile

Respondents

(N)

BelowZonemean

onadimension

Belowprovincial

meanona

dimension

Atlowerquartile

ofprovincialmean

onadimension

Facilitymean

GlobalOverall

Carerating

(0to10)

1

IslayAssistedLiving

2

11

0

0

0

8.7

2

WestParkLodge

3

20

0

0

0

8.7

3

SunriseVillageWetaskiwin

2

14

0

0

0

8.4

4

VermillionValleyLodge

3

15

0

0

0

8.0

21


26/300

O V E R V I E W


L T S

Order

Central

(N

=22facilities)

Facilitysiz

e

quintile

Respondents

(N)

BelowZonemean

onadimension

Belowprovincial

meanona

dimension

Atlowerquartile

ofprovincialmean

onadimension

Facilitymean

GlobalOverall

Carerating

(0to10)

5

SunriseVillageOlds

2

12

1

0

0

8.7

6

HillviewLodge

3

19

1

0

0

8.6

7

PinesLodge

2

8

1

1

0

8.7

8

ManoratRoyalOak

2

19

2

1

1

7.3

9

GoodSamaritanG

oodShepherdLutheran

Home

4

25

3

2

0

8.5

10

SunsetManor

4

46

3

2

0

8.2

11

SunriseVillagePo

noka

2

8

4

4

1

7.3

12

CoronationHospitalandCareCentre

3

10

5

3

1

7.7

13

ProvidencePlace

1

7

5

4

1

9.2

14

WetaskiwinMeadows

2

10

6

5

4

7.4

15

ClearwaterCentre

4

15

7

7

2

7.3

16

BethanySylvanLake

4

13

7

7

5

8.3

17

SunriseVillageDraytonValley

1

8

8

8

6

7.2

18

PointsWestLivingLloydminster

4

27

9

5

4

7.5

19

ExtendicareMichenerHill

5

36

10

8

4

7.8

20

BethanyMeadows

5

10

10

10

9

6.6

21

SunriseVillageCamrose

4

33

10

10

10

6.2

22

Viewpoint

2

10

11

11

9

7.1

Order

Edmonton

(N

=25facilities)

Facilitysiz

e

quintile

Respondents

(N)

BelowZonemean

onadimension

Belowprovincial

meanona

dimension

Atlowerquartile

ofprovincialmean

onadimension

Facilitymean

GlobalOverall

Carerating

(0to10)

1

GoodSamaritanS

pruceGroveCentre

2

13

0

0

0

8.9

2

WestCountryHea

rth

1

5

0

0

0

7.4

3

PlaceBeausejour

3

18

0

1

0

8.8

4

RosedaleSt.Albe

rt

4

28

0

1

0

8.1

5

CitadelMewsWest

4

30

0

3

0

7.9

22


27/300

O V E R V I E W


L T S

Order

Edmonton

(N

=25facilities)

Facilitysiz

e

quintile

Respondents

(N)

BelowZonemean

onadimension

Belowprovincial

meanona

dimension

Atlowerquartile

ofprovincialmean

onadimension

Facilitymean

GlobalOverall

Carerating

(0to10)

6

GoodSamaritanG

eorgeHennigPlace

2

14

1

1

0

9.0

7

RosedaleatGries

bach

5

51

1

3

1

8.0

8

CountryCottageS

eniorsResidence

2

11

2

4

1

8.0

9

ShepherdsCareKensington

5

20

2

5

1

7.3

10

DevonshireManor

4

28

3

5

2

7.6

11

GarneauHall

3

15

4

4

3

7.7

12

ShepherdsGarde

ns

3

21

4

5

2

7.7

13

GlastonburyVillag

e

4

29

4

7

3

7.8

14

LifeStyleOptionsRiverbend

2

10

5

6

4

7.0

15

WildRoseCottage

2

13

6

6

2

8.3

16

LifestyleOptionsTerraLosa

4

24

6

7

3

7.9

17

CapitalCareLaurierHouseLynnwood

4

57

7

8

3

7.8

18

ShepherdsCareVanguard

5

20

7

8

6

8.1

19

GoodSamaritanW

edmanHouse/Village

4

18

8

10

7

7.7

20

RiverbendRetirem

entResidence

3

11

9

10

8

7.2

21

SaintThomasAss

istedLivingCentre

5

42

10

10

9

7.2

22

AspenHouse

3

30

10

11

8

7.9

23

ShepherdsCareAshbourne

3

17

11

11

9

7.1

24

InnovativeHousin

g-VillaMarguerite

5

63

11

11

9

6.6

25

InnovativeHousin

g-114Gravelle

4

38

11

11

11

6.4

Order

North

(N

=3facilities)

Facilitysiz

e

quintile

Respondents

(N)

BelowZonemean

onadimension

Belowprovincial

meanona

dimension

Atlowerquartile

ofprovincialmean

onadimension

Facilitymean

GlobalOverall

Carerating

(0to10)

1

RidgevalleySenio

rsHome

1

7

0

0

0

9.0

2

MountainViewCe

ntre

4

16

9

11

7

7.1

3

PointsWestLivingGrandePrairie

5

27

11

10

10

7.1

23


28/300

O V E R V I E W


L T S

Order

South

(N

=18facilities)

Facilitysiz

e

quintile

Respondents

(N)

BelowZonemean

onadimension

Belowprovincial

meanona

dimension

Atlowerquartile

ofprovincialmean

onadimension

Facilitymean

GlobalOverall

Carerating

(0to10)

1

ClearviewLodge

2

11

0

0

0

8.7

2

ChinookLodge

2

6

1

1

0

9.5

3

SunnySouthLodge

2

12

1

1

0

8.6

4

GoodSamaritanV

istaVillage

4

17

1

1

0

8.3

5

GoodSamaritanG

ardenVista

3

8

3

2

1

8.1

6

OrchardManor

2

13

4

4

0

7.8

7

TheWellingtonRetirementResidence

3

18

5

3

1

8.0

8

HavenofRest-SouthCountryVillage

5

10

5

4

1

9.0

9

PiyamiLodge

2

7

6

5

3

7.9

10

MeadowLands

1

9

6

5

4

6.8

11

St.ThereseVilla-

St.MichaelsHealthCentre

5

66

7

4

0

8.1

12

GoodSamaritanL

eeCrest

5

26

7

4

2

7.7

13

CypressView

2

8

7

5

4

8.6

14

ColumbiaAssistedLiving

3

23

8

7

2

8.0

15

GoodSamaritanP

arkMeadowsVillage

5

25

9

6

0

8.0

16

YorkCreekLodge

2

6

9

9

5

7.2

17

LegacyLodge

5

30

10

7

6

7.5

18

ExtendicareFairm

ontPark

5

42

10

9

5

7.3

Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesb

asedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.

24


29/300

FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE

7.0 FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING ANDDIMENSIONS OF CARE

The following section provides detailed results of the Global Overall Care rating and individual

Dimensions of Care for each facility.

Global Overall Care ratings are presented first and reflect the respondents overall evaluation of the

supportive living facility. This is a single item measure intended to reflect a respondents summative

opinion about the facility. Global Overall Care rating asks: Usinganynumberfrom0to10where,0isthe

worstand10isthebestcarepossible,whatnumberwouldyouusetoratethecareatthesupportiveliving

facility?

Dimensions of Care are presented in order of their influence on the Global Overall Care rating, (as

determined through a regression model; see AppendixK).

Dimensions of Care are presented as follows:

1. General Satisfaction

2. Meals and Dining


4. Activities



7. Communication

8. Choice


10.Care and Services

11.Laundry

Detailed zone analyses of individual question responses can be found in AppendixI.

25


30/300


7.1 Global Overall Care rating

The resident Global Overall Care rating for the province was 7.8 out of 10. Table4summarizes the

Global Overall Care ratings for facilities that participated in the survey. Facilities are presented by mean

facility rating and are grouped by zone to facilitate comparisons at the zone and provincial level. To

better aid in the interpretation of the findings, the following features have been included in the table:

Beloworabovezonemean: Whether the facilitys average Global Overall Care rating is above

or below the average facility rating for the associated zone.

Beloworaboveprovincialmean: Whether the facilitys average Global Overall Care rating is

above or below the average facility rating for the province.

Quartile: Specifies the facilitys quartile grouping relative to all facilities in the province based

on the Global Overall Care rating (see Table3for a description of the categories).

Table 3:Guide for interpretation

Quartile details (N = 80 faciliti es)

Quartiles Range

Upper(Highest 25% of scores)

8.3-10.0

Upper middle

(50-75thpercentile)

7.9-8.3

Lower middle

(25-50thpercentile)

7.4-7.9

Lower(Lowest 25% of scores)

0.0-7.4

Note: Categorical decision rules extend beyond the first decimal place.




The facility response margin of error was equal to or less than 10per cent and/orthe facility had

a response rate of over 50 per cent among eligible respondents. For more details on the

determination of facility sample reliability and for a list of facility response rates and sample


26


31/300


The table below includes onlyfacilities which met the inclusion criteria (N = 80 facilities).

Table 4:Summary of facility mean Global Overall Care ratings by zone

Calgary

Respondents

(N)Mean

95% CIBelow/abovezone mean

(N = 12facilities)

Below/aboveprovincial

mean

(N = 80facilities)

QuartileLower Upper

7.7 7.8

Millrise Place 19 8.3 7.6 9.0 Above Above Upper

Sagewood Supportive Living 22 8.2 7.5 8.9 Above Above Up. Mid.

Aspen Ridge Lodge 12 8.1 7.3 8.9 Above Above Up. Mid.

Prince of Peace Manor 20 8.0 7.2 8.7 Above Above Up. Mid.

Walden Supportive LivingCommunity

48 7.9 7.4 8.4 Above Above Up. Mid.

Silver Willow Lodge 10 7.9 7.1 8.7 Above Above Up. Mid.

Eau Claire Retirement Residence 20 7.7 7.0 8.4 Below Below Low. Mid.Wentworth Manor/The Residenceand The Court

10 7.6 6.5 8.7 Below Below Low. Mid.

Whitehorn Village 12 7.6 6.6 8.6 Below Below Low. Mid.

Edgemont Retirement Residence 16 7.5 6.6 8.4 Below Below Low. Mid.

Monterey Place 30 7.0 6.3 7.7 Below Below Lower

Scenic Acres RetirementResidence

12 6.8 5.5 8.0 Below Below Lower

Central

Respondents

(N)

Mean


(N = 22facilities)


mean

(N = 80facilities)

Quartile

Lower Upper

7.9 7.8

Providence Place 5 9.2 8.2 10.0 Above Above Upper

Islay Assisted Living 11 8.7 7.9 9.6 Above Above Upper

West Park Lodge 18 8.7 8.3 9.2 Above Above Upper

Pines Lodge 7 8.7 7.9 9.5 Above Above Upper

Sunrise Village Olds 12 8.7 8.0 9.3 Above Above Upper

Hillview Lodge 18 8.6 7.8 9.3 Above Above Upper

Good Samaritan Good ShepherdLutheran Home

24 8.5 7.9 9.0 Above Above Upper

Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 13 8.4 7.9 8.9 Above Above Upper

Bethany Sylvan Lake 13 8.3 7.7 8.9 Above Above Upper

Sunset Manor 44 8.2 7.8 8.7 Above Above Up. Mid.

Vermillion Valley Lodge 14 8.0 7.1 8.9 Above Above Up. Mid.

Extendicare Michener Hill 29 7.8 7.1 8.5 Below Below Low. Mid.

Coronation Hospital and CareCentre


Points West Living Lloydminster 27 7.5 6.5 8.4 Below Below Low. Mid.

27


32/300


Central

Respondents

(N)Mean


(N = 22facilities)


mean

(N = 80facilities)

QuartileLower Upper

7.9 7.8

Wetaskiwin Meadows 10 7.4 6.5 8.3 Below Below Low. Mid.

Manor at Royal Oak 18 7.3 6.6 8.1 Below Below Lower

Clearwater Centre 15 7.3 6.3 8.4 Below Below Lower

Sunrise Village Ponoka 8 7.3 6.0 8.5 Below Below Lower

Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 6 7.2 6.4 8.0 Below Below Lower

Viewpoint 10 7.1 5.7 8.5 Below Below Lower

Bethany Meadows 10 6.6 4.9 8.3 Below Below Lower

Sunrise Village Camrose 31 6.2 5.4 7.0 Below Below Lower

Edmonton

Respondents

(N)Mean

95% CIBelow/above

zone mean

(N = 25facilities)

Below/above

provincialmean

(N = 80facilities)

QuartileLower Upper

7.7 7.8

Good Samaritan George HennigPlace


Good Samaritan Spruce GroveCentre


Place Beausejour 16 8.8 8.1 9.4 Above Above Upper

Wild Rose Cottage 10 8.3 7.3 9.3 Above Above Upper

Rosedale St. Albert 26 8.1 7.5 8.7 Above Above Up. Mid.

Shepherds Care Vanguard 18 8.1 7.4 8.9 Above Above Up. Mid.

Rosedale at Griesbach 46 8.0 7.6 8.5 Above Above Up. Mid.

Country Cottage SeniorsResidence


Lifestyle Options Terra Losa 21 7.9 7.0 8.8 Above Above Up. Mid.

Citadel Mews West 27 7.9 7.1 8.6 Above Above Low. Mid.

Aspen House 27 7.9 7.0 8.7 Above Above Low. Mid.

Glastonbury Village 28 7.8 7.2 8.5 Above Below Low. Mid.

CapitalCare Laurier HouseLynnwood

55 7.8 7.4 8.1 Above Below Low. Mid.

Garneau Hall 15 7.7 6.6 8.9 Below Below Low. Mid.

Shepherds Gardens 21 7.7 6.9 8.5 Below Below Low. Mid.

Good Samaritan WedmanHouse/Village


Devonshire Manor 28 7.6 7.0 8.2 Below Below Low. Mid.

West Country Hearth 5 7.4 4.8 10.0 Below Below Low. Mid.

Shepherds Care Kensington 20 7.3 6.4 8.1 Below Below Lower

Saint Thomas Assisted LivingCentre


28


33/300


Edmonton

Respondents

(N)Mean


(N = 25facilities)


mean

(N = 80facilities)

QuartileLower Upper

7.7 7.8

Riverbend Retirement Residence 10 7.2 6.2 8.2 Below Below Lower

Shepherds Care Ashbourne 17 7.1 6.3 8.0 Below Below Lower

LifeStyle Options Riverbend 8 7.0 5.8 8.2 Below Below Lower

Innovative Housing - VillaMarguerite


Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle 37 6.4 5.5 7.4 Below Below Lower

North

Respondents

(N)Mean


(N = 3facilities)


mean

(N = 80facilities)

QuartileLower Upper

7.7 7.8

Ridgevalley Seniors Home 6 9.0 8.0 10.0 Above Above Upper

Points West Living Grande Prairie 24 7.1 6.1 8.2 Below Below Lower

Mountain View Centre 15 7.1 6.1 8.1 Below Below Lower

Chinook Lodge 6 9.5 8.8 10.0 Above Above Upper

Haven of Rest - South CountryVillage


South

Respondents

(N)Mean


(N = 18facilities)


mean

(N = 80facilities)

Quartile

Lower Upper

8.1 7.8

Clearview Lodge 10 8.7 8.0 9.4 Above Above Upper

Sunny South Lodge 11 8.6 7.7 9.6 Above Above Upper

Cypress View 8 8.6 7.2 10.0 Above Above Upper

Good Samaritan Vista Village 17 8.3 7.6 9.0 Above Above Up. Mid.

Good Samaritan Garden Vista 7 8.1 7.6 8.7 Above Above Up. Mid.

St. Therese Villa - St. MichaelsHealth Centre


Good Samaritan Park MeadowsVillage

22 8.0 7.3 8.7 Below Above Up. Mid.

The Wellington RetirementResidence

18 8.0 7.2 8.8 Below Above Up. Mid.

Columbia Assisted Living 22 8.0 7.4 8.5 Below Above Up. Mid.

Piyami Lodge 7 7.9 6.9 8.9 Below Above Up. Mid.

Orchard Manor 13 7.8 6.8 8.9 Below Above Low. Mid.

Good Samaritan Lee Crest 25 7.7 6.9 8.4 Below Below Low. Mid.

Legacy Lodge 28 7.5 6.8 8.2 Below Below Low. Mid.

29


34/300


South

Respondents

(N)Mean


(N = 18facilities)


mean

(N = 80facilities)

QuartileLower Upper

8.1 7.8

Extendicare Fairmont Park 39 7.3 6.7 7.9 Below Below Lower

York Creek Lodge 6 7.2 6.0 8.3 Below Below Lower

Meadow Lands 9 6.8 5.5 8.0 Below Below Lower

Note: Categorical decision rules based on the mean extend beyond the first decimal place. In the event of a tie, the lower limit of the

confidence interval was used as a sorting criterion.

30


35/300


7.2 General Satisfaction

The General Satisfaction Dimension of Care is comprised of the following questions (detailed zone results

of individual question responses can be found inAppendixI):

(Q46) Do you feel comfortable here?

(Q47) Do you feel you are getting your moneys worth here?

(Q48) Overall, do you like living here?

(Q49) Would you recommend this place to a family member or friend?

Table6summarizes the General Satisfaction Dimension of Care for facilities that participated in the

survey. Facilities are presented by mean scores on General Satisfaction and are grouped by zone to

facilitate comparisons at the zone and provincial level. To better aid in the interpretation of the findings,

the following features have been included in the table:

Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whether the facilitys average General

Satisfaction score is above or below the average facility score for the associated zone.

Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whether the facilitys average General

Satisfaction score is above or below the average facility rating for the province.

Quartile:Specifies the facilitys quartile grouping relative to all facilities in the province based

on the General Satisfaction Dimension of Care (see Table5for a description of the categories).

Table 5:Guide for interpretation

Quartile details (N = 80 faciliti es)

Quartiles Range

Upper(Highest 25% of scores)

91.4-100.0

Upper middle

(50-75thpercentile)

86.9-91.4

Lower middle

(25-50thpercentile)

81.2-86.9

Lower(Lowest 25% of scores)

0.0-81.2

Note: Categorical decision rules extend beyond the first decimal place.




The facility response margin of error was equal to or less than 10 per cent and/orthe facility had

a response rate of over 50 per cent among eligible respondents. For more details on the

determination of facility sample reliability and for a list of facility response rates and sample


31


36/300


The table below includes onlyfacilities which met the inclusion criteria (N = 80 facilities).

Table 6:Summary of facility means for General Satisfaction

Calgary

Respondents

(N)Mean


(N = 12facilities)


mean(N = 80

facilities)

QuartileLower Upper

86.3 85.2

Whitehorn Village 12 94.9 90.4 99.3 Above Above Upper

Aspen Ridge Lodge 12 93.2 88.7 97.7 Above Above Upper

Millrise Place 18 91.8 85.4 98.3 Above Above Upper

Eau Claire Retirement Residence 21 89.2 83.0 95.5 Above Above Up. Mid.

Edgemont Retirement Residence 18 89.1 83.8 94.4 Above Above Up. Mid.

Sagewood Supportive Living 21 88.0 78.6 97.4 Above Above Up. Mid.

Silver Willow Lodge 11 87.5 79.0 95.9 Above Above Up. Mid.

Prince of Peace Manor 20 85.6 78.3 92.9 Below Above Low. Mid.

Walden Supportive LivingCommunity


Wentworth Manor/The Residenceand The Court


Monterey Place 32 80.3 72.4 88.2 Below Below Lower

Scenic Acres RetirementResidence


Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22facilities)


mean(N = 80

facilities)

QuartileLower Upper

85.7 85.2

Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 14 96.4 91.5 100.0 Above Above Upper

West Park Lodge 20 96.0 92.9 99.2 Above Above Upper

Pines Lodge 8 95.8 91.4 100.0 Above Above Upper

Islay Assisted Living 11 95.3 90.1 100.0 Above Above Upper

Manor at Royal Oak 19 93.4 89.9 96.8 Above Above Upper

Hillview Lodge 19 93.3 88.4 98.1 Above Above Upper

Sunrise Village Olds 12 92.4 86.6 98.2 Above Above Upper

Vermillion Valley Lodge 15 92.3 88.7 95.8 Above Above Upper

Bethany Sylvan Lake 13 89.9 83.7 96.1 Above Above Up. Mid.

Good Samaritan Good ShepherdLutheran Home


Sunset Manor 45 88.6 84.3 92.9 Above Above Up. Mid.

Sunrise Village Ponoka 8 86.8 75.7 98.0 Above Above Low. Mid.

Providence Place 6 83.5 66.8 100.0 Below Below Low. Mid.

Clearwater Centre 15 83.1 70.5 95.8 Below Below Low. Mid.

32


37/300


Central

Respondents

(N)Mean


(N = 22facilities)


mean

(N = 80facilities)

QuartileLower Upper

85.7 85.2

Coronation Hospital and CareCentre


Points West Living Lloydminster 26 81.8 73.8 89.9 Below Below Low. Mid.

Extendicare Michener Hill 34 81.2 73.7 88.7 Below Below Lower

Wetaskiwin Meadows 10 76.6 64.4 88.8 Below Below Lower

Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 7 74.0 65.7 82.3 Below Below Lower

Bethany Meadows 10 73.3 50.7 95.9 Below Below Lower

Sunrise Village Camrose 33 72.4 64.7 80.1 Below Below Lower

Viewpoint 10 68.6 49.8 87.4 Below Below Lower

Edmonton

Respondents

(N)Mean

95% CI Below/abovezone mean

(N = 25facilities)

Below/aboveprovincialmean

(N = 80facilities)

QuartileLower Upper

82.9 85.2

Place Beausejour 17 95.5 91.5 99.4 Above Above Upper

Good Samaritan George HennigPlace


Good Samaritan Spruce GroveCentre


CapitalCare Laurier HouseLynnwood


West Country Hearth 5 90.0 70.4 100.0 Above Above Up. Mid.

Glastonbury Village 29 88.6 83.0 94.2 Above Above Up. Mid.

Country Cottage SeniorsResidence


Rosedale St. Albert 28

Documents

Supportive Living Resident Experience Survey Report Jan 2015