supportive living resident experience survey report

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

SUPPORTIVE LIVINGRESIDENT EXPERIENCESURVEY REPORT

January 2015

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) .......................................................................... 11 4.2 Survey protocol and sampling .................................................................................... 11 4.3 Quantitative analytical approach ................................................................................. 12 4.4 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 OF CARE .................................................................................................................................... 25

7.1 Global Overall Care rating .......................................................................................... 26 7.2 General Satisfaction ................................................................................................... 31 7.3 Meals and Dining ........................................................................................................ 36 7.4 Resident Environment ................................................................................................ 41 7.5 Activities ..................................................................................................................... 46 7.6 Relationship with Employees ...................................................................................... 50 7.7 Facility Environment ................................................................................................... 55 7.8 Communication ........................................................................................................... 60 7.9 Choice ........................................................................................................................ 65 7.10 Employee Responsiveness ........................................................................................ 70 7.11 Care and Services ...................................................................................................... 75 7.12 Laundry ....................................................................................................................... 80

8.0 ADDITIONAL CARE QUESTIONS ....................................................................................... 85

9.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIMENSIONS OF CARE AND GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING ................................................................................................................................ 92

9.1 General Satisfaction ................................................................................................... 92 9.2 Meals and Dining ........................................................................................................ 93 9.3 Resident Environment ................................................................................................ 93 9.4 Activities ..................................................................................................................... 94 9.5 Relationship with Employees ...................................................................................... 94 9.6 Facility Environment ................................................................................................... 95 9.7 Communication ........................................................................................................... 95 9.8 Choice ........................................................................................................................ 96 9.9 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 ................................................................................................................. 99 10.2 Facility ownership ..................................................................................................... 104

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

11.1 Propensity to recommend – provincial and zone results (Q49) ................................ 113 11.2 Propensity to recommend by Global Overall Care rating quartile ............................. 118 11.3 Propensity to recommend by facility size and ownership type .................................. 119

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

12.1 General Satisfaction ................................................................................................. 122 12.2 Meals and Dining ...................................................................................................... 122 12.3 Resident Environment .............................................................................................. 123 12.4 Activities ................................................................................................................... 123 12.5 Relationship with Employees .................................................................................... 123 12.6 Facility Environment ................................................................................................. 123 12.7 Communication ......................................................................................................... 124 12.8 Choice ...................................................................................................................... 124 12.9 Employee Responsiveness ...................................................................................... 124 12.10 Care and Services .................................................................................................... 124 12.11 Laundry ..................................................................................................................... 124 12.12 Other......................................................................................................................... 125

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

13.1 Limitations of the quantitative analyses .................................................................... 126 13.2 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 and propensity to recommend .................................................................................................... 182

APPENDIX I: Summary of provincial and zone level responses to individual survey questions ............................................................................................................................. 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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TheSupportiveLivingResidentExperienceSurveywasconductedbytheHealthQualityCouncilofAlbertaincollaborationwithAlbertaHealthandAlbertaHealthServices(AHS).Theintentofthesurveyistoestablishabaselinemeasurementforsupportivelivingresidents’experiences(supportivelivinglevel3and4residents)1thatcanbeusedforbenchmarkingandongoingmonitoringasmeasuredbytheGlobalOverallCareratingandthe11DimensionsofCare.Thisreportpresentsanoverviewofoverallfacilityperformanceacrosstheprovincefromthesupportivelivingresidents’perspective.Thisinformationcanbeusedtoassessperformancerelativetopeers,toidentifyopportunitiesforimprovement,andtoidentifyhigherperformingfacilities.

Survey process and methodology

ResidentsweresurveyedusingtheOhioResidentialCareFacility2013Survey.Thisisa49‐questioninstrumentthatassessestheresident’soverallevaluationoftheirsupportivelivingfacility,alongwith11DimensionsofCare:GeneralSatisfaction,MealsandDining,ResidentEnvironment,Activities,RelationshipwithEmployees,FacilityEnvironment,Communication,Choice,EmployeeResponsiveness,CareandServices,andLaundry.

EligiblerespondentswereidentifiedusingtheinterRAITMResidentAssessmentInstrument(RAI)obtainedfromAHSalongwithpre‐definedexclusioncriteriaappliedbyfacilitystaffandadministrators.Thequestionnairewascompletedeitheras:(1)aself‐administeredpapersurveyor(2)anin‐personinterview.Theresponserateforthissurveywas58.7percent.

Results

Global Overall Care rating

TheGlobalOverallCareratingreflectsresidents’overallevaluationofthesupportivelivingfacility.TheGlobalOverallCareratingfortheprovincewas7.8outof10.Therewasvariationamongthefacilitiesthroughouttheprovincewithindividualfacilityscoresrangingfrom6.2to9.5outof10.

Attheprovinciallevel,the11DimensionsofCarevaryintheirinfluenceonresidentexperienceandresidents’overallevaluationofthesupportivelivingfacility.ThegreatestgainsattheprovinciallevelmayberealizedbyfocusingonthestrongestinfluencersofGlobalOverallCare.

1Supportivelivinglevel3isforindividualswhosemedicalconditionisstableandappropriatelymanagedwithout24‐houron‐sitenursingstaff,butwhohavelimitedindependence.Supportivelivinglevel4isforindividualswithmorecomplexmedicalconditions.

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Thesearelistedinorderofdecreasinginfluenceandinclude:2,3

1. MealsandDining

2. ResidentEnvironment

3. Activities

4. RelationshipwithEmployees

5. FacilityEnvironment

6. Communication

7. Choice

8. EmployeeResponsiveness

9. CareandServices

10. Laundry

Inaddition,eachfacilityhastheirownuniqueareasoffocus,whichmaydifferfromthoseidentifiedfortheprovince.Thesearehighlightedinfacility‐levelreports,whichhavebeenprovidedtoeachfacilitythatparticipatedinthesurvey.

General Satisfaction

TheGeneralSatisfactionDimensionofCarehasthestrongestinfluenceontheGlobalOverallCarerating.Thisdimensionreflectsresidentexperienceswiththeirsenseofcomfortatthefacility,whethertheresidentthinkstheyaregettingtheirmoney’sworth,andwhethertheywouldrecommendthefacility.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas85.2outof100.Therewasvariabilityamongthefacilitiesthroughouttheprovincewithindividualfacilityscoresrangingfrom60.4to96.7outof100.ThisDimensionofCareaccountedforthegreatestnumberofinterviewercomments.Althoughthemajorityofcommentsrevealedresidentsweregenerallysatisfiedorhadnocomplaintsabouttheirsupportivelivingfacility,someofthecommentsincludedconstructivefeedbackandindicatedtherewasroomforimprovement.

Meals and Dining

TheMealsandDiningDimensionofCarehasthesecondmostinfluenceontheGlobalOverallCarerating.Thisdimensionreflectsresidentexperienceswithfoodandfoodservicesattheirfacility.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas79.9outof100.Therewasvariabilityamongthefacilitiesthroughouttheprovincewithindividualfacilityscoresrangingfrom60.4to95.5outof100.TheMeals

2TheGeneralSatisfactionDimensionofCarewasmoststronglyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCare;thisisexpectedgiventhequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCarereflectoverallopinionsaboutthefacility(correlationcoefficientr=0.643).However,withthegoalofidentifyingspecificareasforimprovement,GeneralSatisfaction,andthequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCare,isnotamenabletothistypeofevaluationorinterpretation,limitingitsutilitywhentargetingmeaningfulaspectsofcaretopotentiallychangeforthebenefitofresidents.3Choice,EmployeeResponsiveness,CareandServices,andLaundryDimensionsofCarewerenotsignificantlyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCareratingsintheprovincialanalyses.

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

andDiningDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelyeightpercentofallinterviewercomments.Mostofthesecommentswererelatedtoresidents’satisfactionwiththefoodservedattheirfacility.Whereassomeoftheresidentscomplimentedthequalityoffoodservedattheirfacility,otherresidentsexpressedthatthequalityofthefoodcouldbeimproved.

Resident Environment

TheResidentEnvironmentDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswithprivacy,theirroomatthefacility,theirpersonalsafety,andthesafetyoftheirbelongings.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas91.6outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom76.4to98.6outof100.TheResidentEnvironmentDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelyeightpercentofallinterviewercomments.Mostofthesecommentswererelatedtothesafetyofresidents’belongings.

Activities

TheActivitiesDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswiththeactivitiesattheirfacility.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas81.1outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom56.5to98.7outof100.TheActivitiesDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelysixpercentofallinterviewercomments.Mostofthesecommentswererelatedtonumberandtypeofactivitiesavailableattheirfacility.Ingeneral,residentsdesiredagreaternumberandvarietyofavailableactivitiesandforactivitiestobeinclusiveofallresidents.

Relationship with Employees

TheRelationshipwithEmployeesDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswiththecourteousness,friendliness,anddependabilityofemployeesattheirfacility.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas92.2outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom76.9to100outof100.TheRelationshipwithEmployeesDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelyninepercentofallinterviewercomments.Someresidentsdescribedemployeesasbeingwonderful,kind,andrespectful,whileotherresidentsfeltthatthewaytheyweretreatedbyemployeescouldbeimproved.

Facility Environment

TheFacilityEnvironmentDimensionofCarereflectsresidentopinionsaboutthefacility’slocation,attractiveness,noiselevels,andcleanliness.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas91.6outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom74.7to99.4outof100.TheFacilityEnvironmentDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelyfivepercentofallinterviewercomments.Mostofthesecommentswereconstructivefeedbackrelatedtothemaintenanceoffacilitygrounds,facilitydesign,andcleanlinessofthefacility.

Communication

TheCommunicationDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswithfacilitymanagement.Thescorefortheprovincewas87.7outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom63.8to98.5outof100.TheCommunicationDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelysevenpercentofallinterviewercomments.Someofthesecommentsdescribedmanagementstaffasapproachableandwillingtoaddressrequestsandconcerns,whereasotherresidentssaidthatcommunicationwithmanagementcouldbeimproved.

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Choice

TheChoiceDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswithhavingchoice,suchasthefreedomtogotobed,tocomeandgofromthefacilitywhenevertheychooseto,andtohavetheabilitytochoosewhatclothestowear.ThisDimensionofCarealsoexploreswhetheremployeesencourageresidentstodothingstheyareabletoandtoleaveresidentsalonewhentheydon’twanttodoanything.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas91.4outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom82.3to100outof100.TheChoiceDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelyfourpercentofallinterviewercomments.Someresidentsreportedtheywereabletomaketheirownchoiceswhileothersreportedfeelingthattheirchoiceswereconstrained.

Employee Responsiveness

TheEmployeeResponsivenessDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswiththeavailabilityofemployeesduringtheday,theevenings,andtheweekends.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas88.7outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom69.3to99.0outof100.TheEmployeeResponsivenessDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximately10percentofallinterviewercomments.Mostofthesecommentswererelatedtostaffinglevelsatthefacilityandhowlowstaffinglevelsnegativelyaffectedcareandservices.

Care and Services

TheCareandServicesDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswithtimelymedicationdelivery,whetheremployeesexplainthecareandservicestherespondentsarereceiving,theabilitytogetsnacksanddrinkswhenevertheywant,andwhetheremployeesarefamiliarwithresidentpreferences.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas82.9outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom60.7to96.8outof100.TheCareandServicesDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelysevenpercentofallinterviewercomments.Mostofthesecommentswererelatedtothedeliveryofcareandservices.Whilesomeresidentsthoughtcareandserviceswereexcellent,othersprovidedconstructivefeedbackinareaswherecareandservicescanbeimproved.

Laundry

TheLaundryDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswiththelaundryservicesattheirfacility.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas92.2outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom69.1to100outof100.TheLaundryDimensionofCarewastheDimensionleastcommentedonandaccountedforapproximatelyonepercentofallinterviewercomments.Ingeneral,residentssaidtheirlaundrywasnotreturnedtothemandasaresult,clothinghadgonemissing.

Quartile analyses

Facilitiesthatwerecategorizedintheupperquartile(i.e.,upper25percentofscores)ontheirGlobalOverallCareratingwerealsoratedmorepositivelyineachofthe11DimensionsofCare,relativetofacilitiesthatwerecategorizedinthelowerquartile(i.e.,lower25percentofscores).Thisanalysiswillassistlowerquartilefacilitiesindeterminingtheimportanceandfocusofqualityimprovementinitiatives.Upperquartileperformerscanbeusedasexamplesofhowtoachieveimprovedperformanceinvariousareas.Differencesinmeansbetweentheupperandlowerperformingfacilities,ineachofthe11DimensionsofCareare:

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GeneralSatisfaction:17.3outof100

MealsandDining:13.6outof100

ResidentEnvironment:7.3outof100

Activities:10.9outof100

RelationshipwithEmployees:9.1outof100

FacilityEnvironment:9.4outof100

Communication:11.9outof100

Choice:4.8outof100

EmployeeResponsiveness:11.1outof100

CareandServices:12.1outof100

Laundry:4.3outof100

Facility size

Overall,resultsshowedthatfacilitysizeisanimportantfactorthatinfluencesallDimensionsofCareandtheGlobalOverallCarerating.Asfacilitysizeincreases(i.e.,numberofbeds),theGlobalOverallCareratingandscoresfortheDimensionsofCaredecrease.Typically,smallerfacilities(i.e.,fewerbeds)havemorefavorableratingsthanlargerfacilities.ThisissimilartoafindingpreviouslyreportedbytheHealthQualityCouncilofAlbertaforthelongtermcaresector.4However,itwasnotedthattherewereafewlargefacilitiesthatreceivedrelativelyhighscoresandafewsmallfacilitiesthatreceivedrelativelylowscoresontheGlobalOverallCarerating.

Ownership type

Althoughthereweredifferencesamongownershiptypesforsomeoftheindividualquestionsinthesurvey,noevidencewasfoundtosuggestthattheGlobalOverallCareandDimensionsofCarescoresdifferedbyownershiptype(i.e.,AHS,privatelyowned,orvoluntaryowned).

Propensity to recommend

Provincially,88.9percentofrespondentsstatedthattheywouldrecommendtheirfacility.AgreaterpercentageofrespondentsfromfacilitiescategorizedintheupperquartileofGlobalOverallCareratingswouldrecommendtheirfacilityrelativetorespondentsfromlowerquartilefacilities(98.4%versus76.6%).

4Forfurtherdetailspleasereferto:http://hqca.ca/surveys/continuing‐care‐experience/

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Conclusion

Resultspresentedinthisreportareintendedtoguidereflectiononperformancebyidentifyingthefactorsthatcontributetotheoverallevaluationofafacilityfromtheresident’sperspective.Goingforward,resultsfromfacility‐levelreports,thisreport,andthe2014SupportiveLivingFamilyExperienceSurveyReportprovideabenchmarkbywhichtocomparefuturesurveyresultsandtomeasureimprovementoutcomes.Theongoingevaluationofafacilityagainstitself,anditspeers,willprovideopportunitiestoidentifyareasofsuccessandtodeterminetheimportanceandfocusofqualityimprovementinitiatives.Thiscansupportacultureofcontinualqualityimprovementbasedonfamilyandresidentfeedback.

Ataprovinciallevel,thegreatestgainsmayberealizedbyfocusingonimprovementtothefollowing,inorderofdecreasingpriorityandinfluenceonGlobalOverallCarerating:5,6

1. MealsandDining


3. Activities



6. Communication

Eachindividualfacilityhastheirownuniqueareasforimprovement,whichmaydifferfromthoseidentifiedfortheprovince.Facilitiesshouldrefertotheirfacility‐levelreportstobetterdeterminewheretofocusqualityimprovementeffortstobestmeettheneedsoftheirresidentsandfamilymembers.

Residentexperiencedataaloneshouldnotbeusedtojudgefacilityperformanceintheabsenceofotherinformationsuchaslevel‐of‐needoftheresidentpopulation,servicesprovided,otherqualitymeasuressuchasthosederivedfromtheinterRAITMResidentAssessmentInstrument,complaintsandconcerns,andcompliancewithprovincialcontinuingcarestandards.

5TheGeneralSatisfactionDimensionofCarewasmoststronglyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCare;thisisexpectedgiventhequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCarereflectoverallopinionsaboutthefacility(correlationcoefficientr=0.643).However,withthegoalofidentifyingspecificareasforimprovement,GeneralSatisfactionandthequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCare,isnotamenabletothistypeofevaluationorinterpretation,limitingitsutilitywhentargetingmeaningfulaspectsofcaretopotentiallychangeforthebenefitofresidents.6Choice,EmployeeResponsiveness,CareandServices,andLaundryDimensionsofCarewerenotsignificantlyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCareratingsintheprovincialanalyses.

6

REPORT ORGANIZATION

2.0 REPORT ORGANIZATION

Theprovincialreportconsistsofthefollowingsections:

1. Executivesummary

2. Reportorganization:descriptionofthesectionsofthereport.

3. Background:descriptionofcontinuingcareinAlbertaandpurposeandobjectivesofthesupportivelivingresidentexperiencesurvey.

4. Surveyprocessandmethodology:overviewofthesurveytoolsused,recruitmentprotocols,andanalyticalmethods.DetailscanbefoundinAppendixB.

5. Usingtheresults:purposeofthereportandalternativewaysofusingtheresults.

6. Overviewofsurveyresults:overviewoffacility‐levelresults.

7. FacilityresultsbyGlobalOverallCareratingandDimensionsofCare:detailedresultsoftheGlobalOverallCareratingquestionandthe11DimensionsofCareareoutlinedinthissection,includingfacilityresultsbyzoneandquartile(provincial).

8. Additionalcarequestions:descriptionofeightadditionalquestions;independentfromquestionsrelatedtothe11DimensionsofCare.

9. RelationshipbetweenDimensionsofCareandGlobalOverallCarerating:presentsresultsoflowerandupperquartilefacilitiesontheGlobalOverallCareratingforeachoftheDimensionsofCareandtheindividualcomponents(surveyquestions)thatcompriseeachDimensionofCare.

10. Facility‐leveleffects–Facilitysizeandownershiptype:informationaboutwhetherandhowfacilitycharacteristicssuchassize(i.e.,numberofbeds)andownershiptype(i.e.,private,public,andvoluntary)influenceGlobalOverallCareratingandratingsoftheDimensionsofCare.

11. Propensitytorecommendfacility:summaryresultsofquestion49:Wouldyourecommendthisplacetoafamilymemberorfriend?YesorNo?Thissectionprovidesfacilityresultswithineachzoneandprovinciallyforthepercentageofresidentswhowouldrecommendthefacility.

12. Qualitativeanalyticalresults:describesqualitativeanalyticalresultsforinterviewercommentsaboutresidentexperiences.

13. Limitations:describesimportantlimitationstoconsiderwheninterpretingsurveyresults.

14. Summaryoffindingsandconclusion

7

BACKGROU

3.0 B

3.1 C

Alberta’scpersonalcqualityofand/orlimthosestillrecognizinnursingho

Figure 1:

Supportivtooisolatesomeexteassessmenroominpupubliclyfuotheroptinursesor

7ContinuingC8DesignatedAundercontrac

UND

BACKGRO

Continuin

continuingcacare,andaccolife.Therearemitations:homabletoliveinngdifferentdomesetting.T

Streams of c

elivingisanedintheirownt,individualntoftheirneeubliclyfundeunded,resideonalservicesregularlysch

CareStandards2AssistedLivingorctwithAHS.Indiv

OUND

ng care str

aresystemproomodationseethreestreammecare,suppndependentlyegreesofindThefocusoft

continuing ca

optionforindwnhome,orhlscanchooseedsbyAlbertdDesignatedntsaregener.Supportivelheduledvisits

008:http://wwwDesignatedSuppvidualsareassess

reams

ovidesAlbertrvicestheynmsofcontinuportiveliving,y;supportiveependence;athisreportiso

are7

dividualswhoavemorecomewhichsuppoaHealthServdSupportiveLrallyresponsilivingfacilitiebyphysician

w.health.alberta.caortiveLivingrefesedandplacedby

tansofadvaneedtosuppouingcareinA,andfacilityllivingisprovandfacilitylivonlevels3an

owantamainmplexneedstortivelivingovices(AHS),inLiving.8Althoibleforpayinesarenotreqns.

a/documents/CorstodesignatedryAHSbasedonan

ncedageordirttheirdailyAlbertatailoreliving(Figurevidedinashavingorlongtend4ofthesu

ntenance‐freethanthoseproptionisrightndividualsmoughservicesngfortheirroquiredtoprov

ontinuing‐Care‐Stroomsinthesuppnindividual’shea

isabilitywithactivities,indedtothecliene1).Homecaaredaccomodermcare,ispupportivelivin

eenvironmenrovidedforbytforthem.Baaybeeligibleforassessedoom,meals,hovideonsite24

tandards‐2008.pdportivelivingstrealthcareneeds.

thehealthcardependence,nts’levelofneareisprovidedationsettingprovidedinangstream.

nt,feeltheyayhomecare.asedonaneforaspaceocareneedsaousekeeping4‐hourregist

dfeamthatareoper

re,andeededtog

areTo

orareandtered

rated

8

BACKGROUND

ThefourdefinedlevelsintheSupportiveLivingstream9are:

SupportiveLivingLevel1(SL1):thislevelofcareisalsoreferredtoasResidentialLivingandisdesignedforindividualswhoareindependent,canmanagemostdailytasks,andareresponsibleformakingdecisionsaroundtheirday‐to‐dayactivities.Publicallyfundedhomecaremaybeprovided,butthereisnoonsite24‐hourstaffing.

SupportiveLivingLevel2(SL2):thislevelofcareisalsoreferredtoasLodgeLivingandisdesignedforindividualswhoaregenerallyindependent(e.g.,canmanagesomedailytasks),andcanarrange,manage,and/ordirecttheirowncare.Publicallyfundedhomecaremaybecontinuallyprovided,butthereisnoonsite24‐hourstaffing.

SupportiveLivingLevel3(SL3):thislevelofcareisforindividualswhosemedicalconditionisstableandappropriatelymanagedwithout24‐houron‐sitenursingstaff,butwhohavelimitedindependence.Theseindividualsneedhelpwithmanytasksand/ordecision‐makinginday‐to‐dayactivities.Personalcareatthislevelisgenerallyprovidedwithinasetschedule;however,unscheduledpersonalassistancemayalsobeprovided.Publicallyfundedscheduledhomecareisprovidedandtrainedandcertifiedhealthcareaidestaffison‐siteona24‐hourbasis(registerednurseon‐call).

SupportiveLivingLevel4(SL4):thislevelofcareisalsoreferredtoasEnhancedAssistedLivingandisforindividualswithmorecomplexmedicalconditions.Theseindividualstendtohaveverylimitedindependence,havesignificantlimitations,andneedhelpwithmostoralltasks,aswellasdecisionsaboutday‐to‐dayactivities.Publicallyfundedscheduledhomecaremaybeprovidedandatrainedlicensedpracticalnurseand/orhealthcareaideison‐siteona24‐hourbasis.

SupportiveLivingLevel4Dementia(SL4‐D):thislevelofcareisasubsetofSL4andisdesignedforpersonswhohavesignificantlimitationsduetodementia.

3.2 Supportive living surveys

TheSupportiveLivingFamilyandResidentExperienceSurveyswereconductedbytheHealthQualityCouncilofAlberta(HQCA),incollaborationwithAHSandAlbertaHealth(AH).ThesurveysassistprovidersinmeetingtheContinuingCareHealthServiceStandardsthatrequireproviderstohaveprocessestogatherclientandfamilyexperiencefeedbackregardingthequalityofcareandserviceprovided.

3.2.1 Purpose

TheoverallpurposeofthissurveywastoobtainfeedbackfromresidentsaboutthequalityofcareandservicesreceivedatsupportivelivingfacilitiesacrossAlbertaandtoprovidesupportivelivingfacilitiesandotherstakeholderswithinformationthatcanbeusedforongoingqualitymonitoringand

9Formoreinformation,seehttp://www.albertahealthservices.ca/Seniors/if‐sen‐living‐option‐guidelines.pdf

9

BACKGROUND

improvement.Thisreportfocusesonresponsesfromresidentswhorequiremorethanminimalcareandliveinsupportivelivinglevels3and4.10

3.2.2 Objectives

Theobjectivesofthesurveywereto:

Establishabaselinemeasurementforsupportivelivingresidents’experiencesthatcanbeusedforongoingbenchmarkingandmonitoring.

IdentifyandreportonimprovementopportunitiesandbestpracticesatsupportivelivingfacilitiesacrossAlbertatoinformqualityimprovementeffortsinvarioustopicsincluding:residentinvolvement,privacy,andchoice;facilityenvironment;employeerelationsandresponsivenesstoresidents;communicationbetweenresidentsandmanagement;mealsanddining;laundry;andqualityofcareandservicesingeneral.

10SL1and2clientsareexcludedbecausethosewhorequirepubliclyfundedcareservicesreceivethemfromHomeCare,notSupportiveLiving.

10

SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

4.0 SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

4.1 The survey instrument (Appendix A)

ResidentsofsupportivelivingfacilitiesweresurveyedusingtheOhioResidentialCareFacility2013Survey(AppendixA)developedbytheScrippsGerontologyCenterandfundedbytheOhioDepartmentofAging.Thisisa49‐questioninstrumentthatassessestheresident’soverallevaluationofthesupportivelivingfacility(i.e.,GlobalOverallCarerating),alongwith11DimensionsofCare:Activities,Choice,CareandServices,RelationshipwithEmployees,EmployeeResponsiveness,Communication,MealsandDining,Laundry,FacilityEnvironment,ResidentEnvironment,andGeneralSatisfaction.

4.1.1 Additional questions

Asaresultoffindingsintheliteratureandconsultationwithstakeholders,eightadditionalquestionsrelatedtocareandserviceswereaddedandusedinthepresentsurvey(AppendixA).Thesequestionswereconstructedwithresponseandwordingconsistentwiththecoreinstrument.

TheGlobalOverallCarerating0to10scalewastakenfromtheConsumerAssessmentofHealthcareProvidersandServices(CAHPS®)NursingHomeSurvey:FamilyMemberInstrument11forthepurposesofcomparisonwithotherinstrumentsusedinthemeasurementofsatisfactionincontinuingcare(suchastheSupportiveLivingFamilyExperienceSurveyReportandtheLongTermCareFamilyExperienceSurveyReport).

Standarddemographicquestions(Question59‐65)werealsoadded.

4.2 Survey protocol and sampling12

ThesurveywasconductedasacensusofalleligibleparticipantsfromApril2013toSeptember2013.EligiblerespondentswereidentifiedusingtheinterRAITMResidentAssessmentInstrument(RAI)obtainedfromAHSalongwithpre‐definedexclusioncriteriaappliedbyfacilitystaffandadministrators.Thefollowingindividualswereexcluded:13

Residentslivinginpersonalcarehomes(SL1);grouporfamilycarehomesorlodges(SL2);specialcarehomes(includingmentalhealthsupporthomesandlongtemrcareonlyfacilities);SL4‐dementiaresidents.

Residentsfromfacilitieswithlanguagebarriers(Englishwasnotthefirstlanguageinthefacility).

Residentswhonolongerresidedatthefacility.

Residentswhoweretooill,inhospital,orinpalliativecare.

Residentswhoposedariskofharmtotheinterviewer.

11ForfurtherdetailsonCAHPSpleasereferto:https://cahps.ahrq.gov/12Forfulldetailsofthissection,seeAppendixB.13Forfullexclusioncriteria,seeAppendixC.

11


Residentswholivedinthefacilityforlessthanonemonthorwereconsideredatransitionalresident.

ResidentswithaCognitivePerformanceScale(CPS)scoreof5to6(severeimpairmentorverysevereimpairment).

Thequestionnairewascompletedeitheras:1)aself‐administeredpapersurvey,or2)anin‐personinterview.DatafromtheRAIwasusedtoassignresidentstoeitheraself‐administeredpapersurveyorin‐personinterview(referredtointhisreportasmodality).14Prioritywasgiventoself‐administeredpapersurveys,howeveranin‐personinterviewwasofferedtothosemeetingthefollowingcriteria:

ACPSscoreof3to4(moderatetomoderate‐severeimpairment).

ResidentswithCPSof0,1,or2(intacttomildimpairment)andavisionscoreof3to4(highlytoseverelyimpaired).

ResidentswithCPSof0,1,or2(intacttomildimpairment)andnovisionscore.

Toaccommodateresidentpreference,eligibleresidentswereprovidedwiththeoptionofchoosingthealternatemodalityatthetimeofthefacilityvisit.Inaddition,residentswhorefusedtoparticipatewereofferedthealternatemodalitytowhichtheywereassigned.

Residentsfromthethreesupportivelivingownershipmodels(i.e.,thosewhichprovidepublicallyfundedsupportivelivingcareinAlberta)weresurveyed.ThethreeownershipcategorieswereidentifiedusingdataobtainedfromAHS2012data,andare:

Public–operatedbyorwhollyownedsubsidiaryofAHS(10facilities).

Private–ownedbyaprivateorganization(69facilities).

Voluntary–ownedbyanot‐for‐profitorfaith‐basedorganization(75facilities).

Theresponserateforthissurveywas58.7percent(2,035outofapossible3,518eligibleresidentscompletedandreturnedthesurveyorcompletedanin‐personinterview).Themainmodeofparticipationwasthroughin‐personinterviews(N=1,432;70.4%ofallrespondents).Forabreakdownofsamplingbyzone,seeAppendixB.

4.3 Quantitative analytical approach

Forthisreport,atestwasdeemedstatisticallysignificant(i.e.,differencesreferredtoassignificantthroughoutthereport)iftheprobabilityoftheeventoccurringbychancealonewaslessthanorequalto5percent(p<0.05).

14Thedecisiontoimplementadual‐modalitysurveydeliveryprotocolwasinformedbyapilotstudythatfoundingeneraltherewerenosignificantdifferencesinresponsesamongsurveyquestionsdependingonhowthesurveyinstrumentwasadministered,whichsupportedtreatingbothpapersurveyandin‐personinterviewsasequallyvalidmodesforcompletingthesurvey.Forasimilaranalysistothecurrentsurvey,seeAppendixD.

12


Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:

Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND

Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixE.

Toconservedatafromfacilitieswhichdidnotmeettheaboveinclusioncriteria,responsesfromallfacilities(withatleastonerespondent;124facilitiesintotal)wereincludedindescriptiveanalysesofzoneandprovincialresultswhereappropriate(analyseswhichincludedatafromallfacilitiesarelabelledthroughout).Unlessotherwisestated,allanalysesinthisreportarebasedonlyonthosefacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=80facilities).15

Othernotes:

Percentagesmaynotalwaysaddto100percentduetorounding.

Facility,zone,andprovincialresultsarepresentedingraphswhichinclude95percentconfidenceintervals(95%CI).Theseintervalsaremeanttoaidthereaderingaugingstatisticallysignificantdifferencesinresults.Asageneralrule,intervalsthatdonotoverlapreflectsignificantdifferencesbetweenmeasures.Incontrast,intervalsthatdooverlapreflectnon‐significantdifferencesbetweenmeasures.

Lowerlimitsofthe95percentCIthatrangebelowzerowillbereportedaszero.Upperlimitsofthe95percentCIthatrangeabove100willbereportedas100.Thesechangeswillbemarkedwith†.

4.3.1 Global Overall Care rating

TheGlobalOverallCareratingreflectstherespondent’soverallevaluationofthesupportivelivingfacility.Thisisasingleitemmeasureintendedtoreflectarespondent’ssummativeopinionaboutthefacility.TheGlobalOverallCareratingquestionasks:Usinganynumberfrom0to10,where0istheworstand10isthebestcarepossible,whatnumberwouldyouusetoratethecareatthesupportivelivingfacility?

15Includedfacilitiesaccountfor80.4percentofallrespondents(1,636of2,035)and73.2percentofalleligiblerespondents(2,574of3,518).Surveyfindingsdidnotdiffersignificantlyrelativetoresidentswhoresidedinfacilitieswhowereincludedandresidentswhoresidedinfacilitiesthatwereexcluded.”Foradditionaldetails,seeAppendixE.

13


4.3.2 Dimensions of Care

TheOhioResidentialCareFacility2013Surveycollectsrespondentratingsfrom11DimensionsofCare.The49questionsusedtocomputethe11DimensionsofCarearedescribedbelow:

1. GeneralSatisfaction

a) (Q46)Doyoufeelcomfortablehere?

b) (Q47)Doyoufeelyouaregettingyourmoney’sworthhere?

c) (Q48)Overall,doyoulikelivinghere?

d) (Q49)Wouldyourecommendthisplacetoafamilymemberorfriend?

2. MealsandDining

a) (Q28)Doyougetenoughtoeat?

b) (Q29)Isthefoodheretasty?

c) (Q30)Canyougetthefoodsyoulike?

d) (Q31)Isyourfoodservedattherighttemperature?

e) (Q32)Doyoulikethewayyourmealsareservedhere?


a) (Q40)Doyouhaveenoughprivacyinyourroomorapartment?

b) (Q41)Areyousatisfiedwithyourroomorapartment?

c) (Q42)Doyoufeelsafehere?

d) (Q43)Areyourbelongingssafehere?

e) (Q44)Doyouthinkthisisapleasantplaceforpeopletovisit?

f) (Q45)Istheroomtemperaturecomfortableforyou?

4. Activities

a) (Q1)Doyouhaveenoughtodohere?

b) (Q2)Doyougetenoughinformationabouttheactivitiesofferedhere?

c) (Q3)Areyousatisfiedwiththeactivitiesofferedhere?

d) (Q4)Canyouchoosewhatactivitiesyoudohere?


a) (Q15)Aretheemployeescourteoustoyou?

b) (Q16)Canyoudependontheemployees?

c) (Q17)Arethepeoplewhoworkherefriendly?

d) (Q18)Dotheemployeestreatyouwithrespect?

14



a) (Q35)Doyoulikethelocationofthisplace?

b) (Q36)Aretheoutsidewalkwaysandgroundswelltakencareof?

c) (Q37)Doesthisplacelookattractivetoyou?

d) (Q38)Isthisplacecleanenough?

e) (Q39)Isthisplacequietwhenitshouldbe?

7. Communication

a) (Q23)Arethepeopleinchargeavailabletotalk?

b) (Q24)Dothepeopleinchargetreatyouwithrespect?

c) (Q25)Wouldyoufeelcomfortablespeakingtothepeopleinchargeaboutaproblem?

d) (Q26)Doyouknowwhotogotoherewhenyouhaveaproblem?

e) (Q27)Doyourproblemsgettakencareofhere?

8. Choice

a) (Q5)Canyougotobedwhenyoulike?

b) (Q6)Dotheemployeesleaveyoualoneifyoudon’twanttodoanything?

c) (Q7)Dothepeoplethatworkhereencourageyoutodothethingsyouareabletodoyourself?

d) (Q8)Areyoufreetocomeandgoasyouareable?

e) (Q9)Aretherulesherereasonable?

f) (Q10)Canyouchoosewhatclothestowear?


a) (Q19)Duringtheweek,areemployeesavailabletohelpyouifyouneedit?

b) (Q20)Duringtheweekend,areemployeesavailabletohelpyouifyouneedit?

c) (Q21)Duringtheeveningandnight,areemployeesavailabletohelpyouifyouneedit?

d) (Q22)Doyoufeelconfidentthatemployeesknowhowtodotheirjobs?

10. CareandServices

a) (Q11)Canyougetsnacksanddrinkswheneveryouwantthem?

b) (Q12)Doyougetyourmedicationsontime?

c) (Q13)Doemployeesexplainyourcareandservicestoyou?

d) (Q14)Dotheemployeeswhotakecareofyouknowwhatyoulikeanddon’tlike?

15


11. Laundry

a) (Q33)Doyougetclothingbackfromthelaundry?

b) (Q34)Doesyourclothingcomebackingoodcondition?

Foreachrespondent,ascoreoneachofthe11DimensionsofCarewascomputedasfollows:

1. MeanscoresforeachDimensionofCarewerecalculatedbyscalingtherelevantsurveyitems(i.e.,questions)toa0to100scale,wherezerowastheleastpositiveormostundesiredoutcome/responseand100wasthemostpositiveormostdesiredoutcome/response(formoreinformationonscalingprocedures,seeAppendixB).

2. DimensionscoreswerethencalculatedbysummingindividualscaledsurveyitemsanddividingthetotalscorebythenumberofitemswithineachDimensionofCare(meanoraveragescores).

ADimensionofCarescorewasgeneratedforallrespondentswhoansweredaminimumnumberofquestionswithintheDimensionofCare(N‐2).16Respondentswhomettheminimumcriterionhadmissingvaluesreplacedbythefacilitymeanforthatquestion.ScaledresponseswerethensummedanddividedbythenumberofitemswithineachDimensionofCaretoarriveatasummaryscore(seeAppendixBformoredetails).Weightsforeachquestionweredeterminedaccordingtofactorloadinginafactoranalysisusingapromaxrotation.

Forcompletequestion‐levelresults,seethefollowingappendices:

AppendixF:Respondentversusnon‐respondent:acomparisonondifferencesbetweenrespondentsandnon‐respondents.

AppendixG:Additionalrespondentdetails:detailsrespondentcharacteristicsincludinggender,age,education,RAI(CPSandvisionscores),sharedroom,andself‐reportedoverallhealthandmental/emotionalhealth.

AppendixI:Summaryofprovincialandzonelevelresults:includescompletequestion‐leveldetailsofthesurveytool.

4.3.3 Facility comparison to zone and provincial averages

Foreachfacility,scoresfortheGlobalOverallCareratingandeachofthe11DimensionsofCarewerecomparedtotheaverageforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurveywithintheirrespectiveAHSzoneandtheprovincialaverageasfollows:

Below/abovezonemean:Azonemeanwascreatedbyaddingthescoresforallfacilitieswithinazoneandthendividingbythenumberoffacilitieswithinthezone.Foreachfacility,thereportindicateswhetherthefacilityscorefellbeloworabovethezonemean.

Below/aboveprovincialmean:Aprovincialmeanwascreatedbyaddingthescoresforallfacilitieswithintheprovinceandthendividingbythenumberoffacilitieswithinthe

16N‐2criterionisthestandardminimumquestioncriterionfortheOhiotool.

16


province(N=80).Foreachfacility,thereportindicateswhetherthefacilityscorefellbeloworabovetheprovincialmean.

4.3.4 Facility categorization by quartile

Facilities(N=80)werecategorizedintofourquartiles17basedontheirmeanGlobalOverallCarerating:

Upper(top25%offacilities)

Uppermiddle

Lowermiddle

Lower(bottom25%offacilities)

4.3.5 Modeling

AregressionmodelwasconstructedtoexaminetherelativeinfluenceoftheDimensionsofCareontheGlobalOverallCarerating.Thisanalysisshowedanassociationbetweenthe11DimensionsofCareoftheOhioSurveywiththeGlobalOverallCarerating(fordetailedresultsofthisanalysis,seeAppendixK).DimensionsofCarearelistedinorderofdecreasingstrengthofassociationwiththeGlobalOverallCarerating:

1. GeneralSatisfaction18

2. MealsandDining


4. Activities



7. Communication

8. Choice


10. CareandServices

11. Laundry

17Aquartilerepresentsfourequalgroupsintowhichapopulationcanbedividedaccordingtothedistributionofvaluesofaparticularmeasure;eachgroupcomprises25percentofthedata.18GeneralSatisfactionwasthemoststronglyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCareratings.ThisisexpectedgiventhatthequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCarereflectoverallorgeneralopinionsaboutthefacility.However,withthegoalofidentifyingspecificareasforimprovement,GeneralSatisfactionandthequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCareisnotamenabletothistypeofevaluationorinterpretation,limitingitsutilitywhentargetingmeaningfulaspectsofcaretopotentiallychangeforthebenefitofresidents.DespitetheimportanceofGeneralSatisfactioninthepredictionofGlobalOverallCareratings(correlationcoefficientr=0.643),theDimensionofGeneralSatisfactionwillbeexcludedintheformulationofthefinaladjustedmodel(AppendixK).

17


Withinthisreport,resultsarepresentedinorderoftheirstrengthofassociationwiththeGlobalOverallCarerating.

4.4 Qualitative analytical approach

Aspartofthestudyprotocol,interviewerswereinstructedtodocumentanyandalldetailsrelatedtotheintervieworinterviewattempt.Intotal,interviewersrecorded2,352comments.Themajorityofthesecommentswererelatedtoresidents’motivationstoparticipateornotparticipateinthesurvey,werecommentsdetailingsurveystatusincludingneedforfollow‐upwithresidents,orweregeneralcommentsaboutthesurvey.Inaminorityofcases(166ofthe2,352comments),interviewersdocumentedinformativecommentsrelevanttoresidentexperiences.Thesecommentsofferedadditionalinsightsnotcapturedinsurveyresponses,andasaresult,aqualitativeanalysiswasundertaken.Thepurposeofthisportionoftheanalysiswastosupplementsurveyfindingsandpresentprominentthemesaboutresidents’experiences,asrecordedbyinterviewers,inrelationtofacilityliving.Becauseitwasnottheoriginalintendedpurposetocollectcommentstoinformthestudy,considerationsassociatedwiththeiruse(scope,privacy,confidentiality,andethicaluse)arediscussedinAppendixJ.

4.4.1 Method and analysis of comments

Thecommentsdocumentedduringinterviewswereexaminedformultiplethemesandideasandwereclassifiedinaccordancetooneofthe11DimensionsofCare.WhenacommentcouldnotbecategorizedwithinanyoftheDimensionsofCare,anewthemewasidentified.Newthemesincluded:Transportation,SafetyandSecurity,andHealthcareServices.Eachthemewasdefinedbyalistofattributesthatguidedhowcommentswerecoded(seeTable120inAppendixJforcodingbytheme).DetailedqualitativeresultscanbefoundinSection12andAppendixJ.

18

USING THE RESULTS

5.0 USING THE RESULTS

Thefocusofthisreportistoestablishabaselinemeasurementforsupportivelivingresidents’experiencesthatcanbeusedforongoingbenchmarkingandmonitoring.ThereportpresentsfactorsthatdrivetheGlobalOverallCarerating,representedbythe11DimensionsofCare,whichcansubsequentlybeusedtoidentifyimprovementopportunitiesandbestpracticesatsupportivelivingfacilitiesacrossAlberta.

Readersshouldbeawarethatmanyadditionalfactorsmaycontributetoboththeresident’sandfamilymembers’experienceofafacility.Ultimately,facility‐levelresultsareintendedtoguidereflectiononperformanceandidentifyqualityimprovementopportunitiesatthefacilitylevel.Residentexperiencedataaloneshouldnotbeusedtojudgefacilityperformanceintheabsenceofotherinformation,suchaslevel‐of‐needoftheresidentpopulation,otherqualitymeasures,suchasthosederivedfromtheRAI,complaintsandconcerns,andcompliancewithprovincialcontinuingcarestandards.

Thisreportexaminesfacility‐levelresultsandprovidesasingleperspectiveofseveralpossibleinterpretationsofthesefindings.Facilitiesandotherstakeholdersmaychoosetoexamineandinterpretthefindingsdifferently.Examplesmayinclude:

Provincial‐levelcomparisonsonly

OneDimensionofCare(orquestionswithin)overothers,irrespectiveofprovincialorpeergroupcomparisons

OneormoreDimensionsofCareirrespectiveofhowthefacilityscored

Iffacilitiesandotherstakeholdersaremindfulofthelimitationsofthedata,thereareanumberofwaystheresultscanbeinterpretedandused.

19

OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS

6.0 OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS

Table2providesacomprehensivesummaryoffacility‐levelresultsbasedonthe11DimensionsofCareandthemeanGlobalOverallCareratingforeachfacility.Itincorporatesinformationfromallareasofcareandservicesmeasuredinthesurveyandprovidesthemostcompleterepresentationofoverallfacilityperformance.

Criteriaemphasizewithin‐zonefacilitycomparisons.19DetailedresultsoftheGlobalOverallCareratingandindividualDimensionsofCareareprovidedinSection7.Facilitiesareorderedaccordingtothefollowingcriteria.Criteriaarelistedinorderofpriority.Intheeventofatieononelevel,thenextsortinglevelwasused:

1. ThenumberofinstancesinwhichafacilityhadaDimensionofCarescorelowerthanitsassociatedzonemean(i.e.,average),orderedfromlowesttohighest.

2. ThenumberofinstancesafacilityhadaDimensionofCarescorelowerthantheprovincialmean,orderedfromlowesttohighest.

3. ThenumberofinstancesafacilitywasinthelowerquartileoffacilitiesonaDimensionofCare,fromlowesttohighest.

4. ThefacilitymeanGlobalOverallCareratingfromhighesttolowest.

Othervariablesincludedinthistablearethenumberofsurveyscollectedandfacilitysize.Facilitysizewasmeasuredbythetotalnumberofbedsatthefacility(e.g.,includinglongtermcare).20Facilitiesaregroupedbyquintilewherethefirstquintilerepresentsthe20percentoffacilitieswiththesmallestnumberofbeds,andthefifthquintilerepresentsthe20percentoffacilitieswiththehighestnumberofbeds(Table1).

Table 1: Facility size quintile groupings

Quintile (# facilities 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

19Itwasdeterminedthatthemostrelevantcomparisonsarebetweenpeers(facilitieswithinthesamezones)andthereforethecriteriaemphasizewithin‐zonefacilitycomparisons.Itisimportanttonotesomereadersmaywanttoemphasizeacomparisontoprovincialresult.Inthiscase,theabsolutevaluesofthecriteriacolumnscanbeexaminedontheirown.20InformationonthenumberofbedswasretrievedfromAHSusingcurrentdataasofMarch2012,datafromwhichtheoriginalsamplesizewasestimatedfrom.Itisrecognizedthatthereisacertaindegreeofuncertaintyinthebedcount,forexample,downsizingandupsizingofsomefacilitiesthroughoutthestudyperiod.However,itisbelievedthat,ingeneral,bednumbersreflectareasonableestimateofthesizeofthefacility.

20

OV

ER

VIE

W O

F S

UR

VE

Y R

ES

UL

TS

Tab

le 2

: C

ompr

ehen

sive

sum

mar

y of

faci

lity

resu

lts

Ord

erin

g c

rite

rio

n

Cri

teri

on

1

Cri

teri

on

2

Cri

teri

on

3

Cri

teri

on

4

# o

ut o

f 11

Dim

ens

ion

s o

f Ca

re w

her

e fa

cilit

y is

:

Ord

er

Ca

lga

ry

(N =

12

fa

cili

ties

) F

ac

ilit

y s

ize

q

uin

tile

R

es

po

nd

en

ts

(N)

Be

low

Zo

ne

mea

n

on

a d

ime

ns

ion

Be

low

pro

vin

cia

l m

ea

n o

n a

d

ime

ns

ion

At

low

er

qu

art

ile

of

pro

vin

cia

l m

ean

o

n a

dim

en

sio

n

Fac

ilit

y m

ean

G

lob

al

Ove

rall

C

are

rat

ing

(0 t

o 1

0)

1

Asp

en R

idg

e Lo

dge

2

12

1

1

1

8.1

2

Mill

rise

Pla

ce

3

19

2

1

0

8.3

3

Ed

ge

mon

t R

etir

eme

nt

Re

sid

ence

2

1

8 3

2

0

7

.5

4

Ea

u C

lair

e R

etir

eme

nt

Re

sid

ence

4

2

1 4

2

0

7

.7

5

Sa

ge

wo

od

Su

ppor

tive

Liv

ing

4

22

5

1

0

8.2

6

Pri

nce

of

Pea

ce M

an

or

3

20

5

2

0

8.0

7

Silv

er

Will

ow

Lo

dge

3

1

2 5

4

2

7

.9

8

Whi

teh

orn

Vill

age

4

13

5

5

0

7.6

9

Sce

nic

Acr

es R

etir

em

ent

Res

iden

ce

2

14

7

7

5

6.8

10

Wen

two

rth

Man

or/T

he

Res

ide

nce

and

Th

e C

ou

rt

5

11

9

7

3

7.6

11

Wal

den

Su

ppo

rtiv

e L

ivin

g C

om

mu

nity

5

5

0 1

0 1

0 4

7

.9

12

Mo

nte

rey

Pla

ce

5

35

10

10

5

7.0

Ord

er

Ce

ntr

al

(N =

22

fa

cili

ties

) F

ac

ilit

y s

ize

q

uin

tile

R

es

po

nd

en

ts

(N)

Be

low

Zo

ne

mea

n

on

a d

ime

ns

ion

Be

low

pro

vin

cia

l m

ea

n o

n a

d

ime

ns

ion

At

low

er

qu

art

ile

of

pro

vin

cia

l m

ean

o

n a

dim

en

sio

n

Fac

ilit

y m

ean

G

lob

al

Ove

rall

C

are

rat

ing

(0 t

o 1

0)

1

Isla

y A

ssis

ted

Liv

ing

2

11

0

0

0

8.7

2

Wes

t Pa

rk L

odg

e 3

2

0 0

0

0

8

.7

3

Su

nris

e V

illag

e W

eta

skiw

in

2

14

0

0

0

8.4

4

Ve

rmill

ion

Va

lley

Lo

dge

3

15

0

0

0

8.0

21

OV

ER

VIE

W O

F S

UR

VE

Y R

ES

UL

TS

Ord

er

Ce

ntr

al

(N =

22

fa

cili

ties

) F

ac

ilit

y s

ize

q

uin

tile

R

es

po

nd

en

ts

(N)

Be

low

Zo

ne

mea

n

on

a d

ime

ns

ion

Be

low

pro

vin

cia

l m

ea

n o

n a

d

ime

ns

ion

At

low

er

qu

art

ile

of

pro

vin

cia

l m

ean

o

n a

dim

en

sio

n

Fac

ilit

y m

ean

G

lob

al

Ove

rall

C

are

rat

ing

(0 t

o 1

0)

5

Su

nris

e V

illag

e O

lds

2

12

1

0

0

8.7

6

Hill

vie

w L

odg

e 3

1

9 1

0

0

8

.6

7

Pin

es

Lodg

e 2

8

1

1

0

8

.7

8

Ma

nor

at

Ro

yal O

ak

2

19

2

1

1

7.3

9

Go

od

Sa

ma

ritan

Go

od

Sh

ephe

rd L

uth

era

n

Ho

me

4

25

3

2

0

8.5

10

Su

nse

t M

anor

4

4

6 3

2

0

8

.2

11

Su

nris

e V

illag

e P

ono

ka

2

8

4

4

1

7.3

12

Co

ron

atio

n H

osp

ital a

nd

Ca

re C

entr

e

3

10

5

3

1

7.7

13

Pro

vid

en

ce P

lace

1

7

5

4

1

9

.2

14

Wet

aski

win

Me

ado

ws

2

10

6

5

4

7.4

15

Cle

arw

ate

r C

entr

e 4

1

5 7

7

2

7

.3

16

Be

than

y S

ylva

n L

ake

4

1

3 7

7

5

8

.3

17

Su

nris

e V

illag

e D

rayt

on

Va

lley

1

8

8

8

6

7.2

18

Po

ints

Wes

t Liv

ing

Llo

ydm

inst

er

4

27

9

5

4

7.5

19

Ext

en

dic

are

Mic

hen

er H

ill

5

36

10

8

4

7.8

20

Be

than

y M

ea

do

ws

5

10

10

10

9

6.6

21

Su

nris

e V

illag

e C

am

rose

4

3

3 1

0 1

0 1

0 6

.2

22

Vie

wp

oin

t 2

1

0 1

1 1

1 9

7

.1

Ord

er

Ed

mo

nto

n

(N =

25

fa

cili

ties

) F

ac

ilit

y s

ize

q

uin

tile

R

es

po

nd

en

ts

(N)

Be

low

Zo

ne

mea

n

on

a d

ime

ns

ion

Be

low

pro

vin

cia

l m

ea

n o

n a

d

ime

ns

ion

At

low

er

qu

art

ile

of

pro

vin

cia

l m

ean

o

n a

dim

en

sio

n

Fac

ilit

y m

ean

G

lob

al

Ove

rall

C

are

rat

ing

(0 t

o 1

0)

1

Go

od

Sa

ma

ritan

Sp

ruce

Gro

ve C

en

tre

2

13

0

0

0

8.9

2

Wes

t Co

untr

y H

ear

th

1

5

0

0

0

7.4

3

Pla

ce B

eau

sejo

ur

3

18

0

1

0

8.8

4

Ro

sed

ale

St.

Alb

ert

4

28

0

1

0

8.1

5

Cita

del M

ew

s W

est

4

30

0

3

0

7.9

22

OV

ER

VIE

W O

F S

UR

VE

Y R

ES

UL

TS

Ord

er

Ed

mo

nto

n

(N =

25

fa

cili

ties

) F

ac

ilit

y s

ize

q

uin

tile

R

es

po

nd

en

ts

(N)

Be

low

Zo

ne

mea

n

on

a d

ime

ns

ion

Be

low

pro

vin

cia

l m

ea

n o

n a

d

ime

ns

ion

At

low

er

qu

art

ile

of

pro

vin

cia

l m

ean

o

n a

dim

en

sio

n

Fac

ilit

y m

ean

G

lob

al

Ove

rall

C

are

rat

ing

(0 t

o 1

0)

6

Go

od

Sa

ma

ritan

Ge

org

e H

enn

ig P

lace

2

1

4 1

1

0

9

.0

7

Ro

sed

ale

at

Grie

sba

ch

5

51

1

3

1

8.0

8

Co

un

try

Co

tta

ge S

en

iors

Re

sid

ence

2

1

1 2

4

1

8

.0

9

Sh

eph

erd

’s C

are

Ke

nsi

ngt

on

5

20

2

5

1

7.3

10

De

von

shire

Man

or

4

28

3

5

2

7.6

11

Ga

rne

au H

all

3

15

4

4

3

7.7

12

Sh

eph

erd

’s G

arde

ns

3

21

4

5

2

7.7

13

Gla

sto

nbur

y V

illag

e

4

29

4

7

3

7.8

14

Life

Sty

le O

ptio

ns

Riv

erb

end

2

10

5

6

4

7.0

15

Wild

Ros

e C

otta

ge

2

13

6

6

2

8.3

16

Life

styl

e O

ptio

ns T

err

a Lo

sa

4

24

6

7

3

7.9

17

Ca

pita

lCar

e L

aurie

r H

ouse

Lyn

nw

oo

d 4

5

7 7

8

3

7

.8

18

Sh

eph

erd

’s C

are

Va

ngu

ard

5

2

0 7

8

6

8

.1

19

Go

od

Sa

ma

ritan

Wed

man

Hou

se/V

illag

e 4

1

8 8

1

0 7

7

.7

20

Riv

erb

end

Re

tirem

en

t R

esi

den

ce

3

11

9

10

8

7.2

21

Sa

int

Th

om

as A

ssis

ted

Liv

ing

Cen

tre

5

4

2 1

0 1

0 9

7

.2

22

Asp

en H

ouse

3

3

0 1

0 1

1 8

7

.9

23

Sh

eph

erd

’s C

are

Ash

bou

rne

3

17

11

11

9

7.1

24

Inno

vativ

e H

ou

sing

- V

illa

Ma

rgue

rite

5

6

3 1

1 1

1 9

6

.6

25

Inno

vativ

e H

ou

sing

- 1

14 G

rave

lle

4

38

11

11

11

6.4

Ord

er

No

rth

(N =

3 f

acili

tie

s)

Fa

cil

ity

siz

e

qu

inti

le

Re

sp

on

de

nts

(N)

Be

low

Zo

ne

mea

n

on

a d

ime

ns

ion

Be

low

pro

vin

cia

l m

ea

n o

n a

d

ime

ns

ion

At

low

er

qu

art

ile

of

pro

vin

cia

l m

ean

o

n a

dim

en

sio

n

Fac

ilit

y m

ean

G

lob

al

Ove

rall

C

are

rat

ing

(0 t

o 1

0)

1

Rid

ge

valle

y S

en

iors

Ho

me

1

7

0

0

0

9.0

2

Mo

unt

ain

Vie

w C

entr

e 4

1

6 9

1

1 7

7

.1

3

Po

ints

Wes

t Liv

ing

Gra

nde

Pra

irie

5

2

7 1

1 1

0 1

0 7

.1

23

OV

ER

VIE

W O

F S

UR

VE

Y R

ES

UL

TS

Ord

er

So

uth

(N =

18

fa

cili

ties

) F

ac

ilit

y s

ize

q

uin

tile

R

es

po

nd

en

ts

(N)

Be

low

Zo

ne

mea

n

on

a d

ime

ns

ion

Be

low

pro

vin

cia

l m

ea

n o

n a

d

ime

ns

ion

At

low

er

qu

art

ile

of

pro

vin

cia

l m

ean

o

n a

dim

en

sio

n

Fac

ilit

y m

ean

G

lob

al

Ove

rall

C

are

rat

ing

(0 t

o 1

0)

1

Cle

arv

iew

Lo

dge

2

1

1 0

0

0

8

.7

2

Ch

inoo

k Lo

dge

2

6

1

1

0

9.5

3

Su

nn

y S

ou

th L

odg

e 2

1

2 1

1

0

8

.6

4

Go

od

Sa

ma

ritan

Vis

ta V

illag

e 4

1

7 1

1

0

8

.3

5

Go

od

Sa

ma

ritan

Ga

rde

n V

ista

3

8

3

2

1

8

.1

6

Orc

hard

Man

or

2

13

4

4

0

7.8

7

Th

e W

ellin

gto

n R

etir

em

ent

Res

iden

ce

3

18

5

3

1

8.0

8

Ha

ven

of

Res

t - S

ou

th C

oun

try

Vill

ag

e 5

1

0 5

4

1

9

.0

9

Piy

am

i Lod

ge

2

7

6

5

3

7.9

10

Me

ado

w L

and

s 1

9

6

5

4

6

.8

11

St.

Th

ere

se V

illa

- S

t. M

ich

aels

He

alth

Cen

tre

5

66

7

4

0

8.1

12

Go

od

Sa

ma

ritan

Le

e C

rest

5

2

6 7

4

2

7

.7

13

Cyp

ress

Vie

w

2

8

7

5

4

8.6

14

Col

umbi

a A

ssis

ted

Liv

ing

3

23

8

7

2

8.0

15

Go

od

Sa

ma

ritan

Pa

rk M

ead

ow

s V

illa

ge

5

25

9

6

0

8.0

16

Yo

rk C

reek

Lod

ge

2

6

9

9

5

7.2

17

Le

gacy

Lod

ge

5

30

10

7

6

7.5

18

Ext

en

dic

are

Fai

rmo

nt P

ark

5

4

2 1

0 9

5

7

.3

Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.

24

FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE

7.0 FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE

ThefollowingsectionprovidesdetailedresultsoftheGlobalOverallCareratingandindividualDimensionsofCareforeachfacility.

GlobalOverallCareratingsarepresentedfirstandreflecttherespondents’overallevaluationofthesupportivelivingfacility.Thisisasingleitemmeasureintendedtoreflectarespondent’ssummativeopinionaboutthefacility.GlobalOverallCareratingasks:Usinganynumberfrom0to10where,0istheworstand10isthebestcarepossible,whatnumberwouldyouusetoratethecareatthesupportivelivingfacility?

DimensionsofCarearepresentedinorderoftheirinfluenceontheGlobalOverallCarerating,(asdeterminedthrougharegressionmodel;seeAppendixK).

DimensionsofCarearepresentedasfollows:

1. GeneralSatisfaction

2. MealsandDining


4. Activities



7. Communication

8. Choice


10. CareandServices

11. Laundry

DetailedzoneanalysesofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixI.

25


7.1 Global Overall Care rating

TheresidentGlobalOverallCareratingfortheprovincewas7.8outof10.Table4summarizestheGlobalOverallCareratingsforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.Facilitiesarepresentedbymeanfacilityratingandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:

Beloworabovezonemean:Whetherthefacility’saverageGlobalOverallCareratingisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheassociatedzone.

Beloworaboveprovincialmean:Whetherthefacility’saverageGlobalOverallCareratingisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.

Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheGlobalOverallCarerating(seeTable3foradescriptionofthecategories).

Table 3: Guide for interpretation

Quartile details (N = 80 facilities)

Quartiles Range

Upper (Highest 25% of scores)

8.3-10.0

Upper middle

(50-75th percentile) 7.9-8.3

Lower middle


Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)

0.0-7.4

Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.




26


Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=80facilities).

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

Calgary

Respondents

(N) Mean

95% CI Below/above zone mean

(N = 12 facilities)

Below/above provincial

mean

(N = 80 facilities)

Quartile Lower 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 Living Community

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 Residence and 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 Retirement Residence

12 6.8 5.5 8.0 Below Below Lower

Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


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 Shepherd Lutheran 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 Care Centre


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

27


Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


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


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


7.7 7.8

Good Samaritan George Hennig Place


Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre


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.

Shepherd’s 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 Seniors Residence


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 House Lynnwood

55 7.8 7.4 8.1 Above Below Low. Mid.

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

Shepherd’s Gardens 21 7.7 6.9 8.5 Below Below Low. Mid.

Good Samaritan Wedman House/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.

Shepherd’s Care Kensington 20 7.3 6.4 8.1 Below Below Lower

Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre


28


Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


7.7 7.8

Riverbend Retirement Residence 10 7.2 6.2 8.2 Below Below Lower

Shepherd’s 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 - Villa Marguerite


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

North

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 3 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


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 Country Village


South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


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. Michaels Health Centre


Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village

22 8.0 7.3 8.7 Below Above Up. Mid.

The Wellington Retirement Residence


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


South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


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:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.Intheeventofatie,thelowerlimitoftheconfidenceintervalwasusedasasortingcriterion.

30


7.2 General Satisfaction

TheGeneralSatisfactionDimensionofCareiscomprisedofthefollowingquestions(detailedzoneresultsofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixI):

(Q46)Doyoufeelcomfortablehere?

(Q47)Doyoufeelyouaregettingyourmoney’sworthhere?

(Q48)Overall,doyoulikelivinghere?

(Q49)Wouldyourecommendthisplacetoafamilymemberorfriend?

Table6summarizestheGeneralSatisfactionDimensionofCareforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresonGeneralSatisfactionandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:

Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageGeneralSatisfactionscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.

Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageGeneralSatisfactionscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.

Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheGeneralSatisfactionDimensionofCare(seeTable5foradescriptionofthecategories).



Quartiles Range


91.4-100.0

Upper middle


Lower middle



0.0-81.2





31



Table 6: Summary of facility means for General Satisfaction

Calgary

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 12 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


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


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.



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








Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


85.7 85.2

Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 14 96.4 91.5 100.0† 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



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.




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


Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


85.7 85.2



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





Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


82.9 85.2





13 92.5 84.2 100.0† Above Above Upper



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.





Garneau Hall 15 86.4 75.6 97.3 Above Above Low. Mid.

Aspen House 30 85.2 78.2 92.2 Above Below Low. Mid.

Shepherd’s Care Kensington 20 84.6 76.8 92.4 Above Below Low. Mid.

Citadel Mews West 29 84.5 78.3 90.7 Above Below Low. Mid.



Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 19 83.1 77.0 89.2 Above Below Low. Mid.

Devonshire Manor 28 83.1 75.0 91.3 Above Below Low. Mid.

Lifestyle Options Terra Losa 24 81.6 71.5 91.7 Below Below Low. Mid.

Shepherd’s Gardens 21 80.4 69.4 91.3 Below Below Lower

Wild Rose Cottage 13 80.0 68.5 91.5 Below Below Lower


33


Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


82.9 85.2








North

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 3 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


81.4 85.2




South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


87.6 85.2

Clearview Lodge 11 96.7 92.2 100.0† Above Above Upper

Chinook Lodge 6 93.2 86.7 99.6 Above Above Upper

Good Samaritan Garden

Vista 7 92.3 85.2 99.4 Above Above Upper

Cypress View 7 91.7 82.1 100.0† Above Above Upper



Sunny South Lodge 12 91.3 83.0 99.6 Above Above Up. Mid.

Good Samaritan Vista Village 17 90.0 82.3 97.7 Above Above Up. Mid.





Good Samaritan Lee Crest 25 88.7 82.5 94.8 Above Above Up. Mid.

Orchard Manor 13 87.8 77.7 98.0 Above Above Up. Mid.



Columbia Assisted Living 22 85.8 80.3 91.3 Below Above Low. Mid.

Legacy Lodge 28 85.3 78.2 92.4 Below Above Low. Mid.

34


South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


87.6 85.2

York Creek Lodge 6 84.9 71.0 98.8 Below Below Low. Mid.

Extendicare Fairmont Park 41 83.8 77.2 90.4 Below Below Low. Mid.

Piyami Lodge 7 76.4 63.4 89.3 Below Below Lower



35


7.3 Meals and Dining21

TheMealsandDiningDimensionofCareiscomprisedofthefollowingquestions(detailedzoneresultsofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixI):

(Q28)Doyougetenoughtoeat?

(Q29)Isthefoodheretasty?

(Q30)Canyougetthefoodsyoulike?

(Q31)Isyourfoodservedattherighttemperature?

(Q32)Doyoulikethewayyourmealsareservedhere?

Table8summarizestheMealsandDiningDimensionofCareforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresonMealsandDiningandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:

Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageMealsandDiningscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.

Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageMealsandDiningscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.

Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheMealsandDiningDimensionofCare(seeTable7foradescriptionofthecategories).



Quartiles Range


83.8-100

Upper middle


Lower middle



0.0-77.2


21Itisimportanttonotethatresidentsatsupportivelivingfacilitiesarenotlimitedtothemealsservedonsite.Someroomsareequippedwithstovesand/ormicrowavestohelpresidentspreparetheirownmeals.Therefore,therelevanceofsomequestionsmaydifferbyfacility.ThequestionsinthisDimensionwereaskedwithoutcapturingwhethertheseaspectswereapplicable.

36






Table 8: Summary of facility means for Meals and Dining

Calgary

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 12 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


79.6 79.9


Scenic Acres Retirement Residence 14 83.6 75.4 91.9 Above Above Up. Mid.

Aspen Ridge Lodge 12 83.1 77.5 88.7 Above Above Up. Mid.



Monterey Place 32 81.0 76.2 85.8 Above Above Up. Mid.





Prince of Peace Manor 20 77.6 70.7 84.6 Below Below Low. Mid.

Silver Willow Lodge 12 75.1 66.5 83.6 Below Below Lower



Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


81.7 79.9








37


Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


81.7 79.9

Bethany Sylvan Lake 13 85.8 78.8 92.7 Above Above Upper

Hillview Lodge 18 83.6 78.3 88.9 Above Above Up. Mid.

Providence Place 7 83.1 71.2 95.0 Above Above Up. Mid.

Wetaskiwin Meadows 10 82.3 74.5 90.0 Above Above Up. Mid.

Clearwater Centre 15 81.8 75.5 88.2 Above Above Up. Mid.



Points West Living Lloydminster 26 81.6 72.7 90.5 Below Above Up. Mid.

Extendicare Michener Hill 36 81.4 77.5 85.2 Below Above Up. Mid.

Sunrise Village Ponoka 8 81.1 69.6 92.6 Below Above Up. Mid.

Sunset Manor 45 80.8 76.7 85.0 Below Above Up. Mid.


25 80.0 74.4 85.6 Below Above Low. Mid.





Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


77.6 79.9





Rosedale St. Albert 27 89.3 84.7 93.8 Above Above Upper

Lifestyle Options Terra Losa 24 86.7 81.9 91.6 Above Above Upper


Garneau Hall 15 84.8 77.2 92.4 Above Above Upper

West Country Hearth 4 84.5 70.7 98.4 Above Above Upper

Wild Rose Cottage 12 80.1 69.0 91.2 Above Above Low. Mid.

Country Cottage Seniors Residence 10 79.4 68.5 90.3 Above Below Low. Mid.

Rosedale at Griesbach 49 78.7 72.9 84.5 Above Below Low. Mid.



LifeStyle Options Riverbend 9 77.5 68.1 87.0 Below Below Low. Mid.


38


Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


77.6 79.9



Aspen House 30 77.1 70.5 83.6 Below Below Lower




Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 19 73.6 65.5 81.7 Below Below Lower



Devonshire Manor 28 69.3 60.6 78.0 Below Below Lower

Shepherd’s Care Kensington 20 68.5 61.1 75.9 Below Below Lower





North

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 3 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


80.9 79.9

Ridgevalley Seniors Home 7 90.0 83.7 96.3 Above Above Upper

Mountain View Centre 15 78.2 67.6 88.8 Below Below Low. Mid.


South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


80.8 79.9


Piyami Lodge 7 89.0 82.2 95.8 Above Above Upper

Good Samaritan Garden Vista 7 86.9 83.2 90.5 Above Above Upper



Cypress View 8 81.0 70.2 91.7 Above Above Up. Mid.



Legacy Lodge 27 80.9 73.7 88.1 Above Above Up. Mid.



39


South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


80.8 79.9



Good Samaritan Lee Crest 26 80.0 74.5 85.4 Below Above Low. Mid.

Orchard Manor 12 79.3 71.7 86.8 Below Below Low. Mid.

Chinook Lodge 6 79.2 68.0 90.3 Below Below Low. Mid.

Good Samaritan Vista Village 17 78.5 70.9 86.2 Below Below Low. Mid.

Meadow Lands 9 78.3 63.3 93.3 Below Below Low. Mid.

Columbia Assisted Living 22 77.7 70.7 84.7 Below Below Low. Mid.

Sunny South Lodge 12 77.3 67.4 87.3 Below Below Low. Mid.




40


7.4 Resident Environment

TheResidentEnvironmentDimensionofCareiscomprisedofthefollowingquestions(detailedzoneresultsofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixI):

(Q40)Doyouhaveenoughprivacyinyourroomorapartment?

(Q41)Areyousatisfiedwithyourroomorapartment?

(Q42)Doyoufeelsafehere?

(Q43)Areyourbelongingssafehere?

(Q44)Doyouthinkthisisapleasantplaceforpeopletovisit?

(Q45)Istheroomtemperaturecomfortableforyou?

Table10summarizestheResidentEnvironmentDimensionofCareforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresonResidentEnvironmentandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:

Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageResidentEnvironmentscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.

Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageResidentEnvironmentscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.

Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheResidentEnvironmentDimensionofCare(seeTable9foradescriptionofthecategories).



Quartiles Range


94.2-100

Upper middle


Lower middle



0.0-89.3


41






Table 10: Summary of facility means for Resident Environment

Calgary

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 12 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.1 91.6

Eau Claire Retirement Residence 21 96.1 93.7 98.4 Above Above Upper

Sagewood Supportive Living 21 95.9 93.4 98.4 Above Above Upper


Edgemont Retirement Residence 18 94.3 88.9 99.8 Above Above Upper


Millrise Place 19 91.6 86.7 96.5 Below Above Low. Mid.

Silver Willow Lodge 11 90.8 85.3 96.2 Below Below Low. Mid.






Monterey Place 31 89.3 84.9 93.7 Below Below Low. Mid.



Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.8 91.6







Sunset Manor 45 95.0 92.8 97.2 Above Above Upper

42


Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.8 91.6

Clearwater Centre 15 94.5 90.1 98.9 Above Above Upper

Pines Lodge 8 94.0 87.1 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

Sunrise Village Ponoka 8 93.9 86.5 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

Sunrise Village Olds 12 93.1 90.1 96.2 Above Above Up. Mid.




Wetaskiwin Meadows 10 92.2 87.5 96.8 Below Above Low. Mid.

Providence Place 6 91.8 85.6 98.1 Below Above Low. Mid.

Points West Living Lloydminster 26 91.8 87.1 96.5 Below Above Low. Mid.



Extendicare Michener Hill 34 91.8 88.5 95.0 Below Above Low. Mid.


Bethany Meadows 10 87.2 73.3 100.0† Below Below Lower



Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


90.4 91.6






Citadel Mews West 29 94.1 90.9 97.4 Above Above Up. Mid.




Devonshire Manor 28 93.8 90.7 97.0 Above Above Up. Mid.




Garneau Hall 15 93.1 88.6 97.6 Above Above Up. Mid.


Shepherd’s Gardens 21 92.9 88.5 97.4 Above Above Up. Mid.



43


Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


90.4 91.6

Shepherd’s Care Kensington 19 92.6 87.8 97.4 Above Above Up. Mid.

West Country Hearth 5 91.9 82.2 100.0† Above Above Low. Mid.

Lifestyle Options Terra Losa 24 91.0 85.3 96.7 Above Below Low. Mid.





Wild Rose Cottage 13 86.8 75.9 97.7 Below Below Lower







North

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 3 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


91.6 91.6




South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


91.3 91.6



Good Samaritan Vista Village 17 95.2 91.8 98.5 Above Above Upper







Columbia Assisted Living 22 92.0 87.8 96.1 Above Above Low. Mid.

Orchard Manor 13 91.5 86.7 96.4 Above Below Low. Mid.

44


South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


91.3 91.6




Good Samaritan Garden Vista 7 90.5 74.6 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.

Cypress View 8 89.8 78.9 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.


10 89.8 78.6 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.


Legacy Lodge 27 87.7 82.2 93.1 Below Below Lower




45


7.5 Activities

TheActivitiesDimensionofCareiscomprisedofthefollowingquestions(detailedzoneresultsofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixI):

(Q1)Doyouhaveenoughtodohere?

(Q2)Doyougetenoughinformationabouttheactivitiesofferedhere?

(Q3)Areyousatisfiedwiththeactivitiesofferedhere?

(Q4)Canyouchoosewhatactivitiesyoudohere?

Table12summarizestheActivitiesDimensionofCareforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresonActivitiesandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:

Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageActivitiesscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.

Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageActivitiesscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.

Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheActivitiesDimensionofCare(seeTable11foradescriptionofthecategories).



Quartiles Range


86.4-100.0

Upper middle


Lower middle



0.0-75.8





46



Table 12: Summary of facility means for Activities

Calgary

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 12 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


85.6 81.1






Silver Willow Lodge 11 89.0 81.6 96.3 Above Above Upper


Prince of Peace Manor 19 85.2 78.9 91.4 Below Above Up. Mid.



Sagewood Supportive Living 22 83.3 75.4 91.2 Below Above Up. Mid.





Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


78.8 81.1



Islay Assisted Living 11 85.9 77.2 94.6 Above Above Up. Mid.

West Park Lodge 20 85.4 79.0 91.7 Above Above Up. Mid.


Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 14 83.7 72.5 95.0 Above Above Up. Mid.


24 83.2 75.1 91.4

Above Above Up. Mid.

Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 8 82.6 77.1 88.2 Above Above Up. Mid.


10 82.4 73.5 91.3

Above Above Up. Mid.

Sunrise Village Camrose 31 81.8 75.1 88.4 Above Above Low. Mid.

Sunrise Village Olds 10 81.4 69.2 93.5 Above Above Low. Mid.

Sunset Manor 43 81.0 75.5 86.5 Above Below Low. Mid.

Providence Place 7 80.6 66.7 94.4 Above Below Low. Mid.

Sunrise Village Ponoka 8 79.5 64.5 94.4 Above Below Low. Mid.

47


Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


78.8 81.1

Bethany Sylvan Lake 13 78.5 67.7 89.4 Below Below Low. Mid.

Points West Living Lloydminster 27 75.3 66.0 84.6 Below Below Lower

Manor at Royal Oak 18 75.1 65.3 84.9 Below Below Lower






Edmonton Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


80.3 81.1



Devonshire Manor 26 89.3 85.2 93.5 Above Above Upper







LifeStyle Options Riverbend 8 84.5 78.4 90.6 Above Above Up. Mid.





Place Beausejour 18 80.7 71.3 90.1 Above Below Low. Mid.

Riverbend Retirement Residence 11 80.6 70.4 90.8 Above Below Low. Mid.

Shepherd’s Care Kensington 18 79.0 72.0 86.1 Below Below Low. Mid.




Aspen House 30 76.2 68.5 84.0 Below Below Low. Mid.



Glastonbury Village 27 75.6 67.3 83.9 Below Below Lower




48


Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


80.3 81.1



Garneau Hall 15 72.0 59.7 84.2 Below Below Lower



North

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 3 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


73.0 81.1

Ridgevalley Seniors Home 7 86.2 75.3 97.2 Above Above Up. Mid.



South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


83.3 81.1

Piyami Lodge 7 98.7 96.0 100.0† Above Above Upper




Orchard Manor 12 90.3 83.6 97.0 Above Above Upper






Cypress View 7 82.0 61.5 100.0† Below Above Up. Mid.

Legacy Lodge 28 81.9 73.8 90.0 Below Above Up. Mid.







York Creek Lodge 5 78.8 56.5 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.



Good Samaritan Garden Vista 8 63.6 54.0 73.1 Below Below Lower


49


7.6 Relationship with Employees

TheRelationshipwithEmployeesDimensionofCareiscomprisedofthefollowingquestions(detailedzoneresultsofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixI):

(Q15)Aretheemployeescourteoustoyou?

(Q16)Canyoudependontheemployees?

(Q17)Arethepeoplewhoworkherefriendly?

(Q18)Dotheemployeestreatyouwithrespect?

Table14summarizestheRelationshipwithEmployeesDimensionofCareforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresonRelationshipwithEmployeesandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:

Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageRelationshipwithEmployeesscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.

Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageRelationshipwithEmployeesscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.

Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheRelationshipwithEmployeesDimensionofCare(seeTable13foradescriptionofthecategories).



Quartiles Range


95.7-100.0

Upper middle


Lower middle



0.0-89.7




Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.Formoredetailsonthe

50


determinationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixE.


Table 14: Summary of facility means for Relationship with Employees

Calgary

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 12 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


93.0 92.2

Sagewood Supportive Living 20 96.6 93.1 100.0† Above Above Upper

Aspen Ridge Lodge 12 95.2 90.1 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

Millrise Place 19 94.9 91.8 97.9 Above Above Up. Mid.






11 93.2 87.4 99.0 Above Above Low. Mid.

Walden Supportive Living Community 50 91.5 88.4 94.6 Below Below Low. Mid.



Scenic Acres Retirement Residence 14 87.7 78.9 96.5 Below Below Lower

Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.5 92.2

Manor at Royal Oak 19 99.1 97.9 100.0† Above Above Upper





Hillview Lodge 19 97.0 93.4 100.0† Above Above Upper



Wetaskiwin Meadows 10 94.9 88.4 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

Coronation Hospital and Care Centre 10 94.2 88.7 99.6 Above Above Up. Mid.

Sunrise Village Ponoka 8 93.9 85.9 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

Vermillion Valley Lodge 15 92.9 87.4 98.3 Above Above Low. Mid.

Providence Place 7 92.4 82.9 100.0† Below Above Low. Mid.

51


Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.5 92.2



Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 7 91.8 85.6 98.0 Below Below Low. Mid.




Bethany Sylvan Lake 13 89.1 81.6 96.6 Below Below Lower




Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


91.3 92.2

Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre 13 98.1 95.5 100.0† Above Above Upper



West Country Hearth 5 96.8 90.6 100.0† Above Above Upper

Shepherd’s Gardens 21 96.4 93.5 99.4 Above Above Upper

Citadel Mews West 29 96.3 93.4 99.2 Above Above Upper

Garneau Hall 13 96.2 92.2 100.0† Above Above Upper


Country Cottage Seniors Residence 11 95.3 89.0 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.


Place Beausejour 18 95.2 91.9 98.4 Above Above Up. Mid.





Wild Rose Cottage 13 90.4 83.5 97.3 Below Below Low. Mid.

CapitalCare Laurier House

Lynnwood 57 90.0 86.6 93.4 Below Below Low. Mid.

Devonshire Manor 28 90.0 85.2 94.8 Below Below Low. Mid.





52


Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


91.3 92.2

Saint Thomas Assisted Living

Centre 42 83.7 78.1 89.2 Below Below Lower




Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite 63 79.8 74.6 85.0 Below Below Lower

North

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 3 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


88.4 92.2

Ridgevalley Seniors Home 6 93.1 82.4 100.0† Above Above Low. Mid.

Mountain View Centre 16 90.3 84.5 96.0 Above Below Low. Mid.


South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


93.1 92.2



Good Samaritan Vista Village 17 98.0 95.9 100.0† Above Above Upper

Meadow Lands 9 97.2 91.7 100.0† Above Above Upper

Sunny South Lodge 12 95.9 91.2 100.0† Above Above Upper

Good Samaritan Garden Vista 8 95.7 89.4 100.0† Above Above Upper


Haven of Rest - South Country

Village 10 93.4 87.1 99.8 Above Above Up. Mid.

The Wellington Retirement

Residence 18 93.1 87.0 99.1 Below Above Low. Mid.



Piyami Lodge 7 91.7 82.9 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.





Cypress View 8 89.7 81.0 98.3 Below Below Lower

53


South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


93.1 92.2

Good Samaritan Lee Crest 26 89.3 83.5 95.2 Below Below Lower

Columbia Assisted Living 23 89.2 83.6 94.9 Below Below Lower



54


7.7 Facility Environment

TheFacilityEnvironmentDimensionofCareiscomprisedofthefollowingquestions(detailedzoneresultsofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixI):

(Q35)Doyoulikethelocationofthisplace?

(Q36)Aretheoutsidewalkwaysandgroundswelltakencareof?

(Q37)Doesthisplacelookattractivetoyou?

(Q38)Isthisplacecleanenough?

(Q39)Isthisplacequietwhenitshouldbe?

Table16summarizestheFacilityEnvironmentDimensionofCareforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresonFacilityEnvironmentandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:

Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageFacilityEnvironmentscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.

Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageFacilityEnvironmentscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.

Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheFacilityEnvironmentDimensionofCare(seeTable15foradescriptionofthecategories).



Quartiles Range


95.4-100.0

Upper middle


Lower middle



0.0-88.8





55




Table 16: Summary of facility means for Facility Environment

Calgary

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 12 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.8 91.6

Aspen Ridge Lodge 12 98.8 96.7 100.0† Above Above Upper



Eau Claire Retirement Residence



Edgemont Retirement Residence


Prince of Peace Manor 20 91.8 87.8 95.7 Below Above Low. Mid.



Sagewood Supportive Living 20 91.6 85.7 97.5 Below Above Low. Mid.






Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.3 91.6







Providence Place 7 95.6 89.8 100.0† Above Above Upper




Islay Assisted Living 11 94.6 91.5 97.7 Above Above Up. Mid.

Pines Lodge 8 94.4 89.4 99.5 Above Above Up. Mid.

56


Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.3 91.6

Points West Living Lloydminster



Clearwater Centre 15 92.2 88.5 95.9 Below Above Low. Mid.

Extendicare Michener Hill 35 91.7 88.2 95.1 Below Above Low. Mid.

Sunrise Village Ponoka 8 89.4 79.0 99.9 Below Below Low. Mid.








Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


90.2 91.6

Place Beausejour 18 98.2 96.1 100.0† Above Above Upper






LifeStyle Options Riverbend 10 95.4 92.8 98.0 Above Above Up. Mid.







Shepherd’s Gardens 21 92.0 85.3 98.8 Above Above Low. Mid.





Riverbend Retirement Residence


Lifestyle Options Terra Losa 23 88.8 84.7 92.9 Below Below Lower

57


Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


90.2 91.6












Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle


North

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 3 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


87.3 91.6

Ridgevalley Seniors Home 7 93.6 86.5 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.


Points West Living Grande Prairie


South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.4 91.6





Good Samaritan Garden Vista 7 95.2 92.6 97.8 Above Above Up. Mid.

Piyami Lodge 7 94.3 91.1 97.4 Above Above Up. Mid.

Cypress View 8 93.0 84.8 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.






Orchard Manor 13 92.3 88.2 96.5 Below Above Up. Mid.

58


South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.4 91.6

Meadow Lands 9 92.2 86.6 97.8 Below Above Low. Mid.

Extendicare Fairmont Park 41 91.7 87.8 95.7 Below Above Low. Mid.



Legacy Lodge 27 90.7 85.7 95.8 Below Below Low. Mid.






59


7.8 Communication

TheCommunicationDimensionofCareiscomprisedofthefollowingquestions(detailedzoneresultsofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixI):

(Q23)Arethepeopleinchargeavailabletotalkwithyou?

(Q24)Dothepeopleinchargetreatyouwithrespect?

(Q25)Wouldyoufeelcomfortablespeakingtothepeopleinchargeaboutaproblem?

(Q26)Doyouknowwhotogotoherewhenyouhaveaproblem?

(Q27)Doyourproblemsgettakencareofhere?

Table18summarizestheCommunicationDimensionofCareforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresonCommunicationandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:

Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageCommunicationscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.

Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageCommunicationscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.

Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheCommunicationDimensionofCare(seeTable17foradescriptionofthecategories).



Quartiles Range


92.8-100.0

Upper middle


Lower middle



0.0-84.7





60




Table 18: Summary of facility means for Communication

Calgary

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 12 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


88.5 87.7







Eau Claire Retirement Residence 21 88.3 82.5 94.1 Below Above Up. Mid.








Silver Willow Lodge 11 83.6 74.5 92.7 Below Below Lower

Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


86.4 87.7














61


Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


86.4 87.7

Clearwater Centre 14 86.8 78.4 95.3 Above Below Low. Mid.

Extendicare Michener Hill 35 86.6 81.9 91.4 Above Below Low. Mid.

Sunrise Village Ponoka 8 86.2 74.2 98.2 Below Below Low. Mid.

Providence Place 5 85.7 72.1 99.2 Below Below Low. Mid.








Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


87.1 87.7















LifeStyle Options Riverbend 9 88.2 81.2 95.1 Above Above Low. Mid.


Shepherd’s Gardens 21 87.2 82.1 92.3 Above Below Low. Mid.



Garneau Hall 13 85.5 75.2 95.8 Below Below Low. Mid.

Shepherd’s Care Ashbourne 17 84.7 78.2 91.2 Below Below Low. Mid.



62


Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


87.1 87.7










North

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 3 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


81.8 87.7




South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


90.4 87.7



York Creek Lodge 5 97.1 93.6 100.0† Above Above Upper






Good Samaritan Garden Vista 7 91.7 82.0 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.




Good Samaritan Lee Crest 24 88.4 81.4 95.4 Below Above Up. Mid.

Extendicare Fairmont Park 39 88.0 83.6 92.4 Below Above Low. Mid.



63


South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


90.4 87.7



Piyami Lodge 7 85.9 73.4 98.3 Below Below Low. Mid.





64


7.9 Choice

TheChoiceDimensionofCareiscomprisedofthefollowingquestions(detailedzoneresultsofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixI):

(Q5)Canyougotobedwhenyoulike?

(Q6)Dotheemployeesleaveyoualoneifyoudon’twanttodoanything?

(Q7)Dothepeoplethatworkhereencourageyoutodothethingsyouareabletodoyourself?

(Q8)Areyoufreetocomeandgoasyouareable?

(Q9)Aretherulesherereasonable?

(Q10)Canyouchoosewhatclothestowear?

Table20summarizestheChoiceDimensionofCareforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresonChoiceandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:

Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageChoicescoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.

Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageChoicescoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.

Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheChoiceDimensionofCare(seeTable19foradescriptionofthecategories).



Quartiles Range


93.4-100.0

Upper middle


Lower middle



0.0-89.4


65






Table 20: Summary of facility means for Choice

Calgary

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 12 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.2 91.4



Prince of Peace Manor 20 95.0 92.6 97.3 Above Above Upper


Eau Claire Retirement Residence 21 94.5 90.0 99.0 Above Above Upper


Silver Willow Lodge 12 92.0 85.6 98.4 Below Above Up. Mid.









Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


91.0 91.4


Sunrise Village Ponoka 8 94.3 87.8 100.0† Above Above Upper



Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 8 93.1 89.2 97.0 Above Above Up. Mid.

Pines Lodge 8 92.7 87.1 98.4 Above Above Up. Mid.


66


Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


91.0 91.4

Manor at Royal Oak 19 92.6 89.3 95.9 Above Above Up. Mid.





10 91.6 85.5 97.7 Above Above Low. Mid.

Points West Living Lloydminster 27 91.4 87.6 95.2 Above Above Low. Mid.




Wetaskiwin Meadows 10 89.9 81.7 98.0 Below Below Low. Mid.


Providence Place 6 89.2 76.3 100.0† Below Below Lower





Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


90.9 91.4

Rosedale at Griesbach 47 96.8 95.6 98.1 Above Above Upper





Shepherd’s Care Kensington 20 94.3 90.7 97.9 Above Above Upper



Wild Rose Cottage 13 93.3 89.7 96.9 Above Above Up. Mid.



Garneau Hall 15 93.1 88.3 97.8 Above Above Up. Mid.




Devonshire Manor 28 91.8 88.7 95.0 Above Above Low. Mid.


67


Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


90.9 91.4

Rosedale St. Albert 27 91.0 87.6 94.5 Above Below Low. Mid.















North

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 3 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


90.2 91.4


Mountain View Centre 16 90.8 85.0 96.6 Above Below Low. Mid.


South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.2 91.4




Piyami Lodge 7 94.9 90.2 99.7 Above Above Upper


Columbia Assisted Living 22 93.1 90.6 95.7 Above Above Up. Mid.

Cypress View 8 92.7 85.9 99.5 Above Above Up. Mid.

Good Samaritan Garden Vista 8 92.1 87.2 97.0 Below Above Up. Mid.



68


South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.2 91.4














69


7.10 Employee Responsiveness

TheEmployeeResponsivenessDimensionofCareiscomprisedofthefollowingquestions(detailedzoneresultsofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixI):

(Q19)Duringtheweek,areemployeesavailabletohelpyouifyouneedit?

(Q20)Duringtheweekend,areemployeesavailabletohelpyouifyouneedit?

(Q21)Duringtheeveningandnight,areemployeesavailabletohelpyouifyouneedit?

(Q22)Doyoufeelconfidentthatemployeesknowhowtodotheirjobs?

Table22summarizestheEmployeeResponsivenessDimensionofCareforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresonEmployeeResponsivenessandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:

Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageEmployeeResponsivenessscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.

Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageEmployeeResponsivenessscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.

Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheEmployeeResponsivenessDimensionofCare(seeTable21foradescriptionofthecategories).



Quartiles Range


92.7-100.0

Upper middle


Lower middle



0.0-84.9





70




Table 22: Summary of facility means for Employee Responsiveness

Calgary

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 12 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


89.0 88.7








Whitehorn Village 13 89.8 81.9 97.8 Above Above Up. Mid.

Sagewood Supportive Living 20 88.4 80.4 96.4 Below Below Low. Mid.

Silver Willow Lodge 12 86.0 76.0 96.0 Below Below Low. Mid.






Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


89.6 88.7





Sunrise Village Ponoka 8 95.3 91.6 99.1 Above Above Upper

Wetaskiwin Meadows 10 94.4 89.1 99.8 Above Above Upper




Providence Place 6 92.7 83.3 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.



71


Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


89.6 88.7

Manor at Royal Oak 17 91.2 86.3 96.0 Above Above Up. Mid.



Sunrise Village Olds 12 89.0 83.8 94.1 Below Above Low. Mid.



Bethany Meadows 10 87.3 75.3 99.3 Below Below Low. Mid.


Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 7 84.9 72.6 97.2 Below Below Low. Mid.




Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


87.5 88.7






Garneau Hall 13 96.1 91.0 100.0† Above Above Upper


LifeStyle Options Riverbend 8 93.0 88.3 97.7 Above Above Upper






Citadel Mews West 26 89.0 83.4 94.7 Above Above Low. Mid.

Rosedale at Griesbach 48 88.5 84.2 92.7 Above Below Low. Mid.


72


Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


87.5 88.7

Aspen House 27 85.3 80.2 90.5 Below Below Low. Mid.

Glastonbury Village 27 85.3 79.7 90.9 Below Below Low. Mid.



Devonshire Manor 25 84.6 76.7 92.5 Below Below Lower












North

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 3 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


82.6 88.7

Ridgevalley Seniors Home 6 92.2 82.0 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.



South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


90.0 88.7


Orchard Manor 12 97.8 95.2 100.0† Above Above Upper




Good Samaritan Garden Vista 7 92.5 84.6 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.


Meadow Lands 9 90.6 81.0 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

73


South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


90.0 88.7

Cypress View 8 89.9 81.7 98.1 Below Above Up. Mid.

Piyami Lodge 7 89.0 80.7 97.3 Below Above Low. Mid.














74


7.11 Care and Services

TheCareandServicesDimensionofCareiscomprisedofthefollowingquestions(detailedzoneresultsofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixI):

(Q11)Canyougetsnacksanddrinkswheneveryouwantthem?

(Q12)Doyougetyourmedicationsontime?

(Q13)Doemployeesexplainyourcareandservicestoyou?

(Q14)Dotheemployeeswhotakecareofyouknowwhatyoulikeanddon’tlike?

Table24summarizestheCareandServicesDimensionofCareforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresonCareandServicesandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:

Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageCareandServicesscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.

Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageCareandServicesscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.

Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheCareandServicesDimensionofCare(seeTable23foradescriptionofthecategories).



Quartiles Range


87.1-100.0

Upper middle


Lower middle



0.0-79.6





75



Table 24: Summary of facility means for Care and Services

Calgary

Respondents

(N)

Mean


(N = 12 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


84.3 82.9








Eau Claire Retirement Residence 20 83.0 77.0 89.0 Below Above Low. Mid.

Prince of Peace Manor 20 82.8 76.4 89.1 Below Below Low. Mid.







Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


85.1 82.9





Providence Place 7 90.4 82.2 98.5 Above Above Upper



Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 7 88.7 85.5 91.9 Above Above Upper


Sunrise Village Ponoka 8 87.7 78.4 96.9 Above Above Upper

Wetaskiwin Meadows 10 87.1 80.1 94.0 Above Above Up. Mid.



Clearwater Centre 15 86.7 78.9 94.5 Above Above Up. Mid.

Sunset Manor 42 84.2 80.4 88.0 Below Above Up. Mid.

Hillview Lodge 19 84.0 77.3 90.7 Below Above Low. Mid.

76


Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


85.1 82.9

Manor at Royal Oak 18 83.5 76.2 90.9 Below Above Low. Mid.

Bethany Sylvan Lake 13 82.2 72.8 91.6 Below Below Low. Mid.


Viewpoint 10 81.0 69.3 92.7 Below Below Low. Mid.

Pines Lodge 8 79.7 71.8 87.6 Below Below Low. Mid.




Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


79.4 82.9











Wild Rose Cottage 12 84.2 76.5 92.0 Above Above Up. Mid.





Devonshire Manor 28 81.6 75.4 87.8 Above Below Low. Mid.



LifeStyle Options Riverbend 10 81.0 68.7 93.4 Above Below Low. Mid.

Shepherd’s Gardens 21 77.2 70.0 84.5 Below Below Lower







77


Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


79.4 82.9







North

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 3 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


79.2 82.9




South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


84.6 82.9



Good Samaritan Garden Vista 8 87.7 82.4 93.0 Above Above Upper







Piyami Lodge 7 86.7 79.0 94.5 Above Above Up. Mid.



Columbia Assisted Living 22 85.4 80.0 90.7 Above Above Up. Mid.

Meadow Lands 9 85.3 74.4 96.2 Above Above Up. Mid.

Legacy Lodge 29 83.4 77.4 89.5 Below Above Low. Mid.

Good Samaritan Lee Crest 26 83.1 76.7 89.4 Below Above Low. Mid.





78


South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


84.6 82.9




79


7.12 Laundry

TheLaundryDimensionofCareiscomprisedofthefollowingquestions(detailedzoneresultsofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixI):

(Q33)Doyougetclothingbackfromthelaundry?

(Q34)Doesyourclothingcomebackingoodcondition?

Table26summarizestheLaundryDimensionofCareforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresonLaundryandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:

Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageLaundryscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.

Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageLaundryscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.

Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheLaundryDimensionofCare(seeTable25foradescriptionofthecategories).



Quartiles Range


97.4-100.0

Upper middle


Lower middle



0.0-88.1





80



Table 26: Summary of facility means for Laundry

Calgary

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 12 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


91.7 92.2

Prince of Peace Manor 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper

Sagewood Supportive Living 9 96.3 91.4 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

Whitehorn Village 8 95.8 90.4 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

Eau Claire Retirement Residence 12 93.9 85.0 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

Silver Willow Lodge 9 93.3 85.7 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.



Edgemont Retirement Residence 9 91.8 84.3 99.3 Above Below Low. Mid.

Millrise Place 10 91.5 83.0 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.




Aspen Ridge Lodge 7 85.7 74.4 96.9 Below Below Lower


4 85.2 66.6 100.0† Below Below Lower

Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.7 92.2



Bethany Meadows 5 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper


Vermillion Valley Lodge 9 97.8 93.5 100.0† Above Above Upper

Pines Lodge 6 96.7 90.2 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

West Park Lodge 12 95.6 88.9 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

Providence Place 4 95.1 85.4 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 4 95.1 85.4 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

Wetaskiwin Meadows 6 94.4 83.6 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.





Viewpoint 4 91.7 81.9 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.

81


Central

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 22 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.7 92.2

Extendicare Michener Hill 16 91.4 81.0 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.



Sunset Manor 21 89.2 82.5 95.8 Below Below Low. Mid.



Sunrise Village Ponoka 4 86.7 60.7 100.0† Below Below Lower



Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.6 92.2



Garneau Hall 7 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper

LifeStyle Options Riverbend 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper

Shepherd’s Gardens 11 98.8 96.3 100.0† Above Above Upper



Place Beausejour 8 98.3 95.0 100.0† Above Above Upper

Citadel Mews West 11 97.0 92.9 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

Devonshire Manor 12 96.6 91.8 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.


Glastonbury Village 7 95.2 85.9 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

Riverbend Retirement Residence 6 94.4 87.4 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

Rosedale St. Albert 11 93.9 84.4 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.


Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 5 91.9 81.2 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.










Wild Rose Cottage 7 89.6 73.2 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.

82


Edmonton

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 25 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


92.6 92.2

Shepherd’s Care Ashbourne 10 88.8 77.9 99.8 Below Below Low. Mid.



Rosedale at Griesbach 22 84.8 77.8 91.9 Below Below Lower



North

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 3 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


93.9 92.2

Ridgevalley Seniors Home 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper

Points West Living Grande Prairie 21 92.8 87.6 98.1 Below Above Low. Mid.

Mountain View Centre 13 88.8 82.0 95.6 Below Below Low. Mid.

South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


91.1 92.2




Orchard Manor 6 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper

York Creek Lodge 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper


Good Samaritan Garden Vista 6 97.7 93.3 100.0† Above Above Upper

Good Samaritan Vista Village 11 95.7 91.3 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.

Extendicare Fairmont Park 23 92.1 87.2 97.1 Above Below Low. Mid.






Good Samaritan Lee Crest 21 87.0 78.4 95.6 Below Below Lower

Columbia Assisted Living 11 86.8 78.7 94.8 Below Below Lower




4 81.1 49.6 100.0† Below Below Lower

83


South

Respondents

(N) Mean


(N = 18 facilities)


mean

(N = 80 facilities)


91.1 92.2



Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.Intheeventofatie,facilitiesarepresentedbytheirGlobalOverallCareratingsfromhighesttolowest.

84

ADDITIONAL CARE QUESTIONS

8.0 ADDITIONAL CARE QUESTIONS

Eightadditionalquestionsrelatedtocareandserviceswereaddedandusedinthesurveyasaresultoffindingsintheliteratureandconsultationwithstakeholders.ThepurposeoftheAdditionalCareQuestionswastoassessthequalityofclinicalcareandmedicalservicesprovidedatsupportivelivingfacilitiesincluding:accesstoadoctor,accesstotransportationto/frommedicalappointments,followuponhealthstatusandmedications,andresidentinvolvementinmedicaldecisions.Thesequestionswereconstructedsuchthatthewordingwasconsistentwiththecoreinstrument:

(Q51)Canyouseeadoctorifyouneedto?

(Q52)Areyouabletogettransportationtoorfrommedicalappointments?

(Q53)Besidesmedicalappointments,doyoumeetwithanonsitenurseorotherstafftoreviewchangesinyourhealth?

(Q54)Besidesmedicalappointments,doyoumeetwithanonsitenurseorotherstafftoreviewchangesinyourmedicationsorothermedication‐relatedissues?

(Q55)Areyouinvolvedinmakingdecisionsaboutyourcare?

(Q56)Doyouhaveenoughpersonalprivacywhenyouwantit?

(Q57)Ifyouareunhappywithsomething,orifyouwanttochangesomethingaboutyourcare,doyouknowwhotocontact?

(Q58)Overall,doyoufindthecostoflivingherereasonable?

Table27summarizestheAdditionalCareQuestionsforeachfacilitythatparticipatedinthesurvey.Facilitiesaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.TheresultsaresortedbyGlobalOverallCareratingfromhighesttolowest.Foreaseofinterpretation,responseswerecollapsedintotwocategoriesandTable27presentstheresultsforoneoftheseresponsecategories.22



Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixE.

Thefollowingtableincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=80facilities).

22ThefourresponseoptionsforeachofthequestionsreportedinTable27wereYesalways,Yessometimes,Nohardlyever,andNonever,whichweresubsequentlycollapsedinto%Yes(YesalwaysandYessometimes)and%No(NohardlyeverandNonever).Theexceptionisquestion58,whichhadresponseoptionsYesandNo.Theunreportedresponsecategorycanbedeterminedbysubtractingthereportedresultfrom100.Fordetailsonallresponseoptions,seeAppendixI.

85

AD

DIT

ION

AL

CA

RE

QU

ES

TIO

NS

Tab

le 2

7: A

dditi

onal

que

stio

ns

Cal

gar

y

Q5

1:

Ca

n y

ou

see

a

do

cto

r if

you

nee

d

to?

Q5

2:

Are

yo

u a

ble

to

ge

t tra

nspo

rta

tion

to o

r fr

om

me

dica

l a

ppo

intm

ents

?

Q5

3:

Be

sid

es

me

dic

al

ap

poin

tmen

ts, d

o

you

me

et

with

an

o

nsi

te n

urs

e o

r o

the

r st

aff

to r

evi

ew

chan

ges

in y

ou

r h

eal

th?

Q5

4:

Be

sid

es

me

dic

al

ap

poin

tmen

ts, d

o

you

me

et

with

an

o

nsi

te n

urs

e o

r o

the

r st

aff

to r

evi

ew

chan

ges

in y

ou

r m

ed

ica

tion

s o

r o

the

r m

ed

icat

ion

-re

late

d is

sues

?

Q5

5:

Are

yo

u

invo

lve

d in

mak

ing

d

eci

sio

ns a

bou

t yo

ur

care

?

Q5

6:

Do

yo

u h

ave

e

nou

gh p

erso

nal

p

riva

cy w

he

n y

ou

w

an

t it?

Q5

7:

If y

ou

are

u

nha

ppy

with

so

met

hin

g, o

r if

you

w

an

t to

cha

nge

so

met

hin

g ab

out

you

r ca

re, d

o yo

u

kno

w w

ho

to

co

ntac

t?

Q5

8:

Ove

rall,

do

yo

u f

ind

the

co

st

of

livin

g h

ere

reas

onab

le?

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

Mill

rise

Pla

ce

18

94

.4

15

86

.7

15

66

.7

14

57

.1

16

75

.0

19

10

0.0

19

78

.9

15

93

.3

Sa

ge

wo

od

Su

ppor

tive

L

ivin

g

17

88

.2

16

93

.8

18

66

.7

17

70

.6

19

84

.2

21

95

.2

20

85

.0

12

10

0.0

Asp

en R

idg

e Lo

dge

12

10

0.0

9

66

.7

11

81

.8

10

80

.0

12

75

.0

12

10

0.0

11

10

0.0

10

80

.0

Pri

nce

of

Pea

ce M

an

or

19

89

.5

17

88

.2

19

42

.1

20

40

.0

19

94

.7

20

10

0.0

17

94

.1

20

85

.0

Wal

den

Su

ppo

rtiv

e

Livi

ng C

om

mun

ity

41

87

.8

41

92

.7

43

67

.4

39

56

.4

45

71

.1

48

93

.8

41

80

.5

34

79

.4

Silv

er

Will

ow

Lo

dge

1

1 9

0.9

1

0 7

0.0

1

1 7

2.7

1

2 5

8.3

1

1 6

3.6

1

2 8

3.3

1

2 7

5.0

8

6

2.5

Ea

u C

lair

e R

etir

eme

nt

Re

side

nce

18

88

.9

15

93

.3

17

70

.6

19

52

.6

18

50

.0

20

10

0.0

19

94

.7

12

10

0.0

Wen

two

rth

Man

or/T

he

R

esi

denc

e an

d T

he

Co

urt

1

1 1

00.

0 1

0 1

00.

0 1

1 7

2.7

9

4

4.4

1

0 1

00.

0 1

1 8

1.8

1

1 1

00.

0 7

8

5.7

Whi

teh

orn

Vill

age

9

77

.8

10

10

0.0

12

83

.3

9

55

.6

13

76

.9

13

10

0.0

13

84

.6

10

80

.0

Ed

ge

mon

t R

etir

eme

nt

Re

side

nce

15

86

.7

14

92

.9

16

68

.8

13

53

.8

17

64

.7

18

10

0.0

16

75

.0

12

83

.3

Mo

nte

rey

Pla

ce

29

96

.6

25

10

0.0

28

57

.1

28

64

.3

31

90

.3

31

93

.5

28

92

.9

22

68

.2

Sce

nic

Acr

es

Re

tire

me

nt R

esid

en

ce

10

10

0.0

11

72

.7

11

54

.5

12

41

.7

9

77

.8

12

91

.7

13

92

.3

9

66

.7

86

AD

DIT

ION

AL

CA

RE

QU

ES

TIO

NS

Cen

tral

Q5

1:

Ca

n y

ou

see

a

do

cto

r if

you

nee

d

to?

Q5

2:

Are

yo

u a

ble

to

ge

t tra

nspo

rta

tion

to

or

fro

m m

edi

cal

ap

poin

tmen

ts?

Q5

3:

Be

sid

es

me

dic

al

ap

poin

tmen

ts, d

o

you

me

et

with

an

o

nsi

te n

urs

e o

r o

the

r st

aff

to r

evi

ew

chan

ges

in y

ou

r h

eal

th?

Q5

4:

Be

sid

es

me

dic

al

ap

poin

tmen

ts, d

o

you

me

et

with

an

o

nsi

te n

urs

e o

r o

the

r st

aff

to r

evi

ew

chan

ges

in y

ou

r m

ed

ica

tion

s o

r o

the

r m

ed

icat

ion

-re

late

d is

sues

?

Q5

5:

Are

yo

u

invo

lve

d in

mak

ing

d

eci

sio

ns a

bou

t yo

ur

care

?

Q5

6:

Do

yo

u h

ave

e

nou

gh p

erso

nal

p

riva

cy w

he

n y

ou

w

an

t it?

Q5

7:

If y

ou

are

u

nha

ppy

with

so

met

hin

g, o

r if

you

w

an

t to

cha

nge

so

met

hin

g ab

out

you

r ca

re, d

o yo

u

kno

w w

ho

to

co

ntac

t?

Q5

8:

Ove

rall,

do

yo

u f

ind

the

co

st

of

livin

g h

ere

reas

onab

le?

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

Pro

vid

en

ce P

lace

6

1

00.

0 7

8

5.7

6

1

00.

0 5

1

00.

0 6

1

00.

0 6

1

00.

0 6

8

3.3

4

2

5.0

Isla

y A

ssis

ted

Liv

ing

10

10

0.0

11

10

0.0

10

40

.0

11

45

.5

10

60

.0

11

10

0.0

11

72

.7

11

81

.8

Wes

t Pa

rk L

odg

e 1

8 9

4.4

1

7 7

6.5

1

8 5

5.6

1

6 2

5.0

1

7 5

2.9

1

9 1

00.

0 1

8 8

3.3

1

5 8

6.7

Pin

es

Lodg

e 8

8

7.5

8

1

00.

0 5

8

0.0

7

5

7.1

8

6

2.5

8

1

00.

0 8

1

00.

0 5

1

00.

0

Su

nris

e V

illag

e O

lds

12

10

0.0

9

10

0.0

11

63

.6

11

45

.5

11

54

.5

12

91

.7

11

90

.9

10

80

.0

Hill

vie

w L

odg

e 1

9 9

4.7

1

8 1

00.

0 1

8 5

0.0

1

7 3

5.3

1

6 6

2.5

1

9 1

00.

0 1

8 9

4.4

1

7 9

4.1

Go

od

Sa

ma

ritan

Go

od

S

he

phe

rd L

uth

eran

H

om

e 1

9 1

00.

0 2

3 9

5.7

2

1 7

6.2

1

9 5

7.9

2

3 6

5.2

2

4 1

00.

0 2

2 8

1.8

2

0 7

0.0

Su

nris

e V

illag

e W

etas

kiw

in

13

10

0.0

12

83

.3

13

53

.8

13

30

.8

14

64

.3

14

10

0.0

14

92

.9

12

66

.7

Be

than

y S

ylva

n L

ake

1

1 1

00.

0 1

1 7

2.7

1

2 5

8.3

1

2 5

8.3

1

3 7

6.9

1

3 1

00.

0 1

3 6

9.2

8

8

7.5

Su

nse

t M

anor

4

2 9

7.6

4

0 9

7.5

4

0 3

7.5

3

7 3

2.4

4

2 6

6.7

4

5 9

7.8

4

0 8

5.0

2

8 5

7.1

Ve

rmill

ion

Va

lley

Lo

dge

14

10

0.0

13

84

.6

13

46

.2

14

35

.7

14

57

.1

14

92

.9

14

85

.7

13

84

.6

Ext

en

dic

are

Mic

hen

er

Hill

3

3 9

3.9

2

8 1

00.

0 3

3 6

3.6

3

5 5

4.3

3

1 6

7.7

3

6 9

7.2

3

2 6

5.6

2

9 7

5.9

Co

ron

atio

n H

osp

ital

an

d C

are

Cen

tre

9

10

0.0

9

10

0.0

8

87

.5

9

77

.8

10

80

.0

10

10

0.0

9

10

0.0

7

28

.6

Po

ints

Wes

t Liv

ing

L

loyd

min

ste

r 2

2 9

0.9

2

5 9

2.0

2

6 4

2.3

2

6 5

7.7

2

4 7

5.0

2

6 9

2.3

2

2 8

1.8

2

4 5

4.2

Wet

aski

win

Me

ado

ws

9

10

0.0

9

10

0.0

10

50

.0

10

20

.0

9

55

.6

10

10

0.0

9

77

.8

9

77

.8

Ma

nor

at

Ro

yal O

ak

17

10

0.0

15

10

0.0

10

80

.0

11

81

.8

16

10

0.0

19

10

0.0

18

10

0.0

12

83

.3

Cle

arw

ate

r C

entr

e 1

4 8

5.7

1

3 9

2.3

1

3 6

9.2

1

0 7

0.0

1

4 6

4.3

1

5 9

3.3

1

3 9

2.3

1

1 4

5.5

Su

nris

e V

illag

e P

ono

ka

8

87

.5

8

87

.5

7

0.0

6

1

6.7

7

4

2.9

8

1

00.

0 8

8

7.5

7

7

1.4

Su

nris

e V

illag

e D

rayt

on

V

alle

y 8

8

7.5

7

8

5.7

6

8

3.3

5

6

0.0

7

8

5.7

8

1

00.

0 8

1

00.

0 7

5

7.1

87

AD

DIT

ION

AL

CA

RE

QU

ES

TIO

NS

Cen

tral

Q5

1:

Ca

n y

ou

see

a

do

cto

r if

you

n

eed

to?

Q5

2:

Are

yo

u a

ble

to

ge

t tra

nspo

rta

tion

to

or

fro

m m

edi

cal

ap

poin

tmen

ts?

Q5

3:

Be

sid

es

me

dic

al

ap

poin

tmen

ts, d

o

you

me

et

with

an

o

nsi

te n

urs

e o

r o

the

r st

aff

to r

evi

ew

chan

ges

in y

ou

r h

eal

th?

Q5

4:

Be

sid

es

me

dic

al

ap

poin

tmen

ts, d

o

you

me

et

with

an

o

nsi

te n

urs

e o

r o

the

r st

aff

to r

evi

ew

chan

ges

in y

ou

r m

ed

ica

tion

s o

r o

the

r m

ed

icat

ion

-re

late

d is

sues

?

Q5

5:

Are

yo

u

invo

lve

d in

mak

ing

d

eci

sio

ns a

bou

t yo

ur

care

?

Q5

6:

Do

yo

u h

ave

e

nou

gh p

erso

nal

p

riva

cy w

he

n y

ou

w

an

t it?

Q5

7:

If y

ou

are

u

nha

ppy

with

so

met

hin

g, o

r if

you

w

an

t to

cha

nge

so

met

hin

g ab

out

you

r ca

re, d

o yo

u

kno

w w

ho

to

co

ntac

t?

Q5

8:

Ove

rall,

do

yo

u f

ind

the

co

st

of

livin

g h

ere

reas

onab

le?

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

Vie

wp

oin

t 1

0 1

00.

0 1

0 1

00.

0 9

7

7.8

9

7

7.8

1

0 6

0.0

1

0 9

0.0

1

0 6

0.0

9

5

5.6

Be

than

y M

ea

do

ws

10

10

0.0

9

10

0.0

8

75

.0

5

60

.0

10

40

.0

10

10

0.0

9

77

.8

10

50

.0

Su

nris

e V

illag

e C

am

rose

3

0 9

6.7

2

2 9

5.5

2

6 8

0.8

2

5 6

4.0

2

4 7

9.2

3

3 1

00.

0 3

0 7

6.7

2

5 2

4.0

Ed

mo

nto

n

Q5

1:

Ca

n y

ou

see

a

do

cto

r if

you

nee

d

to?

Q5

2:

Are

yo

u a

ble

to

ge

t tr

ansp

ort

atio

n to

or

fro

m m

ed

ical

a

ppo

intm

ents

?

Q5

3:

Be

sid

es

me

dic

al

ap

poin

tmen

ts, d

o

you

me

et

with

an

o

nsi

te n

urs

e o

r o

the

r st

aff

to r

evi

ew

chan

ges

in y

ou

r h

eal

th?

Q5

4:

Be

sid

es

me

dic

al

ap

poin

tmen

ts, d

o

you

me

et

with

an

o

nsi

te n

urs

e o

r o

the

r st

aff

to r

evi

ew

chan

ges

in y

ou

r m

ed

ica

tion

s o

r o

the

r m

ed

icat

ion

-re

late

d is

sues

?

Q5

5:

Are

yo

u

invo

lve

d in

mak

ing

d

eci

sio

ns a

bou

t yo

ur

care

?

Q5

6:

Do

yo

u h

ave

e

nou

gh p

erso

nal

p

riva

cy w

he

n y

ou

w

an

t it?

Q5

7:

If y

ou

are

u

nha

ppy

with

so

met

hin

g, o

r if

you

w

an

t to

cha

nge

so

met

hin

g ab

out

you

r ca

re, d

o yo

u

kno

w w

ho

to

co

ntac

t?

Q5

8:

Ove

rall,

do

yo

u f

ind

the

co

st

of

livin

g h

ere

reas

onab

le?

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

Go

od

Sa

ma

ritan

G

eo

rge

He

nnig

Pla

ce

13

10

0.0

12

83

.3

14

64

.3

14

78

.6

12

83

.3

13

10

0.0

13

10

0.0

10

90

.0

Go

od

Sa

ma

ritan

S

pru

ce G

rove

Ce

ntr

e 1

2 1

00.

0 1

2 1

00.

0 1

2 8

3.3

1

2 8

3.3

1

1 8

1.8

1

3 9

2.3

1

2 1

00.

0 1

1 8

1.8

Pla

ce B

eau

sejo

ur

17

94

.1

9

10

0.0

11

72

.7

8

62

.5

16

62

.5

18

88

.9

14

78

.6

11

81

.8

Wild

Ros

e C

otta

ge

12

10

0.0

12

66

.7

9

44

.4

9

44

.4

11

63

.6

13

92

.3

13

84

.6

10

60

.0

Ro

sed

ale

St.

Alb

ert

26

96

.2

26

96

.2

23

60

.9

22

59

.1

25

68

.0

25

96

.0

26

69

.2

20

80

.0

Sh

eph

erd

’s C

are

V

an

gua

rd

20

95

.0

16

81

.3

19

52

.6

19

63

.2

17

82

.4

19

89

.5

18

83

.3

13

76

.9

Ro

sed

ale

at

Grie

sba

ch

45

88

.9

44

10

0.0

45

60

.0

47

57

.4

43

86

.0

48

97

.9

48

89

.6

42

47

.6

Co

un

try

Co

tta

ge

Se

nio

rs R

esi

den

ce

9

10

0.0

6

33

.3

10

60

.0

9

55

.6

10

80

.0

10

10

0.0

10

10

0.0

8

75

.0

88

AD

DIT

ION

AL

CA

RE

QU

ES

TIO

NS

Ed

mo

nto

n

Q5

1:

Ca

n y

ou

see

a

do

cto

r if

you

nee

d

to?

Q5

2:

Are

yo

u a

ble

to

ge

t tr

ansp

ort

atio

n to

or

fro

m m

ed

ical

a

ppo

intm

ents

?

Q5

3:

Be

sid

es

me

dic

al

ap

poin

tmen

ts, d

o

you

me

et

with

an

o

nsi

te n

urs

e o

r o

the

r st

aff

to r

evi

ew

chan

ges

in y

ou

r h

eal

th?

Q5

4:

Be

sid

es

me

dic

al

ap

poin

tmen

ts, d

o

you

me

et

with

an

o

nsi

te n

urs

e o

r o

the

r st

aff

to r

evi

ew

chan

ges

in y

ou

r m

ed

ica

tion

s o

r o

the

r m

ed

icat

ion

-re

late

d is

sues

?

Q5

5:

Are

yo

u

invo

lve

d in

mak

ing

d

eci

sio

ns a

bou

t yo

ur

care

?

Q5

6:

Do

yo

u h

ave

e

nou

gh p

erso

nal

p

riva

cy w

he

n y

ou

w

an

t it?

Q5

7:

If y

ou

are

u

nha

ppy

with

so

met

hin

g, o

r if

you

w

an

t to

cha

nge

so

met

hin

g ab

out

you

r ca

re, d

o yo

u

kno

w w

ho

to

co

ntac

t?

Q5

8:

Ove

rall,

do

yo

u f

ind

the

co

st

of

livin

g h

ere

reas

onab

le?

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

Life

styl

e O

ptio

ns T

err

a L

osa

2

3 9

5.7

1

9 8

4.2

1

9 3

6.8

1

8 3

3.3

1

9 6

3.2

2

3 1

00.

0 2

3 9

1.3

1

9 6

3.2

Cita

del M

ew

s W

est

27

96

.3

24

75

.0

26

88

.5

21

66

.7

28

78

.6

28

96

.4

26

84

.6

15

66

.7

Asp

en H

ouse

2

7 8

5.2

1

4 3

5.7

2

5 5

6.0

2

3 3

9.1

2

5 6

4.0

3

0 9

0.0

2

9 7

5.9

2

0 8

5.0

Gla

sto

nbur

y V

illag

e

26

88

.5

19

89

.5

27

51

.9

25

36

.0

27

74

.1

28

96

.4

27

85

.2

25

72

.0

Ca

pita

lCar

e L

aurie

r H

ou

se L

ynn

wo

od

52

86

.5

45

88

.9

48

62

.5

49

59

.2

52

57

.7

56

94

.6

55

89

.1

45

77

.8

Ga

rne

au H

all

10

90

.0

13

76

.9

13

61

.5

13

53

.8

13

61

.5

15

10

0.0

13

61

.5

9

88

.9

Sh

eph

erd

's G

ard

ens

20

10

0.0

20

80

.0

19

47

.4

19

36

.8

21

57

.1

21

10

0.0

21

81

.0

17

58

.8

Go

od

Sa

ma

ritan

W

edm

an H

ouse

/Vill

age

15

93

.3

9

88

.9

14

35

.7

15

33

.3

17

76

.5

17

88

.2

17

76

.5

14

71

.4

De

von

shire

2

5 9

2.0

1

7 9

4.1

2

4 4

5.8

2

3 3

9.1

2

3 6

0.9

2

7 1

00.

0 2

5 9

2.0

2

3 6

5.2

Wes

t Co

untr

y H

ear

th

2

10

0.0

4

75

.0

4

75

.0

5

60

.0

5

80

.0

5

10

0.0

5

80

.0

5

80

.0

Sh

eph

erd

s C

are

: K

en

sin

gton

2

0 9

0.0

1

0 9

0.0

1

4 5

0.0

1

6 5

0.0

1

6 8

7.5

1

9 9

4.7

1

7 8

8.2

1

5 7

3.3

Sa

int

Th

om

as A

ssis

ted

L

ivin

g C

ent

re

34

82

.4

36

94

.4

31

45

.2

31

38

.7

35

74

.3

38

10

0.0

33

90

.9

35

48

.6

Re

vera

Re

tire

men

t R

ive

rben

d 1

0 9

0.0

1

0 2

0.0

8

5

0.0

7

4

2.9

9

1

00.

0 1

0 1

00.

0 9

1

00.

0 7

8

5.7

Sh

eph

erd

s C

are

A

shbo

urn

e 1

6 9

3.8

8

5

0.0

1

5 4

6.7

1

6 4

3.8

1

6 5

6.3

1

7 8

2.4

1

7 9

4.1

1

5 5

3.3

Life

Sty

le O

ptio

ns

Riv

erb

end

9

10

0.0

4

10

0.0

10

60

.0

10

70

.0

10

80

.0

10

90

.0

9

10

0.0

6

33

.3

Inno

vativ

e H

ou

sing

-

Vill

a M

argu

erite

5

8 8

2.8

5

5 8

1.8

5

9 4

7.5

5

9 4

2.4

5

8 6

7.2

6

1 9

3.4

6

0 7

6.7

5

9 6

2.7

Inno

vativ

e H

ou

sing

-

11

4 G

rave

lle

36

94

.4

34

91

.2

37

40

.5

35

31

.4

37

70

.3

37

89

.2

37

83

.8

34

44

.1

89

AD

DIT

ION

AL

CA

RE

QU

ES

TIO

NS

No

rth

Q5

1:

Ca

n y

ou

see

a

do

cto

r if

you

nee

d

to?

Q5

2:

Are

yo

u a

ble

to

ge

t tr

ansp

ort

atio

n to

or

fro

m m

ed

ical

a

ppo

intm

ents

?

Q5

3:

Be

sid

es

me

dic

al

ap

poin

tmen

ts, d

o

you

me

et

with

an

o

nsi

te n

urs

e o

r o

the

r st

aff

to r

evi

ew

chan

ges

in y

ou

r h

eal

th?

Q5

4:

Be

sid

es

me

dic

al

ap

poin

tmen

ts, d

o

you

me

et

with

an

o

nsi

te n

urs

e o

r o

the

r st

aff

to r

evi

ew

chan

ges

in y

ou

r m

ed

ica

tion

s o

r o

the

r m

ed

icat

ion

-re

late

d is

sues

?

Q5

5:

Are

yo

u

invo

lve

d in

mak

ing

d

eci

sio

ns a

bou

t yo

ur

care

?

Q5

6:

Do

yo

u h

ave

e

nou

gh p

erso

nal

p

riva

cy w

he

n y

ou

w

an

t it?

Q5

7:

If y

ou

are

u

nha

ppy

with

so

met

hin

g, o

r if

you

w

an

t to

cha

nge

so

met

hin

g ab

out

you

r ca

re, d

o yo

u

kno

w w

ho

to

co

ntac

t?

Q5

8:

Ove

rall,

do

yo

u f

ind

the

co

st

of

livin

g h

ere

reas

onab

le?

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

Rid

ge

valle

y S

en

iors

H

om

e 5

1

00.

0 5

1

00.

0 6

1

00.

0 7

8

5.7

5

1

00.

0 6

1

00.

0 6

1

00.

0 6

1

00.

0

Po

ints

Wes

t Liv

ing

G

rand

e P

rairi

e 2

2 9

0.9

2

3 9

5.7

2

5 4

8.0

2

4 3

7.5

2

0 7

0.0

2

6 9

2.3

2

5 7

2.0

1

9 5

7.9

Mo

unt

ain

Vie

w C

entr

e 1

4 7

8.6

1

4 9

2.9

1

4 5

7.1

1

3 5

3.8

1

4 6

4.3

1

5 9

3.3

1

6 5

6.3

1

4 6

4.3

So

uth

Q5

1:

Ca

n y

ou

see

a

do

cto

r if

you

nee

d

to?

Q5

2:

Are

yo

u a

ble

to

ge

t tr

ansp

ort

atio

n to

or

fro

m m

ed

ical

a

ppo

intm

ents

?

Q5

3:

Be

sid

es

me

dic

al

ap

poin

tmen

ts, d

o

you

me

et

with

an

o

nsi

te n

urs

e o

r o

the

r st

aff

to r

evi

ew

chan

ges

in y

ou

r h

eal

th?

Q5

4:

Be

sid

es

me

dic

al

ap

poin

tmen

ts, d

o

you

me

et

with

an

o

nsi

te n

urs

e o

r o

the

r st

aff

to r

evi

ew

chan

ges

in y

ou

r m

ed

ica

tion

s o

r o

the

r m

ed

icat

ion

-re

late

d is

sues

?

Q5

5:

Are

yo

u

invo

lve

d in

mak

ing

d

eci

sio

ns a

bou

t yo

ur

care

?

Q5

6:

Do

yo

u h

ave

e

nou

gh p

erso

nal

p

riva

cy w

he

n y

ou

w

an

t it?

Q5

7:

If y

ou

are

u

nha

ppy

with

so

met

hin

g, o

r if

you

w

an

t to

cha

nge

so

met

hin

g ab

out

you

r ca

re, d

o yo

u

kno

w w

ho

to

co

ntac

t?

Q5

8:

Ove

rall,

do

yo

u f

ind

the

co

st

of

livin

g h

ere

reas

onab

le?

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

Ch

inoo

k Lo

dge

6

10

0.0

6

10

0.0

6

66

.7

5

60

.0

5

10

0.0

6

10

0.0

5

80

.0

6

83

.3

Ha

ven

of

Res

t - S

ou

th

Co

un

try

Vill

ag

e 9

8

8.9

7

1

00.

0 9

1

00.

0 9

1

00.

0 9

7

7.8

1

0 1

00.

0 1

0 1

00.

0 9

7

7.8

Cle

arv

iew

Lo

dge

1

0 1

00.

0 6

1

00.

0 7

2

8.6

8

1

2.5

9

6

6.7

1

1 1

00.

0 1

0 1

00.

0 8

1

00.

0

Su

nn

y S

ou

th L

odg

e 1

1 8

1.8

9

8

8.9

1

2 5

8.3

9

3

3.3

1

0 6

0.0

1

2 1

00.

0 1

2 7

5.0

9

7

7.8

Cyp

ress

Vie

w

8

87

.5

6

83

.3

8

62

.5

8

25

.0

7

85

.7

8

87

.5

8

50

.0

5

80

.0

Go

od

Sa

ma

ritan

Vis

ta

Vill

age

17

10

0.0

16

81

.3

15

53

.3

15

66

.7

17

82

.4

17

94

.1

15

93

.3

14

78

.6

Go

od

Sa

ma

ritan

G

ard

en

Vis

ta

6

10

0.0

6

10

0.0

6

66

.7

6

66

.7

7

57

.1

7

10

0.0

7

85

.7

6

83

.3

St.

Th

ere

se V

illa

- S

t.

Mic

hae

ls H

ealth

Ce

ntr

e 6

1 9

6.7

5

6 9

1.1

5

9 5

9.3

5

6 5

7.1

5

7 7

1.9

6

3 9

8.4

5

6 9

1.1

5

2 8

2.7

90

AD

DIT

ION

AL

CA

RE

QU

ES

TIO

NS

So

uth

Q5

1:

Ca

n y

ou

see

a

do

cto

r if

you

nee

d

to?

Q5

2:

Are

yo

u a

ble

to

ge

t tr

ansp

ort

atio

n to

or

fro

m m

ed

ical

a

ppo

intm

ents

?

Q5

3:

Be

sid

es

me

dic

al

ap

poin

tmen

ts, d

o

you

me

et

with

an

o

nsi

te n

urs

e o

r o

the

r st

aff

to r

evi

ew

chan

ges

in y

ou

r h

eal

th?

Q5

4:

Be

sid

es

me

dic

al

ap

poin

tmen

ts, d

o

you

me

et

with

an

o

nsi

te n

urs

e o

r o

the

r st

aff

to r

evi

ew

chan

ges

in y

ou

r m

ed

ica

tion

s o

r o

the

r m

ed

icat

ion

-re

late

d is

sues

?

Q5

5:

Are

yo

u

invo

lve

d in

mak

ing

d

eci

sio

ns a

bou

t yo

ur

care

?

Q5

6:

Do

yo

u h

ave

e

nou

gh p

erso

nal

p

riva

cy w

he

n y

ou

w

an

t it?

Q5

7:

If y

ou

are

u

nha

ppy

with

so

met

hin

g, o

r if

you

w

an

t to

cha

nge

so

met

hin

g ab

out

you

r ca

re, d

o yo

u

kno

w w

ho

to

co

ntac

t?

Q5

8:

Ove

rall,

do

yo

u f

ind

the

co

st

of

livin

g h

ere

reas

onab

le?

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

N

% Y

es

Go

od

Sa

ma

ritan

Pa

rk

Me

ado

ws

Vill

age

23

95

.7

22

95

.5

19

63

.2

19

42

.1

22

72

.7

24

87

.5

22

86

.4

22

77

.3

Th

e W

ellin

gto

n R

etir

em

ent

Res

ide

nce

1

8 8

8.9

1

6 9

3.8

1

4 5

0.0

1

5 5

3.3

1

7 8

2.4

1

7 1

00.

0 1

8 8

8.9

1

6 8

1.3

Col

umbi

a A

ssis

ted

L

ivin

g

19

94

.7

21

90

.5

22

68

.2

18

44

.4

21

85

.7

23

95

.7

18

88

.9

20

85

.0

Piy

am

i Lod

ge

7

10

0.0

7

85

.7

7

10

0.0

7

10

0.0

7

85

.7

6

10

0.0

7

10

0.0

5

60

.0

Orc

hard

Man

or

11

81

.8

10

90

.0

9

55

.6

11

63

.6

11

63

.6

13

10

0.0

13

92

.3

11

90

.9

Go

od

Sa

ma

ritan

Le

e

Cre

st

25

88

.0

23

95

.7

20

80

.0

19

78

.9

23

82

.6

25

10

0.0

22

77

.3

21

85

.7

Le

gacy

Lod

ge

23

91

.3

28

96

.4

27

77

.8

26

65

.4

25

76

.0

26

92

.3

23

10

0.0

23

91

.3

Ext

en

dic

are

Fai

rmo

nt

Pa

rk

36

91

.7

35

97

.1

35

60

.0

33

78

.8

38

78

.9

40

95

.0

37

83

.8

35

74

.3

Yo

rk C

reek

Lod

ge

5

10

0.0

6

66

.7

4

50

.0

3

33

.3

6

50

.0

5

10

0.0

6

83

.3

5

80

.0

Me

ado

w L

and

s 8

1

00.

0 8

1

00.

0 8

8

7.5

6

6

6.7

8

6

2.5

7

1

00.

0 7

1

00.

0 6

5

0.0

91

RELATIONS

9.0 RO

ThissectioGlobalOveeachDimeGlobalOve

Fordetails

9.1 G

Facilitiesi17.3outo(Figure2)

Figure 2:

M

1

Gen

eral

Sat

isfa

ctio

n m

ean

sco

re

(0 t

o 1

00)

SHIP BETWEEN

RELATIONOVERALL

onpresentscerallCareratiensionofCareerallCarerati

sonquestion

General S

intheupperqf100points)).

General Sat

Mean

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

00

DIMENSIONS O

NSHIP BEL CARE RA

omparativeringforeachoeweresignifiing,relativet

n‐levelresults

Satisfactio

quartileofGlothanfacilitie

tisfaction Dim

Lower

74.9

OF CARE AND G

ETWEEN DATING

resultsbetweofthe11Dimicantlyhighertothelowerq

sbyupperan

on

obalOverallCesinthelowe

mension of C

Lower m

85.

GLOBAL OVERA

DIMENSIO

enlowerandensionsofCarinfacilitiescquartile.

dlowerquar

Careratingssrquartileon

are by Globa

middle

9

ALL CARE RAT

ONS OF CA

dupperquartare.Overall,rcategorizedin

rtilegrouping

scoredsignifitheGeneralS

al Overall Ca

Upper midd

87.2

TING

ARE AND

tilefacilitiesbespondentmntheupperq

gs,seeAppen

cantlyhigherSatisfactionD

are rating qua

dle

GLOBAL

basedonthemeanscoresonquartileofthe

ndixL.

r(differenceoDimensionof

artile

Upper

92.2

L

ne

ofCare

92

RELATIONS

9.2 M


Figure 3:

9.3 R

Facilitiesioutof100(Figure4)

Figure 4:

1

Mea

ls a

nd

Din

ing

mea

n s

core

(0

to

100

)

1

Res

iden

t E

nvi

ron

men

t m

ean

sco

re

(0 t

o 1

00)

SHIP BETWEEN

Meals and


Meals and D

Resident E

intheupperq0points)than).

Resident En

Mean

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

00.0

Mean

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

00.0

DIMENSIONS O

d Dining


Dining Dimen

Environm

quartileofGlonfacilitiesint

nvironment D

Lower

72.2

Lower

86.9

OF CARE AND G


nsion of Care

ment

obalOverallCthelowerqua

Dimension of

Lower

78

Lower

92

GLOBAL OVERA


e by Global O

CareratingssartileontheR

Care by Glo

middle

8.4

middle

2.5

ALL CARE RAT

scoredsignifitheMealsan

Overall Care

scoredsignifiResidentEnvi

bal Overall C

Upper mid

81.0

Upper mid

92.9

TING

cantlyhigherndDiningDim

rating quartil

cantlyhigherironmentDim

Care rating q

dle

ddle

r(differenceomensionofCar

e

r(differenceomensionofCa

uartile

Upper

85.8

Upper

94.2

ofre

of7.3are

93

RELATIONS

9.4 A

Facilitiesi10.9outo5).

Figure 5:

9.5 R

Facilitiesioutof100Care(Figu

Figure 6:

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Act

ivit

ies

mea

n s

core

(0

to 1

00)

1

Rel

atio

nsh

ip w

ith

Em

plo

yees

m

ean

sco

re (

0 to

100

)

SHIP BETWEEN

Activities

intheupperqf100points)

Activities Di

Relationsh

intheupperq0points)thanure6).

Relationship

L

ean 7

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Mean

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

00.0

DIMENSIONS O


mension of C

hip with E


p with Emplo

ower

75.1

Lower

86.1

OF CARE AND G


Care by Glob

Employees


yees Dimens

Lower m

79.1

Lower

91

GLOBAL OVERA


bal Overall Ca

s

CareratingssartileontheR

sion of Care

middle

1

middle

1.1

ALL CARE RAT

scoredsignifitheActivities

are rating qu

scoredsignifiRelationshipw

by Global Ov

Upper midd

82.1

Upper mid

93.6

TING

cantlyhighersDimensiono

uartile

cantlyhigherwithEmploye

verall Care ra

le

dle

r(adifferenceofCare(Figu

r(differenceoeesDimensio

ating quartile

Upper

86.0

Upper

95.2

eofure

of9.1onof

e

94

RELATIONS

9.6 F

Facilitiesioutof100(Figure7)

Figure 7:

9.7 C


Figure 8:

1

Fac

ility

En

viro

nm

ent

mea

n s

core

(0

to

100

)

1

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

mea

n s

core

(0

to

100

)

SHIP BETWEEN

Facility En

intheupperq0points)than).

Facility Envi

Communi


Communica

Mean

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

00.0

Mean

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

00.0

DIMENSIONS O

nvironmen


ironment Dim

cation


ation Dimensi

Lower

86.2

Lower

80.7

OF CARE AND G

nt


mension of C


ion of Care b

Lower

91

Lower

86

GLOBAL OVERA

CareratingssartileontheF

are by Globa


by Global Ov

middle

1.6

middle

6.2

ALL CARE RAT

scoredsignifiFacilityEnviro

al Overall Ca

scoredsignifitheCommun

erall Care ra

Upper mid

92.4

Upper mid

88.9

TING

cantlyhigheronmentDime

are rating qua

cantlyhighernicationDime

ating quartile

ddle

ddle

r(differenceoensionofCare

artile

r(differenceoensionofCare

Upper

95.6

Upper

92.6

of9.4e

ofe

95

RELATIONS

9.8 C

Facilitiesioutof100

Figure 9:

9.9 E

Facilitiesi11.1outoofCare(Fi

Figure 10

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Ch

oic

e m

ean

sco

re (

0 to

100

)

1

Em

plo

yee

Res

po

nsi

ven

ess

mea

n

sco

re (

0 to

100

)

SHIP BETWEEN

Choice

intheupperq0points)than

Choice Dime

Employee

intheupperqf100points)igure10).

0: Employee

L

ean 8

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Mean

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

00.0

DIMENSIONS O


ension of Ca

e Respons


Responsiven

ower

88.2

Lower

81.2

OF CARE AND G


are by Global

siveness


ness Dimens

Lower m

90.8

Lower

87

GLOBAL OVERA

CareratingssartileontheC

Overall Care


sion of Care b

middle

8

middle

7.8

ALL CARE RAT

scoredsignifiChoiceDimen

e rating quar

scoredsignifitheEmploye

by Global Ov

Upper midd

92.3

Upper mid

89.0

TING

cantlyhighernsionofCare(

rtile

cantlyhighereeResponsive

verall Care ra

le

ddle

r(differenceo(Figure9).

r(differenceoenessDimens

ating quartile

Upper

93.0

Upper

92.3

of4.8

ofsion

e

96

RELATIONS

9.10 C

Facilitiesi12.1outo(Figure11

Figure 11

9.11 L

Facilitiesioutof100

Figure 12

1

Car

e an

d S

ervi

ces

mea

n s

core

(0 t

o 1

00)

Me

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Lau

nd

ry m

ean

sco

re (

0 to

100

)

SHIP BETWEEN

Care and

intheupperqf100points)1).

1: Care and S

Laundry

intheupperq0points)than

2: Laundry D

Mean

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

00.0

L

ean

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

DIMENSIONS O

Services


Services Dim


imension of C

Lower

75.5

Lower

90.1

OF CARE AND G


mension of Ca


Care by Glob

Lower

80

Lower m

91.5

GLOBAL OVERA


are by Globa

CareratingssartileontheL

bal Overall C

middle

0.9

middle

5

ALL CARE RAT

scoredsignifitheCareand

al Overall Car

scoredsignifiLaundryDime

Care rating qu

Upper mid

84.2

Upper midd

90.9

TING

cantlyhigherdServicesDim

re rating qua

cantlyhigherensionofCar

uartile

ddle

dle

r(differenceomensionofCa

rtile

r(differenceoe(Figure12

Upper

87.6

Upper

94.4

ofare

of4.3).

97

FACILITY-LEVEL EFFECTS: FACILITY SIZE AND OWNERSHIP TYPE

10.0 FACILITY-LEVEL EFFECTS: FACILITY SIZE AND OWNERSHIP TYPE

ThissectionpresentsdataontheimpactoffacilitysizeandfacilityownershiptypeonGlobalOverallCareratingsandthe11DimensionsofCare.

Facilitysizewasmeasuredbythenumberofbedsateachfacility.InformationonthenumberofbedswascollectedfromAHSusingcurrentdata,asofMarch2012.Thenumberincludesallbedswithinthefacility(i.e.,supportivelivingandlongtermcare).Itisrecognizedthatthetotalnumberofbedsmaynotbecompletelyaccurate(therewasacertaindegreeofvariabilityinthedownsizingandupsizingofsomefacilitiesduringthestudyperiod).Cautionshouldbetakenwheninterpretingresultsthatrefertothenumberofbeds.Ingeneral,facilitysizereportedreflectsareasonableestimateofthesizeofthefacilityatthetimeofthesurvey.

Inadditiontofacilitysize,threefacilityownershipmodelswereexaminedtodeterminetheirimpactontheresidents’experiencesofthecareandservicesprovidedatasupportivelivingfacility.TheownershipcategoryofeachfacilitywasidentifiedusingAHS2012data.ThethreeownershipmodelsthatprovidepublicallyfundedsupportivelivingcareinAlberta(asof2012)are:

1. Public–operatedbyorwhollyownedsubsidiaryofAHS

2. Private–ownedbyaprivateforprofitorganization

3. Voluntary–ownedbyanot‐for‐profitorfaith‐basedorganization

98


10.1 Facility size

Facilitiesincludedinthefollowinganalyses(N=80)rangedinbednumbersfrom10to280,withaprovincialaverageof63bedsperfacility.ThetablesinthissectionshowthatfacilitiescategorizedinthelowerquartileonGlobalOverallCareratingshadonaveragetwiceasmanybedsascomparedtofacilitiesthatwerecategorizedintheupperquartile(72versus33beds;Table28).AnalysesofeachoftheDimensionsofCareshowedsimilarresults:facilitiescategorizedinthelowerquartileofaDimensionofCarehadonaveragetwotothreetimesasmanybedscomparedtofacilitiescategorizedintheupperquartile(seefollowingtables).ResultsshowthatfacilitieswithfewerbedsaremorelikelytoobtainahigherGlobalOverallCareratingandhigherscoresoneachoftheDimensionsofCare.

Follow‐upanalysesshowedthatasfacilitysizeincreasesuptoapproximately100beds,scoresontheMealsandDiningDimensionofCaredecrease.However,theeffectofincreasingbednumbersplateausinfacilitieswithgreaterthan100bedsfortheMealsandDiningDimensionofCare.Formoreinformationontheseanalyses,seeAppendixM.

10.1.1 Global Overall Care ratings

Table 28: Mean number of beds by Global Overall Care rating quartiles

Global Overall Care rating quartiles Mean number of beds 95% CI:

Lower Upper

Upper (20 facilities) 33 22 43

Upper middle (19 facilities) 76 52 100

Lower middle (20 facilities) 71 45 96

Lower (21 facilities) 72 46 98

10.1.2 General Satisfaction

Table 29: Mean number of beds by General Satisfaction Dimension of Care quartiles

General Satisfaction quartiles Mean number of beds 95% CI:

Lower Upper





99


10.1.3 Meals and Dining

Table 30: Mean number of beds by Meals and Dining Dimension of Care quartiles

Meals and Dining quartiles Mean number of beds 95% CI:

Lower Upper





10.1.4 Resident Environment

Table 31: Mean number of beds by Resident Environment Dimension of Care quartiles

Resident Environment quartiles Mean number of beds 95% CI:

Lower Upper





10.1.5 Activities

Table 32: Mean number of beds by Activities Dimension of Care quartiles

Activities quartiles Mean number of beds 95% CI:

Lower Upper





100


10.1.6 Relationship with Employees

Table 33: Mean number of beds by Relationship with Employees Dimension of Care quartiles

Relationship with Employees quartiles

Mean number of beds 95% CI:

Lower Upper





10.1.7 Facility Environment

Table 34: Mean number of beds by Facility Environment Dimension of Care quartiles

Facility Environment quartiles Mean number of beds 95% CI:

Lower Upper





10.1.8 Communication

Table 35: Mean number of beds by Communication Dimension of Care quartiles

Communication quartiles Mean number of beds 95% CI:

Lower Upper





101


10.1.9 Choice

Table 36: Mean number of beds by Choice Dimension of Care quartiles

Choice quartiles Mean number of beds 95% CI:

Lower Upper





10.1.10 Employee Responsiveness

Table 37: Mean number of beds by Employee Responsiveness Dimension of Care quartiles

Employee Responsiveness quartiles

Mean number of beds 95% CI:

Lower Upper





10.1.11 Care and Services

Table 38: Mean number of beds by Care and Services Dimension of Care quartiles

Care and Services quartiles Mean number of beds 95% CI:

Lower Upper





102


10.1.12 Laundry

Table 39: Mean number of beds by Laundry Dimension of Care quartiles

Laundry quartiles Mean number of beds 95% CI:

Lower Upper





103

FACILITY-LE

10.2 F

AnalysesoDimensiontheGlobalfacilityowadditionalofCare,se

10.2.1 G

Figure 13

M

0

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Glo

bal

Ove

rall

Car

e ra

tin

g m

ean

sco

re

(0 t

o 1

0)

EVEL EFFECTS

Facility ow

oftheinfluennsofCaresholOverallCarewnershiptypeldetails,inclueeAppendix

Global Ove

3: Global Ove

AH

Mean

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

0.0

S: FACILITY SIZE

wnership

ceoffacilityoowedthattheeratingortheeswithrespecudingananalyN.

rall Care ra

erall Care rat

HS (5 facilitie

7.8

E AND OWNERS

ownershiptyerewerenoseDimensionscttotheindivysisoftheind

ating

tings as a fun

es)

SHIP TYPE

ypeontheGloignificantdiffofCaremeanvidualquestiodividualsurv

nction of own

Private (41 fa

7.8

obalOverallCferencesamonscores.Diffeonswithineaveyquestions

nership type

acilities)

CareratinganongfacilityowerenceswereachDimensionthatcompris

Voluntary (

8

ndeachofthewnershiptypeefoundamonnofCare.ForseeachDimen

(34 facilities)

8.0

eesforngrnsion

104

FACILITY-LE

10.2.2 G

Figure 14

10.2.3 M

Figure 15

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Gen

eral

Sat

isfa

ctio

n m

ean

sco

re(0

to

100

)

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Mea

ls a

nd

Din

ing

mea

n s

core

(0

to 1

00)

EVEL EFFECTS

General Sa

4: General Sa

Meals and D

5: Meals and

A

Mean

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

00.0

AH

ean

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

S: FACILITY SIZE

atisfaction

atisfaction as

Dining

Dining as a

AHS (5 faciliti

86.9

HS (5 facilities

80.8

E AND OWNERS

s a function o

function of o

es)

s) P

SHIP TYPE

of ownership

ownership typ

Private (41 f

85.2

Private (41 fac

80.7

type

pe

facilities)

2

cilities)

Voluntary

8

Voluntary (

78

(34 facilities)

84.9

(34 facilities)

8.8

105

FACILITY-LE

10.2.4 R

Figure 16

10.2.5 A

Figure 17

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Res

iden

t E

nvi

ron

men

t m

ean

sco

re(0

to

100

)

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Act

ivit

ies

mea

n s

core

(0-

100)

EVEL EFFECTS

Resident En

6: Resident E

Activities

7: Activities a

A

Mean

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

00.0

AH

ean

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

S: FACILITY SIZE

nvironment

Environment

as a function

AHS (5 faciliti

92.1

HS (5 facilities

75.2

E AND OWNERS

t

as a function

of ownership

es)

s) P

SHIP TYPE

n of ownershi

p type

Private (41 f

91.8

Private (41 fac

81.8

ip type

facilities)

8

cilities)

Voluntary

9

Voluntary (

8

(34 facilities)

91.2

(34 facilities)

1.0

106

FACILITY-LE

10.2.6 R

Figure 18

10.2.7 F

Figure 19

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Rel

atio

nsh

ip w

ith

Em

plo

yees

mea

n

sco

re (

0 to

100

)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Fac

ility

En

viro

nm

ent

mea

n s

core

(0 t

o 1

00)

EVEL EFFECTS

Relationshi

8: Relationsh

Facility Env

9: Facility Env

A

Mean

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

00.0

A

Mean

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

00.0

S: FACILITY SIZE

p with Emp

ip with Empl

vironment

vironment as

AHS (5 faciliti

92.5

AHS (5 faciliti

91.5

E AND OWNERS

ployees

oyees as a f

s a function o

es)

es)

SHIP TYPE

unction of ow

of ownership

Private (41 fa

92.0

Private (41 f

91.9

wnership type

type

facilities)

0

facilities)

9

e

Voluntary

9

Voluntary

9

(34 facilities)

92.3

(34 facilities)

91.1

107

FACILITY-LE

10.2.8 C

Figure 20

10.2.9 C

Figure 21

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

mea

n s

core

(0

to 1

00)

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Ch

oic

e m

ean

sco

re (

0 to

100

)

EVEL EFFECTS

Communica

0: Communic

Choice

1: Choice as

AH

ean

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

AH

ean

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

S: FACILITY SIZE

ation

cation as a fu

a function of

HS (5 facilities

87.8

HS (5 facilities

90.1

E AND OWNERS

unction of ow

f ownership ty

s) P

s) P

SHIP TYPE

nership type

ype

Private (41 fac

87.7

Private (41 fac

91.3

cilities)

cilities)

Voluntary (

87

Voluntary (

9

(34 facilities)

7.6

(34 facilities)

1.7

108

FACILITY-LE

10.2.10 E

Figure 22

10.2.11 C

Figure 23

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Em

plo

yee

Res

po

nsi

ven

ess

mea

n s

core

(0

-100

)

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Car

e an

d S

ervi

ces

mea

n s

core

(0

to 1

00)

EVEL EFFECTS

Employee R

2: Employee

Care and S

3: Care and S

A

Mean

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

00.0

AH

ean

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

S: FACILITY SIZE

Responsive

Responsiven

Services

Services as a

AHS (5 faciliti

91.7

HS (5 facilities

84.7

E AND OWNERS

eness

ness as a fun

a function of

es)

s) P

SHIP TYPE

nction of own

ownership ty

Private (41 f

88.2

Private (41 fac

82.9

nership type

ype

facilities)

2

cilities)

Voluntary

8

Voluntary (

82

(34 facilities)

88.8

(34 facilities)

2.6

109

FACILITY-LE

10.2.12 L

Figure 24

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Lau

nd

ry m

ean

sco

re (

0 to

100

)

EVEL EFFECTS

Laundry

4: Laundry as

AH

ean

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

S: FACILITY SIZE

s a function o

HS (5 facilities

95.4

E AND OWNERS

of ownership

s) P

SHIP TYPE

type

Private (41 fac

92.4

cilities) Voluntary (

9

(34 facilities)

1.5

110


10.2.13 Additional questions

ThepercentageofrespondentswhosaidthattheyareAlwaysorSometimesinvolvedinmakingdecisionsabouttheircarewasloweramongAHSownedfacilitiescomparedtoprivateandvoluntaryfacilities.

Table 40: Facility ownership – Additional questions23

Questions Measure AHS Private Voluntary Significant Differences

Q51: Can you see a doctor if you need to?

% Yes 93.3 92.9 92.0

Total N 120 927 762

Q52: Are you able to get transportation to or from medical appointments

% Yes 91.4 90.1 89.0

Total N 105 845 690

Q53: Besides medical appointments, do you meet with an onsite nurse or other staff to review changes in your health?

% Yes 67.3 61.3 57.6

Total N 113 909 713

Q54: Besides medical appointments, do you meet with an onsite nurse or other staff to review changes in your medications or other medication related issues?

% Yes 62.8 54.8 51.7

Total N 113 54.8 51.7

Q55: Are you involved in making decisions about your care?

% Yes 60.7 72.6 71.4

%AHS < %Priv and %Vol

Total N 122 920 749

Q56: Do you have enough personal privacy when you want it?

% Yes 96.1 96.2 95.0

Total N 129 1,015 804

Q57: If you are unhappy with something, or you want to change something about your care, do you know who to contact?

% Yes 83.1 85.1 84.6

Total N 124 943 758

Q58: Overall, do you find the cost of living here reasonable?

%Yes 74.1 72.2 71.4

Total N 108 796 683

23ThefourresponseoptionsforeachofthequestionsreportedinTable40wereYesalways,Yessometimes,Nohardlyever,andNonever,whichweresubsequentlycollapsedinto%Yes(YesalwaysandYessometimes)and%No(NohardlyeverandNonever).Theunreportedresponsecategorycanbedeterminedbysubtractingthereportedresultfrom100.Fordetailsonallresponseoptions,seeAppendixI.

111

PROPENSITY TO RECOMMEND FACILITY

11.0 PROPENSITY TO RECOMMEND FACILITY

(SurveyQuestion49):Wouldyourecommendthisplacetoafamilymemberorfriend?YesorNo?

Animportantindicatortotheperceivedqualityofafacilityiswhetheraresidentwouldrecommendthefacilitytoafamilymemberorfriendneedingsupportivelivingcare.Forthisreason,aseparatesectionwasdevotedtoGeneralSatisfactionQuestion49(Q49)regardingthepropensitytorecommend.

Thissectionisstructuredasfollows:

Facilitylistbypercentageofthosewhowouldrecommend(Q49)

RelationshipbetweenpropensitytorecommendandGlobalOverallCareratingquartile

Resultsbyfacilitysizeandownershiptype

Question49ispresentedintwoways:

1. Four‐levelresponsestoQuestion49:

a) NoNever

b) NoHardlyEver

c) YesSometimes

d) YesAlways

2. Binaryresponse,recommendation:YES/NO

a. Yes(YesSometimesandYesAlways)

b. No(NoHardlyEverandNoNever)

112

PROPENSIT

11.1 P

Provincialfriends(Ye

Figure 25

Table 41:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

*significantly

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

TY TO RECOMM

Propensit

lly,88.9percesAlwaysorY

5: Provincial s

Q49: Zone s

ever

imes

s

al

ydifferentcompar

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

MEND FACILITY

ty to recom

entofresponYesSometime

summary of

summary of r

Calgary

(N = 241)

%

5.8

2.9

18.7

72.6

100.0

redtotheAlberta

, Never

7.7

mmend –

ndentsstatedes).

responses fo

responses fo

Central

(N = 404)

%

4.5*

3.7

18.3

73.5

100.0

aresult

No, Hardly

3.4

provincia

thattheywo

or propensity

or propensity

Edmonton

(N = 722)

%

12.3*

3.7

15.5

68.4*

100.0

y Ever Y

al and zon

ouldrecomme

y to recomme

to recomme

North

(N = 101)

%

6.9

5.0

17.8

70.3

100.0

Yes, Sometim

16.6

ne results

endtheirfaci

end

end

)

South

(N = 41

%

3.9*

2.4

15.1*

78.5*

100.0

mes Ye

(Q49)

litytofamily

h

10)

Albe

(N = 1

%

7.

3.

* 16

* 72

0 100

es, Always

72.4

or

erta

,878)

%

7

4

.6

.4

0.0

113


Thefollowingtable(Table42)summarizesresidents’propensitytorecommend(YES/NO)foreachfacility.Facilitiesarepresentedbypercentageofrespondentswillingtorecommendthefacilityandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.





Table 42: Summary of the percentage of respondents who would recommend the facility by Global Overall Care rating

Calgary Respondents

(N) Percentage willing to

recommend (%) Global Overall Care

rating

Aspen Ridge Lodge 12 100.0 8.1

Silver Willow Lodge 11 100.0 7.9

Eau Claire Retirement Residence 19 100.0 7.7

Whitehorn Village 10 100.0 7.6

Sagewood Supportive Living 21 95.2 8.2

Millrise Place 19 94.7 8.3

Prince of Peace Manor 19 94.7 8.0

Walden Supportive Living Community 47 89.4 7.9

Edgemont Retirement Residence 16 87.5 7.5

Monterey Place 29 82.8 7.0


11 81.8 7.6

Scenic Acres Retirement Residence 11 72.7 6.8

Central Respondents



rating

Providence Place 6 100.0 9.2

Islay Assisted Living 11 100.0 8.7

West Park Lodge 19 100.0 8.7

Pines Lodge 8 100.0 8.7

114


Central Respondents

(N)

Percentage willing to recommend (%)


Sunrise Village Olds 12 100.0 8.7

Hillview Lodge 19 100.0 8.6


21 100.0 8.5

Bethany Sylvan Lake 11 100.0 8.3

Coronation Hospital and Care Centre 9 100.0 7.7

Manor at Royal Oak 18 100.0 7.3

Sunrise Village Ponoka 7 100.0 7.3

Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 7 100.0 7.2

Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 14 92.9 8.4

Vermillion Valley Lodge 14 92.9 8.0

Sunset Manor 43 90.7 8.2

Clearwater Centre 15 86.7 7.3

Extendicare Michener Hill 34 85.3 7.8

Points West Living Lloydminster 25 84.0 7.5

Viewpoint 10 80.0 7.1

Bethany Meadows 10 80.0 6.6

Sunrise Village Camrose 32 78.1 6.2

Wetaskiwin Meadows 10 70.0 7.4




rating

Good Samaritan George Hennig Place 14 100.0 9.0

Place Beausejour 15 100.0 8.8

West Country Hearth 5 100.0 7.4

Aspen House 28 96.4 7.9

Rosedale St. Albert 27 96.3 8.1

Rosedale at Griesbach 46 95.7 8.0

CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood 56 94.6 7.8

Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 18 94.4 8.1

Shepherd’s Care Kensington 18 94.4 7.3

Glastonbury Village 29 93.1 7.8

Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre 13 92.3 8.9

Devonshire Manor 26 92.3 7.6

Wild Rose Cottage 12 91.7 8.3

115



(N)

Percentage willing to recommend (%)


Country Cottage Seniors Residence 10 90.0 8.0

LifeStyle Options Riverbend 10 90.0 7.0

Shepherd’s Gardens 17 82.4 7.7

Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village 17 82.4 7.7

Citadel Mews West 25 80.0 7.9

Garneau Hall 15 80.0 7.7

Shepherd’s Care Ashbourne 17 76.5 7.1

Lifestyle Options Terra Losa 24 75.0 7.9

Riverbend Retirement Residence 8 75.0 7.2

Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre 35 71.4 7.2

Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite 61 62.3 6.6

Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle 33 51.5 6.4

North Respondents



rating

Ridgevalley Seniors Home 5 100.0 9.0

Mountain View Centre 16 75.0 7.1

Points West Living Grande Prairie 25 72.0 7.1

South Respondents



rating

Chinook Lodge 6 100.0 9.5

Haven of Rest - South Country Village 10 100.0 9.0

Clearview Lodge 11 100.0 8.7

Sunny South Lodge 12 100.0 8.6

Cypress View 6 100.0 8.6

Good Samaritan Garden Vista 7 100.0 8.1

Columbia Assisted Living 21 100.0 8.0

Piyami Lodge 7 100.0 7.9

York Creek Lodge 6 100.0 7.2

Good Samaritan Lee Crest 25 96.0 7.7

The Wellington Retirement Residence 18 94.4 8.0


63 93.7 8.1

116


South Respondents



rating

Legacy Lodge 26 92.3 7.5

Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village 22 90.9 8.0

Good Samaritan Vista Village 17 88.2 8.3

Orchard Manor 13 84.6 7.8

Extendicare Fairmont Park 39 84.6 7.3

Meadow Lands 8 75.0 6.8

Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.Intheeventofatie,facilitiesarepresentedbytheirGlobalOverallCareratingsfromhighesttolowest.

117

PROPENSIT

11.2 P

ThefollowGlobalOve

Comparedinafacilityfacility(76

Figure 26

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

TY TO RECOMM

Propensit

wingsectionderallCarerati

dtoresidentsyintheuppe6.6%versus9

6: Percentage

L

ean 7

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

MEND FACILITY

ty to recom

describesresping.

residinginarquartileofG98.4%;Figur

e who would

ower

76.6

mmend by

pondents’pro

lowerquartiGlobalOveralre26).

recommend

Lower m

89.7

y Global O

opensitytore

ilefacility,asllCareratings

d their facility

middle

7

Overall Ca

ecommendth

significantlygsstatedthatt

by Global O

Upper midd

92.8

are rating

heirfacilityas

greaterpercetheywouldre

Overall Care r

le

quartile

safunctiono

ntageofresidecommendth

rating quartile

Upper

98.4

f

dentshe

e

118


11.3 Propensity to recommend by facility size and ownership type

Thissectionpresentsdataontheinfluenceoffacilitysizeandfacilityownershiptypeonpropensitytorecommendthefacility.Formoredetailsonthemethodologyofthissection,seeSection10.

11.3.1 Influence of facility size on propensity to recommend

Facilitiesscoringbelowthemedianpercentageofresidentswhowouldrecommendthefacility(94%)hadonaverageapproximately1.7asmanybedscomparedtofacilitiesabovethemedian.Thisfindingsuggeststhatfacilitiesoperatingfewerbedshaveagreaterpercentageofresidentswhowouldrecommendthefacility(Table43).Foradditionaldetails,seeAppendixJ.

Table 43: Number of beds by percentage of respondents who would recommend the facility (median 94.0%)24

Percent recommended median

95% CI:

Mean number of beds

Lower Upper

Above median (40 facilities) 47 36 59

Below median (40 facilities) 78 59 98

24Duetothedistributionofresults,thedecisionwasmadetouseamedianratherthanaquartilesplit

119

PROPENSIT

11.3.2 I

Therewertype(Figu

Figure 27

Perce

4

1

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

TY TO RECOMM

nfluence of

renosignificaure27).

7: Percentage

A

ntage

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

00.0

MEND FACILITY

f ownership

antdifference

e who would

AHS (5 faciliti

94.9

p type on pr

esamongfaci

recommend

es)

ropensity to

ilitiesforthe

d facility by ow

Private (41 f

90.4

o recomme

propensityto

wnership typ

facilities)

4

nd

orecommend

pe

Voluntary

9

dbyownersh

(34 facilities)

90.1

hip

120

QUALITATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS

12.0 QUALITATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Interviewerswereinstructedtorecordanyandalldetailsrelatedtotheinterview.Commentswereextrapolatedbytrainedinterviewersfromresidentinterviewsandarenotdirectquotes.Ultimately,interviewersdeterminedhowtorecordtheinformation(i.e.,language,tone,andlevelofdetail).Interviewercommentswererecordedwiththegoalofrepresentingthevoiceoftheresidentstothebestoftheinterviewers’abilities.Ofthetotalnumberofcommentsrecorded,166relatedtoresidents’experienceswiththeirfacility.Thesecommentsprovidedadditionalinformationnotcapturedinthesurvey.

ThisWordCloud25summarizesthewordsinterviewersusedmostoftenwhenprovidingacommentrelatedtoresidents’experienceswiththeirfacility.Thewordsusedmostfrequentlyarelargest,andincludethewords‘staff’,‘facility’,‘care’,and‘food’.Wordsusedlessfrequentlyaresmaller.Ascanbeseen,staffinglevels,foodandresidentcarearesomeofthekeytopicsofinteresttoresidents,asrecordedbyinterviewers.

25TheWordcloudprovidesasummaryofthewordsmostfrequentlycapturedbyinterviewersfromresidentinterviews,withtheexceptionof:twoletterwords,conjunctions(e.g.,and,than,once),prepositions(e.g.,like,near,into),pronouns(e.g.,you,him,her),nounsdescribingtheresident’sidentityandwheretheylive(e.g.,mom,dad,city,dates),wordsdescribingthesurvey(e.g.,survey,questionnaire),numbers,andduplicatesandpluralsofwords(e.g.,staffing,meals).

Figure 28: Word Cloud – Qualitative Analysis

121


Inthesectionsthatfollow,asummaryandanalysisofthe166interviewercommentsisprovided.UseofinterviewercommentsrequiredadditionalconsiderationswhichwereaddressedanddiscussedinAppendixJ.Whilethesedocumentedqualitativecommentsareusefultocharacterizeexperienceinspecificareas,owingtothesmallnumberofcomments,theydonotrepresenttheviewsoftheentirepopulation.Thekeythemesidentifiedininterviewercommentswereorganizedbythe11surveyDimensionsofCareandthreenewemergentthemes:(1)Transportation,(2)SafetyandSecurity,and(3)HealthcareServices.

12.1 General Satisfaction

ThisDimensionofCarecontainedthegreatestnumberofinterviewercomments(approximately20percentofallinterviewercomments).Thesecommentswererelatedtoresidents’satisfactionwiththeirsupportivelivingfacility.Althoughthemajorityofcommentsrevealedresidentsweregenerallysatisfiedorhadnocomplaintsabouttheirsupportivelivingfacility,someofthecommentsincludedconstructivefeedbackandindicatedtherewasroomforimprovement.

Commentsrevealedthatcostoflivingnegativelyaffectedresidents’generalsatisfaction.Commentsrevealedthatresidentsthoughtthatthecostoflivingattheirfacilitywastoohighandresidentswerenegativelyaffectedbyfinancialcutbacksandcostincreases.Commentsalsoconveyedresidents’concernsthatfinancialconstraintsaffectedthenumberofemployeesandresourcesavailableandnegativelyaffectedqualityofcare.

12.2 Meals and Dining

TheMealsandDiningDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelyeightpercentofallinterviewercomments.Mostofthesecommentswererelatedtotheresidents’satisfactionwiththefoodservedattheirfacility.Whilesomeoftheresidentscomplimentedthequalityoffoodservedattheirfacility,otherresidentsexpressedthatthequalityofthefoodcouldbeimproved.Basedonconversationswithresidents,interviewersnotedthevariety,taste,nutritionalvalue,temperature(e.g.,hotfoodservedcold),andportionsize(e.g.,toolargeortoosmall)ofthefoodcouldbeimproved.Interviewersalsoreportedthatresidents’medicaldietaryrestrictionswerenotalwaysconsideredwhenmealswereplannedandattimestherewereabruptandsuddenmenuchanges.Consequently,someresidentsresortedtomakingorbringingintheirownmealsinordertoavoidnegativemealtimeexperiences.26

26Itisimportanttonotethatresidentsatsupportivelivingfacilitiesarenotlimitedtothemealsservedonsite.Someroomsareequippedwithstovesand/ormicrowavestohelpresidentspreparetheirownmeals.

122


12.3 Resident Environment

ApproximatelyeightpercentofinterviewercommentswererelatedtotheResidentEnvironmentDimensionofCare.Thesecommentsweremostoftenrelatedtothesafetyofresidents’belongings.Specifically,residentsreportedthattheyexperiencedtheftofclothing,money,andpersonalitemsfromtheirrooms.Consequently,residentsexpressedtointerviewersthattheydidnotalwaysfeelthattheirbelongingsweresecure.

Privacywasanotherresidentconcernthatwascapturedbyinterviewers.Someresidentsreportedthattheydidnothavetheprivacytheydesiredandattimesthisdeterredthemfrominvitingguestsoverforprivateroomvisits.

12.4 Activities

ThisDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelysixpercentofallinterviewercomments.Thesecommentsrelatedtotheresidents’experienceswithandinclusioninday‐to‐dayactivities.Themajorityofcommentsreflectedthatresidentswerenotalwayssatisfiedwiththenumberandthetypeofactivitiesavailableattheirfacility.Residentsexpressedthattheywerenotalwaysincludedinday‐to‐dayactivities,forexample,somephysicallyimpairedresidentswereunabletoparticipateinanactivitybecauseitwasnotsuitablefortheircapabilities.Interviewercommentscapturedconcernsthatresidentswhowerenotincludedinday‐to‐dayactivitieswereisolatedandunabletogettoknowotherresidentsattheirfacility.Thisinturnnegativelyaffectedresidents’senseofbelongingattheirfacility.Commentsfurtherrevealedthatresidentsdesiredagreaternumberandvarietyofavailableactivitiesandforactivitiestobeinclusiveofallresidents.Somespecificrequestsrecordedbyinterviewersincludedtheadditionofanexerciseroom,encouragedsocializationamongresidents,agamesroom,andmoreoff‐siteactivities.

12.5 Relationship with Employees

Approximatelyninepercentofallinterviewercommentswererelatedtotheresidents’opinionsaboutandrelationshipswithfacilityemployees.Someresidentsdescribedemployeesasbeingwonderful,kind,andrespectful,whileotherresidentsexpressedunhappinessandfeltthatthewaytheyweretreatedbyemployeescouldbeimproved.Accordingtocommentsmadebyinterviewers,residentsfeltthatemployeescouldbeunfriendlyanddisrespectful.Residentshaddescribedtheseemployeesasrude,inconsiderate,patronizing,impersonal,and‘rough’withtheresidents.

12.6 Facility Environment

Ofthecommentsmadebyinterviewers,approximatelyfivepercentwererelatedtotheFacilityandEnvironmentDimensionofCare.Commentsrevealedareasforimprovementinthemaintenanceoffacilitygrounds,facilitydesign,andcleanliness.Concerningthemaintenanceoffacilitygrounds,residentshadconcernsthatsnowwasnotclearedfrompathwaysduringwintermonths.Concerningfacilitydesign,residentsexpressedthattheydidnotalwaysfeelsafelivingintheneighborhoodtheirfacilitywaslocatedin;didnotalwayshaveaccesstoanoutdoorareatoenjoy;andwerenotalwaysabletomovesafelywithintheirfacilitybecausetheirfacilityhadsteeprampsandclutteredhallways.Lastly,residentshadconcernsthatcleaningoftheirroomsandcommonareaswasnotcompletedregularlyorthoroughlyenoughattheirfacility.

123


12.7 Communication

TheCommunicationDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelysevenpercentofallinterviewercomments.Accordingtocommentsmadebyinterviewers,theresidents’opinionsaboutcommunicationwithmanagement,particularlyresidents’abilitytogetcomplaintsandconcernsaddressed,weremixed.Someresidentsdescribedmanagementstaffasapproachableandwillingtoaddresstheirrequestsandconcerns.Otherresidentssaidthatmanagementwerenotalwaysapproachableandwereunwillingtoaddresscomplaintsandconcerns.Whenmanagementdidattempttoaddressresidents’complaintsandconcerns,resolutionwasnotalwayssatisfactory.

Interviewercommentsalsocapturedresidents’concernsabouttheirabilitytocommunicatewith,understand,andbeunderstoodbystaff.Inparticular,residentsexpressedconcernsabouttheirabilitytoreceivequalitycarebecauseresidentsorstaffdidnotspeakEnglishfluentlyandresidentswereunabletoeffectivelyverballycommunicatetheirneedstostaff.

12.8 Choice

Approximatelyfourpercentofallinterviewercommentswererelatedtotheresidents’abilitytomaketheirownchoiceswhilelivingattheirfacility.Residentsexpressedthattheyhadmixedexperiencesconcerningtheirabilitytomaketheirownchoices.Inparticular,someresidentsreportedtheywereabletomaketheirownchoiceswhileothersreportedfeelingthattheirchoiceswereconstrained,suchaswhentheywerepreventedfromdoingthingstheywerecapableoforwhentheywerepushedbeyondtheircapabilities.

12.9 Employee Responsiveness

Approximatelytenpercentofallinterviewercommentswererelatedtotheavailabilityofemployeesatsupportivelivingfacilities.Overall,commentsmostoftenconveyedresidents’concernsthatfacilitieswereunderstaffed,particularlyonweekendsandevenings.Residentssuggestedthatwhentheirfacilitywasunderstaffed,theirabilitytoreceivetimelyhelpwasnegativelyaffected.Aswell,residentsexpressedthattheyfeltlesssafeandlesssatisfiedwhenfeweremployeeswereavailable.Commentsrevealedthatresidentswerenotalwaysconfidentinemployees’qualificationsandfeltthatemployeeswouldbenefitfromcontinuededucationandon‐the‐jobtraining.

12.10 Care and Services

ThisDimensionofCarecomprisedapproximatelysevenpercentofinterviewercomments.Thesecommentsconveyedresidentsmixedsentimentswithrespecttothecareandservicesprovidedtothem.Whereassomeresidentsthoughtcareandserviceswereexcellent,othersthoughtthatcareandserviceswererushed,delayed,ornotreceived.Interviewersfurthercommentedthattheexplanationsprovidedbyemployeestoresidentswithrespecttothecareandservicesresidentsreceivedwerenotalwaystailoredtoresidents’levelofunderstanding.

12.11 Laundry

LaundrywastheDimensionofCareleastcommentedonandaccountedforapproximatelyonepercentofallinterviewercomments.Ingeneral,residentssaidtheirlaundrywasnotreturnedtothemandasaresult,clothinghadgonemissing.

124


12.12 Other

Inadditiontoprovidingcommentsthatcouldbecategorizedintooneofthe11DimensionsofCaresummarizedpreviously,interviewersalsorecordedcommentsthatcouldnotbeclassifiedasbelongingtoaparticularDimensionofCare.The‘Other’categoryaddressestheseadditionalemergentthemesinthesummariesthatfollow.

12.12.1 Transportation

Approximatelytenpercentofcommentswereabouttheresidents’experiencesinusingtransportation.Interviewersreportedthatresidentsfoundcostoftransportationtobehighandfoundtransportationservicestobeunreliable.Insteadofusingtransportationservicesprovidedbysupportivelivingfacilities,residentscalledonafamilymember,afriend,orataxiiftheyneededreliableandaffordabletransportation.

12.12.2 Safety and Security

Althoughmostoftheinterviewercommentsrevealedthatresidentsfeltsafelivingatthefacility,someresidentsreportedthattheydidnotalwaysfeelsafeandsecure.Inparticular,someresidentsexpressedthattheyfelttheirsupportivelivingfacilitybuildingwasunsafeeitherbecausetherewerephysicalbarriersthatpreventedresidentsfromgettinghelporhavingameanstoescapeinanemergencysituation,orbecausethebuildingwaslocatedinwhattheyperceivedtobeanunsafeneighbourhood.Someresidentssaidtheydidnotexperiencegoodrelationshipswithemployeeswhichmadethemfeelunsafeand/ormadethemfeeltheirplacementatthatfacilitywasnotpermanentandthattheycouldbeevictedfromthefacilityatanymoment.

12.12.3 Healthcare Services

AHealthcareServicesthemeemergedintheinterviewers’commentsanalysis.Thisthemewasrelatedtoresidents’accesstohealthcareservices,bothingeneralaswellasin‐houseatsupportivelivingfacilities.Interviewersnotedintheircommentsthatsomeresidentsdesiredaccesstoservicessuchasphysiciancareintheirfacilitywhileotherresidentsdesiredgreateraccesstohealthcareservicessuchasphysiotherapyandoccupationaltherapy,regardlessofwheretheywereprovided.Someresidentssuggestedaccesstoin‐househealthcareservicesinparticularwouldbebeneficialbecausetravellingtohealthcareserviceswaschallengingwhentheywereillorwerephysicallydisabled.

125

LIMITATIONS

13.0 LIMITATIONS

13.1 Limitations of the quantitative analyses

Ininterpretingtheresultsofthereport,thereareseveralimportantlimitationstoconsider:

1. Theeffectofsamplesize:Resultsbecomeincreasinglyunreliableasthesamplesize(i.e.,thenumberofrespondents)decreasesinrelationtotheoverallpopulation.Readersmustbemindfulofthesamplesizewhengivingweighttofindings,inparticularfacility‐to‐facilitycomparisons.Tomitigatethis,facility‐levelanalyseswerelimitedtofacilitieswithreliablesamplesizes(80of134facilities;seeSection4.3andAppendixE),whichisdefinedasthosefacilitiesforwhichrespondentsreliablyrepresentthefacilitywithinapredefinedmarginoferror.Thecriteriaforreliabilitywastwo‐fold:1)amarginoferrorcalculationwhichidentifiedreliablefacilitiesasthosewithamarginoferrorofequaltoorlessthan10percent,and2)aresponserateofgreaterthan50percent.Furthermore,samplesizesand95percentconfidenceintervalsarereportedinassociationwithresultsamongfacilitiesinorderforthereadertomakejudgmentsregardingthefindings.

2. Theeffectoftheresidentprofileatthefacility:Differencesinresidentprofilesmustbeconsideredwheninterpretingthesurveyresultsrelativetothezoneandtheprovince.Forexample,ageandthedegreeofphysicalandcognitiveimpairmentofresidentswithinaparticularfacilitymayprovidemeaningfulcontextintheinterpretationofthesurveyresults,includingexplainingwhydifferencesexistordonotexistrelativetoAHSzoneandprovincialresults,andwhetherthesedifferencesaremeaningful.

3. Theeffectofservicesprovided:Giventhatfacilitiesdifferinmanyways,thesurveyanditscomponentsmustalsobeevaluatedrelativetotheactivitiesandtheservicesprovidedbyeachfacility.Forexample,laundryservicesmaynotbeaserviceofferedbyallfacilities,orusedbyallresidentswithineachfacilitytherebylimitingtheapplicabilityofquestionsrelatedtolaundryforthosefacilitiesorresidents.

13.2 Limitations of the qualitative analyses

Therearelimitationsassociatedwiththeuseofinterviewers’comments.First,experiencescapturedbythesecommentsarenotnecessarilygeneralizabletoallresidentslivinginsupportivelivingfacilities,asnoteveryresidentsharedtheirexperienceswithaninterviewer.

Thepotentialforinterviewerbiasplaceslimitationsontheinterpretationofcommentscapturedduringinterviewswiththeresidents.Inparticular,itisimportanttoemphasizethatthecommentsanalyzedweremadebyinterviewersaboutresidents’experiences.Commentswereextrapolatedbyinterviewersfromresidentsandarenotdirectquotes.

Thecommentsinterviewersrecordedmayhavebeenbiased,asalargerpercentageofcommentswereconstructivecriticismsaboutfacilities(approximately66percent).Thismayhaveoccurred,becauseinterviewerscouldhaveattributedgreaterimportanceorvaluetocommentsofthistype.

126

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

14.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

TheSupportiveLivingResidentExperienceSurveywasconductedbytheHealthQualityCouncilofAlbertaincollaborationwithAlbertaHealthandAlbertaHealthServices(AHS).Theintentofthesurveyistoestablishabaselinemeasurementforsupportivelivingresidents’experiences(supportivelivinglevel3and4residents)thatcanbeusedforbenchmarkingandongoingmonitoringasmeasuredbytheGlobalOverallCareratingandthe11DimensionsofCare.Thisreportpresentsanoverviewofoverallfacilityperformanceacrosstheprovincefromthesupportivelivingresidents’perspective.Thisinformationcanbeusedtoassessperformancerelativetopeers,toidentifyopportunitiesforimprovement,andtoidentifyhigherperformingfacilities.

Results


TheGlobalOverallCareratingreflectsresidents’overallevaluationofthesupportivelivingfacility.TheGlobalOverallCareratingfortheprovincewas7.8outof10.Therewasvariationamongthefacilitiesthroughouttheprovincewithindividualfacilityscoresrangingfrom6.2to9.5outof10.

Attheprovinciallevel,the11DimensionsofCarevaryintheirinfluenceonresidentexperienceandresidents’overallevaluationofthesupportivelivingfacility.ThegreatestgainsattheprovinciallevelmayberealizedbyfocusingonthestrongestinfluencersofGlobalOverallCarewhichwereidentifiedusingaregressionmodel.Thesearelistedinorderofdecreasinginfluenceandinclude:27,28

1. MealsandDining


3. Activities



6. Communication

7. Choice


9. CareandServices

10. Laundry

27TheGeneralSatisfactionDimensionofCarewasmoststronglyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCare;thisisexpectedgiventhequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCarereflectoverallopinionsaboutthefacility(correlationcoefficientr=0.643).However,withthegoalofidentifyingspecificareasforimprovement,GeneralSatisfaction,andthequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCare,isnotamenabletothistypeofevaluationorinterpretation,limitingitsutilitywhentargetingmeaningfulaspectsofcaretopotentiallychangeforthebenefitofresidents.28Choice,EmployeeResponsiveness,CareandServices,andLaundryDimensionsofCarewerenotsignificantlyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCareratingsintheprovincialanalyses.

127


Inaddition,eachfacilityhastheirownuniqueareasoffocus,whichmaydifferfromthoseidentifiedfortheprovince.Thesearehighlightedinfacility‐levelreports,whichhavebeenprovidedtoeachfacilitythatparticipatedinthesurvey.

General Satisfaction

TheGeneralSatisfactionDimensionofCarehasthestrongestinfluenceontheGlobalOverallCarerating.Thisdimensionreflectsresidentexperienceswiththeirsenseofcomfortatthefacility,whethertheresidentthinkstheyaregettingtheirmoney’sworth,andwhethertheywouldrecommendthefacility.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas85.2outof100.Therewasvariabilityamongthefacilitiesthroughouttheprovincewithindividualfacilityscoresrangingfrom60.4to96.7outof100.ThisDimensionofCareaccountedforthegreatestnumberofinterviewercomments.Althoughthemajorityofcommentsrevealedresidentsweregenerallysatisfiedorhadnocomplaintsabouttheirsupportivelivingfacility,someofthecommentsincludedconstructivefeedbackandindicatedtherewasroomforimprovement.

Meals and Dining

TheMealsandDiningDimensionofCarehasthesecondmostinfluenceontheGlobalOverallCarerating.Thisdimensionreflectsresidentexperienceswithfoodandfoodservicesattheirfacility.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas79.9outof100.Therewasvariabilityamongthefacilitiesthroughouttheprovincewithindividualfacilityscoresrangingfrom60.4to95.5outof100.TheMealsandDiningDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelyeightpercentofallinterviewercomments.Mostofthesecommentswererelatedtoresidents’satisfactionwiththefoodservedattheirfacility.Whereassomeoftheresidentscomplimentedthequalityoffoodservedattheirfacility,otherresidentsexpressedthatthequalityofthefoodcouldbeimproved.

Resident Environment

TheResidentEnvironmentDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswithprivacy,theirroomatthefacility,theirpersonalsafety,andthesafetyoftheirbelongings.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas91.6outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom76.4to98.6outof100.TheResidentEnvironmentDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelyeightpercentofallinterviewercomments.Mostofthesecommentswererelatedtothesafetyofresidents’belongings.

Activities

TheActivitiesDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswiththeactivitiesattheirfacility.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas81.1outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom56.5to98.7outof100.TheActivitiesDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelysixpercentofallinterviewercomments.Mostofthesecommentswererelatedtonumberandtypeofactivitiesavailableattheirfacility.Ingeneral,residentsdesiredagreaternumberandvarietyofavailableactivitiesandforactivitiestobeinclusiveofallresidents.


TheRelationshipwithEmployeesDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswiththecourteousness,friendliness,anddependabilityofemployeesattheirfacility.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas92.2outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom76.9to100outof100.TheRelationshipwithEmployeesDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelyninepercentofall

128


interviewercomments.Someresidentsdescribedemployeesasbeingwonderful,kind,andrespectful,whileotherresidentsfeltthatthewaytheyweretreatedbyemployeescouldbeimproved.

Facility Environment

TheFacilityEnvironmentDimensionofCarereflectsresidentopinionsaboutthefacility’slocation,attractiveness,noiselevels,andcleanliness.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas91.6outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom74.7to99.4outof100.TheFacilityEnvironmentDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelyfivepercentofallinterviewercomments.Mostofthesecommentswereconstructivefeedbackrelatedtothemaintenanceoffacilitygrounds,facilitydesign,andcleanlinessofthefacility.

Communication

TheCommunicationDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswithfacilitymanagement.Thescorefortheprovincewas87.7outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom63.8to98.5outof100.TheCommunicationDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelysevenpercentofallinterviewercomments.Someofthesecommentsdescribedmanagementstaffasapproachableandwillingtoaddressrequestsandconcerns,whereasotherresidentssaidthatcommunicationwithmanagementcouldbeimproved.

Choice

TheChoiceDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswithhavingchoice,suchasthefreedomtogotobed,tocomeandgofromthefacilitywhenevertheychooseto,andtohavetheabilitytochoosewhatclothestowear.ThisDimensionofCarealsoexploreswhetheremployeesencourageresidentstodothingstheyareabletoandtoleaveresidentsalonewhentheydon’twanttodoanything.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas91.4outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom82.3to100outof100.TheChoiceDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelyfourpercentofallinterviewercomments.Someresidentsreportedtheywereabletomaketheirownchoiceswhileothersreportedfeelingthattheirchoiceswereconstrained.

Employee Responsiveness

TheEmployeeResponsivenessDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswiththeavailabilityofemployeesduringtheday,theevenings,andtheweekends.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas88.7outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom69.3to99.0outof100.TheEmployeeResponsivenessDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximately10percentofallinterviewercomments.Mostofthesecommentswererelatedtostaffinglevelsatthefacilityandhowlowstaffinglevelsnegativelyaffectedcareandservices.

Care and Services

TheCareandServicesDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswithtimelymedicationdelivery,whetheremployeesexplainthecareandservicestherespondentsarereceiving,theabilitytogetsnacksanddrinkswhenevertheywant,andwhetheremployeesarefamiliarwithresidentpreferences.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas82.9outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom60.7to96.8outof100.TheCareandServicesDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelysevenpercentofallinterviewercomments.Mostofthesecommentswererelatedtothedeliveryofcareandservices.

129


Whilesomeresidentsthoughtcareandserviceswereexcellent,othersprovidedconstructivefeedbackinareaswherecareandservicescanbeimproved.

Laundry

TheLaundryDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswiththelaundryservicesattheirfacility.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas92.2outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom69.1to100outof100.TheLaundryDimensionofCarewastheDimensionleastcommentedonandaccountedforapproximatelyonepercentofallinterviewercomments.Ingeneral,residentssaidtheirlaundrywasnotreturnedtothemandasaresult,clothinghadgonemissing.

Quartile analyses

Facilitiesthatwerecategorizedintheupperquartile(i.e.,upper25percentofscores)ontheirGlobalOverallCareratingwerealsoratedmorepositivelyineachofthe11DimensionsofCare,relativetofacilitiesthatwerecategorizedinthelowerquartile(i.e.,lower25percentofscores).Thisanalysiswillassistlowerquartilefacilitiesindeterminingtheimportanceandfocusofqualityimprovementinitiatives.Upperquartileperformerscanbeusedasexamplesofhowtoachieveimprovedperformanceinvariousareas.Differencesinmeansbetweentheupperandlowerperformingfacilities,ineachofthe11DimensionsofCareare:

GeneralSatisfaction:17.3outof100

MealsandDining:13.6outof100

ResidentEnvironment:7.3outof100

Activities:10.9outof100

RelationshipwithEmployees:9.1outof100

FacilityEnvironment:9.4outof100

Communication:11.9outof100

Choice:4.8outof100

EmployeeResponsiveness:11.1outof100

CareandServices:12.1outof100

Laundry:4.3outof100

Facility size

Overall,resultsshowedthatfacilitysizeisanimportantfactorthatinfluencesallDimensionsofCareandtheGlobalOverallCarerating.Asfacilitysizeincreases(i.e.,numberofbeds),theGlobalOverallCareratingandscoresfortheDimensionsofCaredecrease.Typically,smallerfacilities(i.e.,fewerbeds)have

130


morefavorableratingsthanlargerfacilities.ThisissimilartoafindingpreviouslyreportedbytheHealthQualityCouncilofAlbertaforthelongtermcaresector.29However,itwasnotedthattherewereafewlargefacilitiesthatreceivedrelativelyhighscoresandafewsmallfacilitiesthatreceivedrelativelylowscoresontheGlobalOverallCarerating.

Ownership type

Althoughthereweredifferencesamongownershiptypesforsomeoftheindividualquestionsinthesurvey,noevidencewasfoundtosuggestthattheGlobalOverallCareandDimensionsofCarescoresdifferedbyownershiptype(i.e.,AHS,privatelyowned,orvoluntaryowned).

Propensity to recommend

Provincially,88.9percentofrespondentsstatedthattheywouldrecommendtheirfacility.AgreaterpercentageofrespondentsfromfacilitiescategorizedintheupperquartileofGlobalOverallCareratingswouldrecommendtheirfacilityrelativetorespondentsfromlowerquartilefacilities(98.4%versus76.6%).

Conclusion

Resultspresentedinthisreportareintendedtoguidereflectiononperformancebyidentifyingthefactorsthatcontributetotheoverallevaluationofafacilityfromtheresident’sperspective.Goingforward,resultsfromfacility‐levelreports,thisreport,andthe2014SupportiveLivingFamilyExperienceSurveyReportprovideabenchmarkbywhichtocomparefuturesurveyresultsandtomeasureimprovementoutcomes.Theongoingevaluationofafacilityagainstitself,anditspeers,willprovideopportunitiestoidentifyareasofsuccessandtodeterminetheimportanceandfocusofqualityimprovementinitiatives.Thiscansupportacultureofcontinualqualityimprovementbasedonfamilyandresidentfeedback.

Ataprovinciallevel,thegreatestgainsmayberealizedbyfocusingonimprovementtothefollowing,inorderofdecreasingpriorityandinfluenceonGlobalOverallCarerating:30,31

1. MealsandDining


3. Activities


29Forfurtherdetailspleasereferto:http://hqca.ca/surveys/continuing‐care‐experience/30TheGeneralSatisfactionDimensionofCarewasmoststronglyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCare;thisisexpectedgiventhequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCarereflectoverallopinionsaboutthefacility(correlationcoefficientr=0.643).However,withthegoalofidentifyingspecificareasforimprovement,GeneralSatisfactionandthequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCare,isnotamenabletothistypeofevaluationorinterpretation,limitingitsutilitywhentargetingmeaningfulaspectsofcaretopotentiallychangeforthebenefitofresidents.31Choice,EmployeeResponsiveness,CareandServices,andLaundryDimensionsofCarewerenotsignificantlyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCareratingsintheprovincialanalyses.

131



6. Communication

Eachindividualfacilityhastheirownuniqueareasforimprovement,whichmaydifferfromthoseidentifiedfortheprovince.Facilitiesshouldrefertotheirfacility‐levelreportstobetterdeterminewheretofocusqualityimprovementeffortstobestmeettheneedsoftheirresidentsandfamilymembers.

Residentexperiencedataaloneshouldnotbeusedtojudgefacilityperformanceintheabsenceofotherinformationsuchaslevel‐of‐needoftheresidentpopulation,servicesprovided,otherqualitymeasuressuchasthosederivedfromtheinterRAITMResidentAssessmentInstrument,complaintsandconcerns,andcompliancewithprovincialcontinuingcarestandards.

132

APPENDICES

APPENDICES

133

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A: SURVEY DOCUMENTS

135

APPENDIX A

136

APPENDIX A

137

APPENDIX A

138

APPENDIX A

139

APPENDIX A

140

APPENDIX A

141

APPENDIX A

142

APPENDIX A

143

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B: SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

B.1 Privacy, confidentiality, and ethical considerations

InaccordancewiththerequirementsoftheHealthInformationActofAlberta(HIA),anamendmenttotheHQCAprivacyimpactassessmentforpatientexperiencesurveyswassubmittedto,andacceptedby,theOfficeoftheInformationandPrivacyCommissionerofAlberta(OIPC)specificallyfortheSupportiveLivingResidentandFamilyExperiencesurveys.

Asaprovincialcustodian,theHQCAfollowstheHIAtoensurethesecurityofthehealthinformationitcollects.Potentialrespondentswereinformedofthepurposeandprocessofthesurvey,thattheirparticipationwasvoluntary,andthattheirinformationwouldbeconfidential.Thoserespondentswhodeclinedtoparticipatewereremovedfromthesurveyprocess.Residentsandfamilieswereinformedaboutthesurveyprocessusingconventionalcommunicationchannelsincludingpostersandpamphlets.Acontactnumberwasprovidedforthosewhohadconcerns.

B.2 The Alberta Supportive Living Resident Experience Survey

B.2.1 Survey instrument

ThemainbodyofquestionsintheAlbertaSupportiveLivingResidentExperienceSurveywereadaptedfromtheOhioResidentialCareFacility2013Survey,whichwasdevelopedandtestedbyScrippsGerontologyCentreatMiamiUniversityofOhioandtheMargaretBlenknerResearchInstituteofBenjaminRoseinCleveland,Ohio.TheOhiosurveyinstrumentwasimplementedstate‐widein2007atOhiolong‐termcarefacilitiestoassessresidentexperience.TheinitialgoalfortheconstructionofthesurveyinstrumentwastoprovidetheOhioDepartmentofAgingwithanunderstandingofhowsatisfiedresidentswerewiththecareandservicesprovidedbythesefacilities.

TheinstrumentrefinementandpsychometricevaluationwasperformedbytheScrippsgroupandinvolvedtestingthereliabilityofthequestionnaireasawholeinadditiontodimension‐specificconstructreliabilityofthequestionswithineachDimensionofCare.ThisensuresthatquestionswithinaparticularDimensionofCareweresimilarwitheachotherandwerewithinacentralconceptualtheme.Questionsthatdidnotmeetthereliabilitycriteriawererevised,movedtoamorerelatedDimensionofCare,orremoved.Severalmethodswereusedtoachievethefinalversionofthequestionnairethatinvolvedfactoranalysesandscalereliabilityanalysesinordertodeterminethefinalcontentofthequestionnaire.32

Thequestionnaireiswritteninthenon‐specificpresenttensewithquestionspositivelywordedandisdesignedtoasktherespondentabouttheircurrentexperienceasopposedtopastorfutureexperiences(seeAppendixA).

322007Long‐TermCareFacilityResidentSatisfactionSurvey,RCFSurveyFindingsReport,VitalResearch,preparedfortheOhioDepartmentofAging,February2008.

144

APPENDIX B

B.2.2 Survey dimensions

TheOhiosurveycomprises11subscales(i.e.,DimensionsofCare):Activities,Choice,CareandServices,RelationshipwithEmployees,EmployeeResponsiveness,Communication,MealsandDining,Laundry,FacilityEnvironment,ResidentEnvironment,andGeneralSatisfaction.EachDimensionofCarecomprisesfourtosixquestions;andadimensionsummaryscoreisproducedfromspecificquestionswithineachdimension.Foralistofthesequestions,seeAppendixI.

B.2.3 Additional questions

Asaresultoffindingsintheliteratureandconsultationwithstakeholders,eightadditionalquestionsrelatedtocareandserviceswereaddedbytheHQCAandusedinthesurvey(AppendixA).ThepurposeoftheAdditionalCareQuestionswastoassessthequalityofclinicalcareandmedicalservicesprovidedatsupportivelivingfacilitiesincluding:accesstoadoctor,accesstotransportationto/frommedicalappointments,followuponhealthstatusandmedications,andresidentinvolvementinmedicaldecisions.Thesequestionswereconstructedwithresponseandwordingconsistentwiththecoreinstrument

TheGlobalOverallCarerating0to10scalewastakenfromtheCAHPS®33surveyforthepurposesofcomparisonwithotherinstrumentsusedinthemeasurementoffamilyandresidentexperiencesincontinuingcare(suchastheSupportiveLivingFamilyExperienceSurveyReportandtheLong‐TermCareFamilyandResidentExperienceSurveyReport).

Standarddemographicquestions(Question59‐65)werealsoadded.

B.2.3 Survey response options

Forrespondentswhoconductedthesurveyviainterview,eachsurveyquestionwasfollowedbyYesorNotohelptheresidentdecideonananswercategorypriortomakingadecisiononthedegreeofagreementordisagreementwithinthechosenanswercategory.Thesurveywasdesignedthiswaytohelpaccommodateresidentswithdiminishedcomprehensionand/ordecisionmakingcapacity(e.g.,residentswithsomedegreeofcognitiveimpairment).OncearesidentchoseeitherYesorNo,theinterviewerfollowedwith:

“Wouldthatbeyes,always,oryessometimes?”

“Wouldthatbeno,hardlyever,ornonever?”

Similarly,theinstructionsforthepapermodeofthesurveyencouragedresidentstothinkofthequestionsinthisway:

Theeasiestwaytoanswerthesequestionsisfirsttodecideiftheanswerwouldbe“Yes”or“No”.Ifyouanswer“Yes”,thendecideifitis“Yes,Always”or“Yes,Sometimes”.Ifyouanswer“No”,thendecideifitis

“No,HardlyEver”or“No,Never”

33ForfurtherdetailsonCAHPSpleasereferto:https://cahps.ahrq.gov/

145

APPENDIX B

Assuch,allofthequestionsintheOhiosurveyinstrumentandthemajorityofthequestionsintheAlbertaSupportiveLivingResidentExperienceSurvey(withfewexceptions)havethefollowingresponseoptions:

Yes,always

Yes,sometimes

No,hardlyever

No,never

Don’tknow/notapplicable

B.2.4 Survey scoring

Thetypicalmethodforscoringthesurveyistotransformeachresponsetoascaledmeasurebetween0.0‐100.0,asshowninTable44,wherehigherscoresrepresentpositiveexperiencesandlowerscoresrepresentmorenegativeexperiences.TheOhioscoringmethodologyinvolvesthecalculationofasummaryscoreforeachDimensionofCareusingameanoraverageofthescaled‐responsescoreswithineachDimensionofCare.

Table 44: Survey scale conversion

Answer choice Converted scaled value

Yes, always 100.0

Yes, sometimes 66.67

No, hardly ever 33.33

No, never 0.0

TheOhiogroupalsoimplementedan“N‐2”ruleinthecalculationofDimensionofCaremeanscores(andsubsequentanalyses),whichrestrictedthecalculationofDimensionsofCaremeanscorestoindividualswhocompletedaspecifiednumberofquestionsconditionalonthenumberofquestionswithinaparticularDimensionofCare.34ThecalculationofDimensionofCaremeanswaslimitedtorespondentswhoprovidedaresponsetoatleast“N‐2”questionsforeachDimensionofCare,whereNrepresentsthenumberofquestionsinaDimensionofCare.Forexample,fortheActivitiesDimensionofCare,whichconsistsoffourquestions,DimensionofCaremeanswerecalculatedforrespondentsthatansweredatleast2questions.AmeanscorewasnotgeneratedforthosethatansweredonlyonequestionandlefttheotherthreeblankoransweredDon’tknow/notapplicable.

34N‐2ruledoesnotapplytotheDimensionofCareofLaundry,asthisDimensiononlyconsistsof2questions.

146

APPENDIX B

N‐2Criterion:

[4questionsinActivitiesDimensionofCare]minus[2‐questioncriterion]=2questionsminimum.

Analternative,secondexamplefortheChoiceDimensionofCare:

N‐2Criterion:

[6questionsinChoiceDimensionofCare]minus[2‐questioncriterion]=4questionsminimum.

Respondentswhomettheminimumcriterion(N‐2),butwhoansweredlessthanthecompletenumberofquestionswithinaparticularDimensionofCarehadmissingvaluesreplacedbythefacilitymeanforthatquestion.ScaledresponseswerethensummedanddividedbythenumberofquestionswithineachDimensionofCaretoarriveatasummaryscore.

B.3 Survey sampling design, promotion, and recruitment

B.3.1 Facility recruitment and visits

Personalcarehomes(SL1);grouporfamilycarehomesorlodges(SL2);specialcarehomes(includingmentalhealthsupporthomesandLTConlyfacilities)wereexcludedfromparticipation.Facilitieswithlanguagebarriers(i.e.,Englishwasnotthefirstlanguageofmostorallresidentsatthefacility)andfacilitieswhichrefusedtoparticipatewerealsoexcluded.

Inordertomeettimeandbudgetaryconstraints,criteriawereappliedatthefacilityleveltolimitthenumberofstandardizedin‐personinterviewsconductedacrosstheprovince.Specifically,supportivelivingfacilitiesweredividedintoremoteandnon‐remotefacilitiesforthepurposeofthestudy.Facilitiesdeemedgeographicallyremotefortravel(relativetootherfacilities)werelimitedtoparticipationviaself‐administeredpapersurveysonly.Thesefacilitiesarereferredtoasremotefacilities.Unlikeremotefacilities,non‐remotefacilitieswerevisitedbythesurveyteamwhoconductedin‐personinterviewsordeliveredsurveystoresidentsforself‐administration.

Alleligiblefacilitieswerecontactedviaemailpriortoenrollmentandwereaskedtoidentifyafacility‐basedstaffmemberthatcouldactasthedesignatedsiteliaisonforthestudy.Furthercontacts(phoneand/oremail)withsiteliaisonsweremadebythesurveyteamtoclarifyandenlisttheirsupportwiththesurveyrolloutatthefacilitylevel.Siteliaisonswereprovidedwithspecificwritteninstructionswithregardstothefollowingsurveyprocessesincluding:thedisseminationofHQCAsurveycommunicationmaterials(surveyinformationletterstostaff,residents,andfamiliesaswellasposterstobeplacedinfacilitycommonareassuchaselevators,diningrooms,andmessageboards);verifyingresidentandfamilyinformation;andcodingresidentswithrespecttoeligibilityforparticipation.

Facilityvisitsgenerallyrangedfromonetothreedaysdependingonthesizeofthefacilityandthenumberofinterviewers.Allinterviewersunderwentsecurityclearanceandextensivetrainingpriortotherolloutofthesurvey.Thesetrainingsessionsincludedinformationabouttheproject,theHQCA’sroleandmandate,characteristicsofthepopulationunderstudy,relevantAlbertalegislation(suchastheProtectionforPersonsinCareAct),andethicalprinciplesinresearchwithvulnerablepopulations.Hands‐ontrainingwithintroductorystudyscriptsandthesurveyinstrumentwerealsoincorporatedintothese

147

APPENDIX B

sessions,aswellastrainingrelatedtosurveyprocessdocumentation,handlingconfidentialdata,anddealingwithrefusals.

B.3.2 Resident inclusion/exclusion criteria

ThesurveywasconductedasacensusofalleligibleparticipantsfromApril2013toSeptember2013.Giventhesmallsizeofmostsupportivelivingfacilities,randomsamplingtechniqueswerenotrequiredandwouldhaveaddedlittlevalueattheexpenseofincreasedcomplexityforthefewlargerfacilitieswhererandomselectionmighthavebeenjustified.

Acomplexmethodofselectingresidentsforparticipationwasimplemented(Figure29).Overall,thereweretwogoalsindeterminingresidentinclusion/exclusioncriteria:

1. Toselectallresidentscapableofparticipating(e.g.,notlimitedbycognitiveability,illness,otherphysicaldisabilities,etc.)

2. Toselectresidentscapableofparticipatingineitheraself‐administeredpapersurveyoranin‐personinterview.

Goal1:BasedontheinterRAITMResidentAssessmentInstrument(RAI),thefollowingresidentswereexcluded(N=1,675):

Residentswithacognitiveperformancescale(CPS)scoreof5or6(severetoveryseverelyimpaired)

ResidentswithaCPSof3to6inremotefacilities.35

AllotherresidentswereregardedaseligibleinFigure30(initialeligibility,N=4,674).Subsequenttodefiningeligibleresidents,siteadministratorswerealsotaskedtoexcluderesidentswhoweredeceased,inpalliativecare,posedasafetyrisktosurveystaff,andresidentsunderlegalguardianship(Figure30,boxestitledSiteExclusionAdminandStaff).Foracompletelist,seeAppendixC.

Goal2:RAIdatawasusedtoassignresidentstoeitheraself‐administeredpapersurveyorin‐personinterview.Prioritywasgiventotheself‐administeredpapersurvey,howeverthefollowingcriterionwereusedtopre‐selecteligibleresidentsforanin‐personinterview:

ACPSscoreof3or4.

ResidentswithCPSof0,1,or2andavisionscoreof3to4.

ResidentswithCPSof0,1,or2andnovisionscore.

Subsequenttopre‐selection,surveycoordinatorscomparedand,ifnecessary,revisedthepre‐selectionofresidentsbasedonstaffandon‐siteadministratorsscreeningdecisionsinaccordancewithpre‐definedinclusion/exclusioncriteria.

35ACPSof3to4wouldqualifyaresidentinremotefacilitiesforanin‐personinterview,howeverthein‐personinterviewwasnotprovidedasanoptionforremotefacilities.

148

APPENDIX B

Residentswerethenapproachedwiththeirassigned(revisedornon‐revised)selectionmodality.Toaccommodateresidentpreference,eligibleresidentswereprovidedwiththeoptionofchoosingthealternatemodalityatthetimeofthefacilityvisit.Inaddition,residentswhorefusedtoparticipatewereofferedthealternatemodalitytowhichtheywereassigned.

InformationontheintendedsamplingframecanbefoundinFigure29.ThesamplingresultscanbefoundinFigure30.

149

AF N R R AP

PE

ND

IX B

Fig

ure

29:

Sam

p

Note:Thesam

plingfram

RAICPSandVisionscal

Residentswerethenap

Exc

lud

e:

an

d Cpl

e de

finiti

on –

in

meintendedtoassign

le.Subsequenttothisi

pproachedbythisselec

Exi

stin

: CP

S 5

or

6 f

or

no

n-r

em

ote

P

S 3

to 6

fo

r re

mo

te s

ites

CP

(Mo

de

rate

to m

od

e

Pre

sele

c

Vis

ion

Sco

re 0

,

(Ad

equ

ate

to m

od

era

te

Pre

se

lec

t fo

r s

elf

-ad

mp

aper

su

rve

Sta

ff/a

dmin

istr

ato

de

term

ine

re

vise

d e

ligm

od

alit

y o

n-s

Fin

al e

ligib

le s

am

pm

od

alit

y d

ete

rm

Re

sid

en

ts a

pp

roa

cp

rese

lect

ion

mo

da

lity

the

op

tion

to s

wnten

ded

sam

plin

g

residentstomodalitie

initialpreselectionofm

ctionmodalityand(fo

ng R

AI

CP

S 0

, 1,

2, 3

(In

tact

to m

od

era

teim

pa

irme

nt

PS

3 o

r 4

era

te/s

eve

re im

pa

irme

nt)

ct f

or

inte

rvie

w

1, 2

ely

imp

aire

d)

min

iste

red

e

y ors

to

gibi

lity

and

ite ple

an

d

min

ed

chd

with

, b

ut g

ive

n

witc

h

Vis

(Hig

hly

Pre

s

Sta

fd

ete

rmin m

Fin

al

mo

Res

ide

pre

sele

ctth

eg fr

ame

eswhichincludesurve

modalities,siteadmin

orresidentsinnon‐rem

3, 4

e/s

eve

re

t)

CP

S 0

, 1,

2

(In

tact

to m

ild im

pa

sio

n S

core

3 to

4

to s

eve

rely

imp

aire

d)

ele

ct

for

inte

rvie

w

ff/a

dmin

istr

ato

rs to

e

re

vise

d e

ligib

ility

an

d

mo

da

lity

on

-site

elig

ible

sa

mp

le a

nd

d

alit

y d

ete

rmin

ed

en

ts a

pp

roa

chd

with

tio

n m

od

alit

y, b

ut g

ive

n

e o

ptio

n to

sw

itch

eyparticipationthroug

nistratorsandstaffrev

motefacilities),wereg

All

part

icip

irme

nt) No

Vis

ion

Sco

re a

vaila

Pre

se

lec

t fo

r in

terv

ie

Sta

ff/a

dmin

istr

ato

rs t

de

term

ine

re

vise

d e

ligib

ilit

mo

da

lity

on

-site

Fin

al e

ligib

le s

am

ple

am

od

alit

y d

ete

rmin

ed

Re

sid

en

ts a

pp

roa

chd

wp

rese

lect

ion

mo

da

lity,

bu

tth

e o

ptio

n to

sw

itch gh

eitheri)self‐admin

vised(whennecessary)

giventheoptiontoswi

ants

ab

le

ew to

ty a

nd

an

d

d with

t g

ive

n

Re

mo

te fa

c

Pre

se

lec

t fo

adm

nin

iste

resu

rve nisteredpapersurveyo

y)eligibilityandmodal

itchmodalitiesaspert

cilit

ies

or

se

lf-

ed

pap

er

ey

No

R

No

n-

Re

mo

t

Sta

ff/a

revi

se

Fin

al e

Res

iden

tm

od

alit

y or2)in‐personinterv

litiesbasedonpredefi

theirpreference.

RA

I da

ta a

vaila

ble

-re

mo

te s

ite: p

rese

lect

ed

to

inte

rvie

w

te s

ite: p

rese

lect

ed

to s

urv

ey

adm

inis

tra

tors

to d

ete

rmin

e

d e

ligib

ility

an

d m

od

alit

y o

n-

site

elig

ible

sa

mp

le a

nd

mo

da

lity

de

term

ine

d

ts a

pp

roa

chd

with

pre

sele

cti

, bu

t giv

en

th

e o

ptio

n to

sw

it

iewusingthe

inedcriteria.

e y y on

tc

h

150

AP

PE

ND

IX B

Finalmodality

Interview:N=414

Survey:N=44

Incomplete/non‐response(n=

338)

‐Failuretoanswer3consecutive

questions(n=25)

‐Mid‐interview

refusal(n=9)

‐Unabletocom

municateinEnglish

(n=18)

‐Unabletocontact(n=5)

‐Nolongerlivesinfacility(n=1)

‐Significanthearingim

pairment(n

=12)

‐Inhospital(n=10)

‐Tooilltoparticipate(n=8)

‐Mailsurveynotreceived(n=27)

‐Refusal(n=163)

‐Other(n=60)

Incomplete/non‐response

(n=21)

‐Mid‐Interview

refusal

(n=1)

‐Unabletocom

municatein

English(n=1)

‐Inhospital(n=1)

‐Notreceived(n=7)

‐Refusal(n=9)

‐Other(n=2)

Finalmodality

Interview:N=18

Survey:N=10

Incomplete/non‐response(n=1,107)

‐Failuretoanswerthreeconsecutive

questions(n=36)

‐Notabletoconductinterviewafter

threevisits(n=1)

‐Mid‐interview

refusal(n=21)

‐Unabletocom

municateinEnglish(n=

48)

‐Unabletocontactduringvisit(n=7)

‐Residentnolongerlivesinfacility(n=

2)

‐Hardofhearing(n=10)

‐Residentinhospital(n=19)

‐Residenttooilltoparticipate(n=13)

‐Mailsurveynotreceived(n=359)

‐Refused(n=500)

‐Returntosender(n=4)

‐Other (n=87)

Incomplete/non‐response

(n=17)

‐Failuretoanswerthree

consecutivequestions

(n=2)

‐Mid‐interview

refusal

(n=1)

‐Hardofhearing(n=1)

‐Other(n=2)

‐Mailsurveynotreceived(n

=3)

‐Hardrefusal(n=8)

Finalmodality

Interview:N=42

Survey:N=7

Finalmodality

Interview:N=958

Survey:N=542

Preselectedfor

interview(revised)

n=66

Siteexclusion(from

eligibility)

administratorsandstaff(n=709)

‐Deceased(n=161)


‐Inhospital(n=26)

‐Legalguardian(n=31)

‐Movedtolong‐termcare(n=1)

‐Residenthasmoved(n=232)

‐Palliativecare(n=3)

‐SL4D(n=9)

‐Transitionalresident,notduplicated

indatabase(n=3)

‐Dem

entia(n=60)

‐Com

prom

isedfinemotorskills(n=

22)

‐Unabletocom

municateinEnglish(n

=41)

‐Legallyblind/hardofhearing(n=5)

‐Riskyresident(n=7)

‐Other(n=45)

Preselectedfor

survey(revised)

n=2,607

Siteexclusion(from

eligibility)

administratorsandstaff(N=447)

‐Deceased(n=78)


‐Inhospital(n=12)

‐Legalguardian(n=21)

‐Residenthasmoved(n=68)

‐Palliativecare(n=1)

‐SL4D(n=14)

‐Transitionalresident,notduplicatedin

dataset(n=2)

‐Dem

entia(n=94)

‐Com

prom

isedfinemotorskills(n=10)

‐Unabletocom

municateinEnglish

(n=28)

‐Legallyblind/hardofhearing(n=11)

‐Riskyresident(n=7)

‐Other(n=69)

Preselectedfor

survey(revised)

n=49

Preselectedfor

interview(revised)

n=796

Preselectedfor

interview:

n=1,292

Preselectedfor

survey:

n=3,382

Excluded:Nonparticipatingorineligiblefacility(n=162):

Excluded:Addedtocontactlistafterstartofsurveyprotocol(n=

22)

Excluded:transitionalresidents–duplicatedindataset(n=17)

Facilitydidnotsendresidentlistwithingiventimeframe(n=63)

IneligiblebasedonRAI

andrem

otenesscriteria

n=1,675

N=6,613

Initialeligibility

n=4,674

Note:Thisfigureprovidesdetailsonthedeterm

inationandresultsofeligibilitycriteriaandthemethodofmodalityselection(self‐administeredpapersurveyorin‐personinterview).FinalEligibility

Criteriaconsistsofresidentswhoarelabeledas“PreselectedforInterview(Revised)”and“PreselectedforInterview(Revised)”.

Theoutcomeofparticipationbasedonfinaleligibilityareinboxescolouredgreen(incom

plete/nonresponse)andblue(com

pleteresponsewithmodality).

Fig

ure

30:

Stu

dy f

low

-ch

art

151

APPENDIX B

B.4 R

Toreduceshowsove

Table 45:

Description

Total samp

Final eligibi

Total self-a

Total in-per

Total respo

Ofthe6,61participatecompletedparticipaticompleted

Figure 31

Note:Sample

Non

Res

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

B

Response

thepotentialerallresponse

Response r

n

le (Original)

lity

dministered pa

rson interview s

onse

13residentsie(afterallexdanin‐personionwasthroudsurveyresp

1: Survey res

sizescorrespond

n-respondents

pondents

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

e rates

lfor“non‐reseratebysurv

rate

aper surveys

surveys

inthesupporclusioncriterninterviewaughin‐persononses.

sponse rates

dtofinaleligibilit

Calgary

s 37.6

62.4

sponsebias”,veymodality.

rtivelivingreriawereapplndwereconsninterviews(

by AHS zon

ty,excludingthos

Central

38.1

61.9

itisdesirable

sidentdatabaied).Atotalosideredrespo(N=1,432),w

e and provin

seineligibleandfu

Edmonton

45.0

55.0

etoachievea

N

6,613

3,518

1,432

603

2,035

ase,3,518(53of2,035residondents(57.8%whichconstit

nce

furtherremoveda

n North

51.1

48.9

ahighrespon

Response

3.2%)wereddentsreturne%).Themaintuted70.4per

asperfacilityexc

South

40.3

59.7

serate.Table

proportion (%

100

40.7

17.1

57.8

deemedeligibdasurveyornmodeofrcentofall

clusioncriteria.

Alberta

42.2

57.8

e45

%)

bletor

152

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C: EXCLUSION CRITERIA APPLIED BY FACILITY STAFF AND ADMINISTRATORS

Table 46: Final survey disposition criteria

Visit/attempt

Code Explanation

50% Interview complete without scale question

3Q Resident failed to answer three consecutive questions

3VIS Not able to conduct interview after three visits with resident

APPT Resident would like interviewer to come back at another time

BREAK Mid-interview refusal

ENG Resident unable to communicate in English

GONE Unable to contact resident during site visit

GONR Resident no longer lives at facility

HOH Hearing impairment significant enough to make successful interview or survey unlikely (i.e., cannot gain consent)

HOSP Resident is in hospital

ILL Resident does not feel well enough to participate

INT Interview Complete

LOST Resident claimed to have lost survey

MAIL Survey was mailed back by resident

NER Despite inclusion in the sample population, resident is not a suitable candidate for interview or survey

OTH "Other" explanation to describe attempt or visit

NR “Not received” – Resident has survey and envelope but has yet to return it

PART Partially completed interview

PIC Survey was picked up by interviewer

PRIV Resident is receiving care

REFD Hard refusal

REFS Soft refusal - try again later

REM Verbal reminder and/or postage paid envelope left with resident

RTS “Return to sender” – Incorrect address for remote site

SDO Survey dropped off

SDO-REFD Survey dropped off but refusal upon return

SUR Unable to contact resident, survey left with front desk to deliver

UNRESP Unable to engage resident

153

APPENDIX C

Table 47: Exclusion criteria as applied by site liaisons/staff/administrators

Exclusion criteria

Code Explanation

CDEM Resident has dementia

CFMS Compromised fine motor skills (unlikely to complete self-administered survey)

DECP Resident is deceased

ENG Resident is unable to communicate in English

GONR Resident no longer lives at facility, but site did not identify reason (MOVP or DECP)

HOSP Resident is in hospital

LBHH Legally blind and hard of hearing (unlikely to complete survey, may be too hearing impaired to complete interview)

LEGAL Resident has legal guardian (may or may not prevent resident from completing interview)

LTC Resident has moved to long term care

MOVP Resident has moved

PALL Resident is in palliative care

RISK Resident poses risk of harm to interviewer

SL4D Resident is SL4D and not eligible

TRANS Resident is in facility for short period of time - transitional resident

U1MO Resident has been in facility for less than one month

ELGINT Eligible for interview

ELGSR Eligible for survey

INELG Not eligible for participation

Removed Resident removed from participation after considering facility exclusion notes

154

APPENDIX D

APPEN

Itisimporresults.Thconditionascore).

Themajor

Figure 32

Ascanbecompletedruralfacilisurprisingadministe(76.5%ofrespondentotaleligib

Intervie

Self-ad

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

D

DIX D: SU

rtanttounderhisisparticulaaloncharacte

rityofrespon

2: Completed

seenabove,tdaself‐adminities,bydesiggthattheNorredpapersurNorthfacilitintsresidinginbleresidents)

ew

dministered pap

URVEY MO

rstandhowtharlytrueforteristicsthatm

dentscomple

d surveys and

therewassomnisteredpapegn,weremorerthzonehadtrvey.TheNoriesversus28.naremotefa).

C

per survey

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Inte

ODALITY

hesurveymothissurveywmayhaveinflu

etedanin‐per

d survey mod

mevariabilityersurveyrelaelikelytobethehighestperthzonehad.4%oftotalfacility(44.2%

Calgary Ce

79.9 6

20.1 3

erview Se

odality(paperworkbecauseuencedthere

rsoninterview

dality by AHS

yacrosszonestivetoanin‐pprovidedwitercentageofrthelargestpeacilities)andofeligibleNo

entral Edm

66.6 78

33.4 21

lf-administered

rorin‐personthedesignatiesults,suchas

w(70.4%ofr

S zone and p

sinthepercepersonintervthaself‐admirespondentsercentageoffthelargestporthzoneres

onton Nor

8.7 50.

1.3 50.

d paper survey

ninterview)iionofsurveyscognitivepe

respondents)

province

entageofrespview(p<0.05inisteredpapwhocompletfacilitiesconsercentageofsidentsversus

rth South

0 58.7

0 41.3

impactsurveymodalitywaerformance(C

).

pondentswho5).Giventhatersurvey,ititedaself‐sideredremoeligibles7.9percent

h Alberta

7 70.4

3 29.6

ysCPS

otisnot

ote

tof

a

155

APPENDIX D

Table 48: Remoteness by AHS zone

Calgary Central Edmonton North South Alberta

% remote facilities in the zone

1 of 15 facilities

6.7%

10 of 33 facilities

33.3%

9 of 40 facilities

22.5%

13 of 17 facilities

76.5%

5 of 29 facilities

17.2%

38 of 134 facilities

28.4%

# and % of remote eligible residents

16

3.8%

84

12.0%

49

3.4%

103

44.2%

25

3.4%

277

7.9%

D.1 Global Overall Care rating and Dimensions of Care versus survey modality

Thedecisiontoimplementadual‐modalitysurveydeliverysystemwasinformedbyapilotstudyconductedinthesummer/fall2012,whichfoundthatingeneraltherewerenosignificantdifferencesinresponsesamongDimensionsofCarerelativetosurveymodality.Thissupportedtreatingbothpapersurveyandin‐personinterviewsasequallyvalidmodesforcompletingthesurvey.Toconfirmthis,similaranalyseswereconductedthatcomparedmodalitytypeswithGlobalOverallCareratingsandeachDimensionofCare.

Insummary,therewerenosignificantdifferencesinageandgenderofrespondentswhorespondedusingaself‐administeredpapersurveycomparedtoanin‐personinterview.Similarly,surveyresultsdifferedminimallyacrosssurveymodalitytype.Specifically,GlobalOverallCareratingsdidnotdiffersignificantlybymodality,withself‐administeredpapersurveyrespondentsreportingameanGlobalOverallCareratingof7.8outof10.0,andin‐personinterviewrespondents7.6outof10.0(Table49).Ofthe11DimensionofCaremeans,modalitydifferenceswerestatisticallysignificantforfourof11DimensionsofCare:Activities,CareandServices,Laundry,andResidentEnvironment.However,theoveralldifferenceswereminimalandnotconsideredsubstantive,withdifferencesrangingfrom0.2to3.1outof100.Thereforeitwasdecidedthattheresultsofbothmodalitytypeswouldbecollapsed.

156

APPENDIX D

Table 49: Dimension-specific means by survey modality

Dimension

(N, % Interview)

Overall (95% confidence

interval)

Interview (95% confidence

interval)

Self-administered paper survey

(95% confidence interval)

Mean difference

(0 to 100)

Activities (1,931; 70.6%) 79.7 (78.7-80.6) 79.0 (77.9-80.2) 81.1 (79.6-82.6) 2.1*

Choice (1,989; 70.9%) 90.7 (90.2-91.2) 90.4 (89.8-91.0) 91.4 (90.6-92.3) 1.0

Care and Services (1,960, 71.1%) 81.2 (80.4-82.0) 80.3 (79.4-81.2) 83.4 (82.1-84.7) 3.1*

Relationship with Employees (1,992; 71.1%)

90.9 (90.3-91.5) 91.0 (90.2-91.7) 90.6 (89.5-91.7) 0.4

Employee Responsiveness (1,912; 70.3%)

86.8 (86.1-87.6) 87.0 (86.1-87.9) 86.5 (85.2-87.8) 0.5

Communications (1,905; 71.0%) 86.3 (85.6-87.1) 86.3 (85.4-87.1) 86.5 (85.1-87.8) 0.2

Meals and Dining (1,972; 71.1%) 79.0 (78.2-79.8) 79.4 (78.5-80.4) 77.9 (76.4-79.4) 1.5

Laundry (1,145; 69.5%) 91.6 (90.8-92.4) 92.4 (91.6-93.3) 89.7 (88.0-91.4) 2.7*

Facility Environment (1,957; 71.4%) 90.8 (90.3-91.4) 91.0 (90.3-91.6) 90.5 (89.3-91.6) 0.5

Resident Environment (1,953; 72.0%) 91.3 (90.7-91.8) 91.6 (91.0-92.3) 90.3 (89.2-91.3) 1.3*

General Satisfaction (1,966; 71.7%) 84.3 (83.4-85.2) 84.4 (83.4-85.5) 83.9 (82.3-85.5) 0.5

Global Overall Care rating 0-10 (1,880; 71.3%)

7.7 (7.6-7.8) 7.8 (7.7-7.9) 7.6 (7.5-7.8) 0.2 (out of 10)

Note:significancetestswereperformedusingt‐tests.Dimensionmeansrangefrom0‐100wherelowerratingsreflectmorenegativeexperienceswhereashigherratingsreflectmorepositiveexperiences.Inaddition,duetoasurveyrecruitmenterror,onefacility’s(N=13respondents)demographicandsurveyrecruitmentresultscouldnotbeassociatedwithsurveyresults.Datafromresidentsinthisfacilitywasincludedinthisreport:however,insituationswheresurveyrecruitmentresults(suchasmodality)andsurveyfindings(suchasDimensionofCaremeans)weresimultaneouslyconsidered,theseresidentswereexcluded.Table49excludestheserespondents.

157

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E: CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION IN FACILITY-LEVEL ANALYSES

Criteria:

1. Confidentiality:fiveormorerespondentsperfacility362. <10percentmarginoferror(withfinitepopulationcorrection)3. Responserateof>50percent

Of103facilitieswithatleastfivesurveyscollected(76.9%of134facilities;Table50):

33metboththemarginoferrorandresponseratecriterialabelledingreen

47mettheresponseratecriterionbutnotthemarginoferrorcriterion(withanaveragemarginoferrorof10.3%,rangingfrom10.5%to22.6%)labelledinyellow

23didnotmeeteithercriterionlabelledinred

Facilitiesthatmetthemarginoferrorcriterion,responseratecriterion,orboth,accountedfor80of134facilities,or59.7percentoffacilities(labelledingreenandyellow),andthesefacilitiesalsoaccountedfor80.4percentofallrespondents(1,636of2,035)and73.2percentofalleligiblerespondents(2,574of3,518).Itisimportanttonotethatfacilitieswithsmallsamplesizes(i.e.,smallfacilities)willinherentlyhavemoredifficultyinmeetingconfidentiality,responserateandmarginoferrorcriteria.Inaddition,theresidentprofileofafacilitymustbeconsideredasthesecriteriamayimpactthenumberofresidentswhowereultimatelyeligibleforasurvey,andinturnimpactsthenumberconsideredforconfidentialityreasons,responserate,andthemarginoferrorcalculation.Forexample,thesmallerthefacility,themoredifficultitisforthatfacilitytomeettheconfidentialitycriterionoffiverespondents,andsimilarlythemarginoferrorcalculationisdependentonsamplesize.

DetailsoneligibilitycriteriaarefoundinAppendixBandAppendixC.Inbrief,individualsexcludedinclude:

Residentslivinginpersonalcarehomes(SL1);grouporfamilycarehomesorlodges(SL2);specialcarehomes(includingmentalhealthsupporthomesandLTConlyfacilities);SL4‐dementiaresidents.

Residentsfromfacilitieswithlanguagebarriers(Englishpredominantlynotthefirstlanguageinthefacility)

Residentisnolongerresidingatthefacility

Residentistooill,atthehospital,orinpalliativecare

Residentpossessesariskofharmtointerviewer

Residenthasbeeninfacilityforlessthanonemonthorisconsideredatransitionalresident

ResidentswithaCPSscoreof5to6(severeimpairmentorverysevereimpairment)

36Facility‐levelreportingwithveryfewindividualsrunstheriskofdirectorindirectdisclosure.

158

APPENDIX E

Facilitiesexcludedfromfacility‐levelreporting(54facilities)inthisreportstillreceivedindividualfacility‐levelreports.

Table 50: Facility inclusion criteria

Zone Facility Response rate

(%)

Margin of error

(%)

Calgary Millrise Place 86.4 6.8

Calgary Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court 91.7 7.1

Calgary Walden Supportive Living Community 56.2 7.4

Calgary Monterey Place 62.5 8.2

Calgary Sagewood Supportive Living 71.0 9.2

Calgary Prince of Peace Manor 71.4 9.5

Central West Park Lodge 95.2 3.9

Central Extendicare Michener Hill 75.0 6.6

Central Sunset Manor 67.6 6.6

Central Islay Assisted Living 91.7 7.1

Central Points West Living Lloydminster 77.1 7.3

Central Sunrise Village Camrose 68.8 7.7

Central Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 82.4 9.1

Edmonton West Country Hearth 100.0 0.0

Edmonton CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood 75.0 5.2

Edmonton Aspen House 83.3 5.9

Edmonton Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite 55.8 6.6

Edmonton Rosedale at Griesbach 52.6 7.6

Edmonton Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre 55.3 8.1

Edmonton Glastonbury Village 67.4 8.4

Edmonton Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle 52.8 8.8

Edmonton Citadel Mews West 60.0 9.1

Edmonton Devonshire Manor 57.1 9.8

Edmonton Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 69.0 9.9

South St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre 63.5 5.9

South Sunny South Lodge 92.3 6.5

South The Wellington Retirement Residence 81.8 8.1

South Extendicare Fairmont Park 56.0 8.1

South Good Samaritan Lee Crest 70.3 8.5

South Meadow Lands 90.0 8.7

South Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village 69.4 8.8

South Legacy Lodge 53.6 9.8

South Columbia Assisted Living 63.9 10.0

Calgary Edgemont Retirement Residence 69.2 10.5

159

APPENDIX E


(%)

Margin of error

(%)

Calgary Eau Claire Retirement Residence 61.8 10.7

Calgary Aspen Ridge Lodge 75.0 11.7

Calgary Scenic Acres Retirement Residence 70.0 11.8

Calgary Silver Willow Lodge 60.0 14.7

Calgary Whitehorn Village 54.2 15.0

Central Clearwater Centre 75.0 10.4

Central Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home 54.3 10.7

Central Manor at Royal Oak 61.3 11.4

Central Hillview Lodge 59.4 11.6

Central Bethany Sylvan Lake 68.4 12.6

Central Sunrise Village Olds 70.6 12.7

Central Vermillion Valley Lodge 51.7 14.3

Central Viewpoint 66.7 14.8

Central Coronation Hospital and Care Centre 66.7 14.8

Central Wetaskiwin Meadows 66.7 14.8

Central Pines Lodge 72.7 15.2

Central Bethany Meadows 58.8 16.4

Central Providence Place 63.6 18.7

Central Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 57.1 18.8

Central Sunrise Village Ponoka 57.1 18.8

Edmonton Lifestyle Options Terra Losa 60.0 10.3

Edmonton Rosedale St. Albert 51.9 10.4

Edmonton Place Beausejour 69.2 10.5

Edmonton Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village 64.3 11.2

Edmonton Country Cottage Seniors Residence 78.6 11.4

Edmonton Garneau Hall 68.2 11.7

Edmonton Good Samaritan George Hennig Place 70.0 11.8

Edmonton Shepherd’s Gardens 53.8 11.8

Edmonton Shepherd’s Care Ashbourne 63.0 11.8

Edmonton Shepherd’s Care Kensington 52.6 12.2

Edmonton Wild Rose Cottage 61.9 13.8

Edmonton Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre 59.1 14.2

Edmonton Riverbend Retirement Residence 64.7 14.5

Edmonton LifeStyle Options Riverbend 58.8 16.4

North Points West Living Grande Prairie 51.9 10.6

North Mountain View Centre 53.3 13.6

North Ridgevalley Seniors Home 77.8 14.8

South Good Samaritan Vista Village 68.0 11.0

South Clearview Lodge 78.6 11.4

South Orchard Manor 72.2 11.8

160

APPENDIX E


(%)

Margin of error

(%)

South Cypress View 80.0 13.1

South Haven of Rest - South Country Village 66.7 14.8

South York Creek Lodge 66.7 19.6

South Good Samaritan Garden Vista 53.3 19.6

South Piyami Lodge 53.8 21.0

South Chinook Lodge 54.5 22.6

Calgary Carewest Colonel Belcher 50.0 16.3

Central Points West Living Wainwright 48.3 15.3

Central Heritage House 46.7 15.6

Central Points West Living Century Park 36.7 19.1

Central Serenity House 50.0 26.1

Central Faith House 38.5 28.6

Edmonton Salvation Army Grace Manor 45.1 10.3

Edmonton Tuoi Hac - Golden Age Manor 37.7 11.6

Edmonton Rosedale Estates 50.0 12.6

Edmonton Rutherford Heights Retirement Residence 46.5 13.0

Edmonton Salvation Army Stepping Stone Supportive Residence 36.4 15.8

Edmonton CapitalCare Strathcona 41.2 16.3

Edmonton Grand Manor 30.2 18.4

Edmonton Summerwood Village Retirement Residence 50.0 19.0

North Heimstaed Lodge 42.4 16.1

North Shepherd's Care Barrhead 44.4 17.2

North Manoir du Lac 47.4 19.5

North Grande Prairie Care Centre 42.9 20.2

South Good Samaritan West Highlands 50.0 10.0

South Sunrise Gardens 48.7 13.0

South Good Samaritan Linden View 43.5 13.3

South Good Samaritan Prairie Ridge 43.5 19.1

South Golden Acres Lodge 42.9 20.2

161

APPENDIX E

Table 51: Facilities excluded from provincial reporting

Facilities with zero respondents (10 facilities) – excluded from report

Zone Facility

(reason for zero respondents, if applicable)

Central Eagle View Lodge

Central Provost Health Centre

Central Symphony Seniors Living at Aspen Ridge (did not send

resident list within given time frame)

Edmonton Kipohtakawmik Elders Lodge (language barriers)

Edmonton Edmonton Chinatown Care Centre (language barriers)

Edmonton Balwin Villa (SL4D facility)

Edmonton Shepherd’s Care Greenfield (SL4D facility)

North Vilna Villa (did not send resident list within given time frame)

North Spruceview Lodge (did not send resident list within given

time frame)

South Leisure Way

Facilities with less than 5 respondents (excluded from facility-level analyses, but will be included in all other aggregate level reporting)

Zone Facility (# of respondents)

Calgary Carewest Nickle House (4)

Calgary McKenzie Towne Retirement Residence (1)

Central Eckville Manor House (3)

Central Chateau Three Hills (3)

Central St. Michael’s Manor/Vegreville Manor (3)

Edmonton Emmanuel Home (2)

Edmonton Churchill Retirement Community (2)

Edmonton Lifestyle Options Leduc (2)

North St. Paul Abilities Network (2)

North Parkland Lodge (1)

North The Gardens at Emerald Park (4)

North Jasper Alpine Summit Seniors Lodge (3)

North Pleasant View Lodge North (4)

North Chateau Lac St. Anne (1)

North Vanderwell Lodge (1)

North Whispering Pines Seniors Lodge (4)

South MacLeod Pioneer Lodge (3)

South Valleyview (1)

South Prairie Rose Lodge (3)

South Piyami Place (2)

South Pleasant View Lodge South (3)

162

APPENDIX E

E.1 Facility inclusion criteria by Dimension of Care means

Facilitiesincludedinfacility‐levelanalyses(labelledingreenandyellow,N=80facilities)accountfor80.4percentofallrespondents(1,636of2,035)and73.2percentofalleligiblerespondents(2,574of3,518).ThefollowingtablecomparesGlobalOverallCareratingsandthe11DimensionsofCaremeansasassociatedwithresidentsfromincludedversusexcludedfacilities.

Residentswhoresidedinincludedfacilitiesdidnotdiffersignificantlyfromresidentswhoresidedinexcludedfacilitiesforthe11DimensionsofCareandintheGlobalOverallCarerating.

Table 52: Dimension-specific means by included versus excluded facilities

Dimension of Care (N) All facilities

(95% confidence interval)

Included facilities (N = 1,636)

Excluded facilities (N = 399)

Mean difference (0 to 100)

Activities (1,942) 79.7 (78.8-80.6) 80.0 (79.0-81.0) 78.7 (76.7-80.7) 1.3

Choice (2,002) 90.7 (90.2-91.2) 90.9 (90.3-91.4) 90.1 (89.0-91.3) 0.8

Care and Services (1,973) 81.2 (80.4-81.9) 81.4 (80.6-82.3) 80.3 (78.5-82.0) 1.1

Relationship with Employees (2,005) 90.9 (90.3-91.5) 91.1 (90.4-91.8) 89.9 (88.5-91.4) 1.2

Employee Responsiveness (1,925) 86.9 (86.1-87.6) 87.1 (86.2-87.9) 85.9 (84.2-87.7) 1.2

Communications (1,918) 86.3 (85.6-87.1) 86.5 (85.7-87.3) 85.6 (84.0-87.3) 0.9

Meals and Dining (1,985) 79.0 (78.2-79.8) 78.7 (77.7-79.6) 80.4 (78.7-82.1) 1.7

Laundry (1,153) 91.6 (90.8-92.4) 91.4 (90.4-92.3) 92.4 (90.8-94.0) 1.0

Facility Environment (1,970) 90.9 (90.3-91.4) 90.9 (90.3-91.6) 90.6 (89.4-91.9) 0.3

Resident Environment (1,965) 91.2 (90.7-91.8) 91.3 (90.7-91.9) 91.0 (89.8-92.1) 0.3

General Satisfaction (1,978) 84.4 (83.4-85.3) 84.2 (83.4-85.3) 85.0 (83.0-86.9) 0.8

Global Overall Care rating 0-10 (1,892)

7.7 (7.6-7.8) 7.7 (7.6-7.8) 7.7 (7.5-7.9) < 0.1 out of

10

Note:significancetestswereperformedusingt‐tests.Significantdifferencesinmeans(atp<0.05)areindicatedbyanasterisk(*).Dimensionmeansrangefromzeroto100wherelowerratingsreflectmorenegativeexperiencesandhigherratingsreflectmorepositiveexperiences.

163

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F: RESPONDENTS VERSUS NON-RESPONDENTS

DataobtainedfromtheRAI(gender,age,education,CognitivePerformanceScale,andVisionScore)wasindependentofsurveydataobtainedfromtheOhiotool.NearlyallresidentswhoweredeemedeligibleforthesurveyhadacompletedRAI.Thisallowedforcomparisonsbetweenresidentrespondentsandresidentnon‐respondents(residentswhoweredeemedeligibleforthesurveybutdidnotparticipateinthesupportivelivingsurvey)onthosevariablesincludedintheRAI.Thepurposeofthefollowinganalysesistoexplorewhetherrespondentsarerepresentativeofthepopulationofeligibleresidents.

Detailedresultsforeachattributearereportedinthefollowingpages.TheinformationispresentedbythefiveAHSzones(Calgary,Central,North,Edmonton,andSouth).Variablesincludedare:

Gender

Age

Education

RAICognitivePerformanceScale

RAIVisionScore

Insummary,respondentsweremorelikelytobefemaleandmorelikelytohaveahigherlevelofeducationbeyondthecompletionofhighschoolcomparedtonon‐respondents.Respondentsandnon‐respondentsdidnotdiffersignificantlyinage.Consistentwithselectioncriteria(AppendixB),respondentshadhigheraverageCPSscoresascomparedtonon‐respondents.

Noteasterisk(*)representsavaluestatisticallydifferentascomparedtotheAlbertaresult.SeeTable61inAppendixIforanexample.

164

APPENDIX F

F.1 G

Amongelitothesurv(p<0.05).

Figure 33

Fem

Male

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

F

Gender

gibleresidenvey(70.1%fe.

3: Resident g

male

e

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

nts68.5perceemaleamong

gender by res

Respond

70.1

29.9

entwerefemrespondents

sponse type

dent

ale.Femaleswsand66.4%a

weresignificamongnon‐re

Non-respon

66.4

33.6

antlymoreliespondents)t

ndent

ikelytorespothanwerema

Fem

Male

ondales

ale

e

165

APPENDIX F

F.2 A

Theaveragresponden

Figure 34

Age in

1

Ag

e in

Yea

rs

F

Age

geageofelignts(80.0year

4: Age distrib

n years

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

ibleresidentsrs,p>0.05)a

bution by resp

Res

swas80.1yeandnon‐respo

ponse type

spondent

80.0

ears.Therewaondents(80.2

asnosignific2years).

N

cantdifferenc

Non-responde

80.2

einageamon

ent

ng

166

APPENDIX F

F.3 E

Theeducacomparingcompleted

Amongelischool.Colevelbeyo

Figure 35

Com

Edu

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

F

Education

ationlevelforgrespondentdhighschool

gibleresidenmparedtorendhighscho

5: Education

mpleted high s

cation beyon

n

rmanyresidestonon‐resporlessversu

ntswhohadeesidentswhoolweremore

by response

school or less

d high school

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

entswasrepopondents,edusresidentsw

ducationrephadcompleteelikelytoresp

type

R

s

l

ortedasunknoucationlevelwwhohadsome

orted,25.3peedhighschoopondtothes

Respondent

71.7

28.3

own(36.6%)wascollapsedeeducationbe

ercenthadaolorlower,resurvey.

.Forthepurpdintoresideneyondhighsc

neducationlesidentswith

Non-resp

79.

20.

posesofntswhohavechool.

levelbeyondhaneducation

pondent

1

9

highn

167

APPENDIX F

F.4 RAI Cognitive Performance Scale

Thecognitiveperformancescale(CPS)describesthecognitivestatusofresidentsandwasderivedfromtheinterRAITMResidentAssessmentInstrument.37Thisscaleiscommonlyusedtocategorizeresidentsintooneofsevencognitiveperformancecategories,rangingfromintacttoverysevereimpairment.TheCPShasbeenwidelyvalidatedagainstotherestablishedandclinically‐derivedcognitiveevaluationinstrumentsincludingtheMini‐MentalStateExamination(MMSE).

ThemeanCPSscorewassignificantlylowerforrespondents(1.3outof6.0)thanfornon‐respondents(1.5outof6,p<0.05).Approximately29percentofrespondentswerecognitivelyintact(CPSof0).Theproportionofcognitivelyintactindividualswassignificantlyhigherinrespondentsrelativetonon‐respondents(19.7%,p<0.05).

BecauseCPSwasaprimaryexclusioncriteria,themeanCPSscoreofrespondentswasalsocomparedtoresidentswhowereconsideredineligible(seeAppendixBandAppendixCforexclusioncriteria).ThemeanCPSscorewassignificantlylowerforrespondents(1.3outof6)thanforresidentsconsideredineligible(2.7outof6,p<0.05).Similarly,thepercentagethatwerecognitivelyintactwassignificantlyhigheramongrespondentscomparedtoresidentsconsideredineligible(28.5%versus7.2%,p<0.05).

37CPSisbasedonthefollowingfourInterRAIitems:short‐termmemoryrecall(todeterminetheresident’sabilitytorecallwhatwaslearnedafterfiveminutes);cognitiveskillsfordailydecision‐making(todetermineresident’sabilitytomakeeverydaydecisionssuchaswhentogetuporhavemeals,choiceofactivities);expressivecommunication(makingoneselfunderstoodbyothers);andeatingimpairment(relatestohowaresidenteatsanddrinks,includingothermeansofnourishmentintakesuchastubefeeding).Bycombiningscoresfromthesequestions,asingle,functionallymeaningful,andhierarchicalcognitiveperformancescorecanbecomputed(scalerangeis0to6withhigherscoresindicatinggreaterimpairmentseverity).

168

AF AP

PE

ND

IX F

Fig

ure

36:

Cog

n

0 -

Inta

ct

1 -

Bor

derli

n

2 -

Mild

imp

3 -

Mod

erat

4 -

Mod

ete-

5 -

Sev

ere

i

6 -

Ver

y se

v

Percentage (%)iti

ve P

erfo

rman

c

ne in

tact

pairm

ent

e im

pairm

ent

seve

re im

pairm

e

mpa

irmen

t

vere

impa

irmen

t0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.

0ce S

cale

sco

re b

y

Res

pon

28.

25.

35.

10.

nt0.

2

0.0

0.0

00000000000

y re

spon

se ty

pe

nden

t

.5 .4 .1 .8 2 0 0

Non

-res

pond

en

19.

7

21.

9

44.

3

12.

7

1.5

0.0

0.0

ntInn

elig

ible

7.2

9.5

27.

7

36.

6

5.6

11.

4

2.0

Tot

al

16.

8

17.

4

34.

0

22.

8

2.9

5.1

0.9

169

APPENDIX F

F.5 R

Themeandiffersign

Amongreswithadeqp<0.05).

Figure 37

38Assessmenscaleassessesused).

0 - A

1 - I

2 - M

3 - H

4 - S

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

F

RAI Vision

visionscorenificantlyfrom

spondents,71uatevisionw

7: Vision scor

tofvisionimpairsandscoresvisio

Adequate

mpaired

Moderately im

Highly impaire

Severely impa

n score38

forrespondemnon‐respon

1.2percenthwassignificant

re by respon

rmentsisimportaonimpairments(r

mpaired

ed

aired

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

entswas0.4ondents(vision

hadadequatetlyhigheram

se type

antforthepurposrange0to4)base

Respo

71

18

6.

2.

1.

outof4.Meannscore0.5ou

vision(visionmongrespond

seofdeterminingedontheability(

ondent

.2

.8

2

4

3

nvisionscoreutof4,p>0.0

nscoreof0).dentscompare

gthebestmodeo(orlackof)tosee

esforrespond05).

Theproportedtonon‐res

fparticipationineinadequateligh

Non-respo

66.7

23.2

6.7

2.6

0.9

dentsdidnot

tionofindividspondents(66

astudy.TheRAIhtandwithglasse

ndent

duals6.7%;

visiones(if

170

APPENDIX G

APPEN

NotetheaTable61,

G.1 G

Femalescosignificant

Figure 38

Table 53:

Female

Male

Total

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

G

DIX G: AD

asterisk(*)reAppendixIf

Gender

onstituted70tlyacrossAH

8: Responden

Resident ge

Calgary

(N = 264)

%

73.1

26.9

100.0

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

DDITIONA

epresentsavaforanexamp

0.1percentoSzone(p>0

nt gender

ender by AHS

Centr

(N = 43

%

71.9

28.1

100.0

Ma

29

AL RESPO

aluestatisticale.

frespondent.05).

S zone and p

al

34)

Edm

(N

6

3

0 1

ale

9.9

Ma

ONDENT D

allydifferenta

sandthepro

province

monton

= 784)

%

67.9

32.1

00.0

ale Female

DETAILS

ascompared

oportionoffem

North

(N = 114)

%

68.4

31.6

100.0

e

totheprovin

malestomale

South

(N = 438)

%

70.8

29.2

100.0

Female

70.1

ncialresult.Se

esdidnotdif

Alber

(N = 2,

%

70.1

29.9

100.

ee

ffer

rta

034)

1

9

.0

171

APPENDIX G

G.2 A

Themean

Figure 39

Note:Pleasen

Albe

50.

55.

60.

65.

70.

75.

80.

85.

90.

95.

100.

Mea

n A

ge

in Y

ears

G

Age

ageamongre

9: Responden

notethetruncate

Calga

erta 82.6

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

espondentsw

nt Age Distrib

dnatureofthegr

ry Cen

6 83

was80.0year

bution by AH

raphfrom50yea

ntral Edm

3.1 7

rsandranged

HS zones

arsto100years.

monton

76.3

dfrom26to1

North

79.0

106years.

South

82.1

Alberta

80.0

172

APPENDIX G

G.3 R

Theeducaresponden

Figure 40

Table 54:

No schooling

8th grade or l

Grades 9-11

High school

Technical or

Some college

Diploma or B

Graduate deg

Unknown

Alber

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

G

RAI Educa

ationformanyntsreportedt

0: Responden

Responden

g

ess

trade school

e or university

Bachelor’s degree

gree

Total

Noschooling

rta 0.4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ation

yresidentswthattheyhad

nt level of Ed

t level Educa

Ca(N

2

e

1

8th gradeor less

G9

14.1

wasreportedanotcomplete

ducation

ation by AHS

algary= 264)

Ce(N =

%

0.0 0

15.9 1

20.1 2

15.5 6

12.9 4

9.8 5

8.3 3

1.1 0

16.3 3

100.0 10

rades9-11

Higscho

19.4 11.6

asunknown(edhighschoo

S zone and pr

entral= 434)

Edm(N =

% %

0.5 0

5.9 8

24.2 12

6.7 11

4.8 2

5.8 4

3.5 4

0.0 0

38.7 56

00.0 10

hool

Technicaor tradeschool

6 5.6

(36.6%).Approl(grades9to

rovince

onton = 785)

No(N =

% %

0.0 2.

8.0 21

2.0 21

1.0 10

2.9 4.

4.3 6.

4.2 2.

0.9 0.

6.7 30

00.0 100

l Somecollege oruniversity

D

Bs

6.5

roximately19o11).

orth114)

Sou(N = 4

% %

.6 0.7

1.9 20

1.1 26

0.5 15

.4 6.8

.1 9.4

.6 6.8

.0 1.4

0.7 12

0.0 100

Diploma or

Bachelor’s degree

Graddeg

5.1 0

9.4percento

uth438)

Alber(N = 2,

% %

7 0.4

.1 14.

.9 19.4

.8 11.6

8 5.6

4 6.5

8 5.1

4 0.8

.1 36.6

0.0 100.

duategree

Unknow

0.8 36.6

of

rta035)

4

1

4

6

6

5

1

8

6

.0

wn

173

APPENDIX G

G.4 R

Themeanwerecognsignificant

Figure 41

Table 55:

Intact

(CPS score o

Borderline in

(CPS score o

Alberta

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

G

RAI Cogn

CPSscorewanitivelyintacttlyacrosszon

1: Responden

Responden

of 0)

ntact and impaire

of 1 to 6)

Total

0 - Intact

a 28.5

itive Perfo

as1.3outof6(CPSscoreofnes(p<0.05,

nt Cognitive

t Cognitive P

Calgary

(N = 228)

%

26.3

ed 73.7

100.0

1 - Borderlineintact

25.4

ormance S

6amongrespf0).ThepropTable55).

Performance

Performance

Central

(N = 301

%

22.3*

77.7*

100.0

e 2 - Mildimpairment

35.1

Scale

pondents.Apportionofcog

e Scale

Scale by AH

)

Edmonto

(N = 665

%

36.1*

63.9*

100.0

3 - Moderateimpairment

10.8

proximately2nitivelyintac

HS zone and

on

5)

Nort

(N = 9

%

27.1

72.9

100.

et

4 - Modete-severe

impairment

0.2

29percentofctrespondent

province

th

96)

Sou

(N = 4

%

1 22.

9 77.

0 100

-

t

5 - Severeimpairmen

0.0

frespondentstsdiffered

uth

420)

Albe

(N = 1

% %

4* 28

6* 71

0.0 100

et

6 - Verysevere

impairmen

0.0

s

erta

1,710)

%

8.5

.5

0.0

nt

174

APPENDIX G

G.5 R

Themeanadequatevsignificant

Figure 42

Table 56:

Adequate vis

(Vision score

Impaired vis

(Vision score

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

G

RAI Vision

visionscorevision(visiontlyacrosszon

2: Responden

Responden

sion

e of 0)

ion

e of 1 to 4)

al

0 - Ade

erta 71

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

n score

forrespondenscoreof0).Tnes(p<0.05,

nt Vision sco

t Vision scor

Calgary

(N = 228)

%

74.6

25.4

100.0

equate 1

.2

entswas0.4oTheproportioTable56).

ore

re by AHS zo

Central

(N = 301)

%

60.8*

39.2*

100.0

- Impaired

18.8

outof4.Appronofrespond

one and provi

Edmonton

(N = 665)

%

79.1*

20.9*

100.0

2 - Moderaimpaired

6.2

oximately72dentswhoha

ince

North

(N = 96)

%

66.7

33.3

100.0

atelyd

3 - imp

2percentofradadequatev

South

(N = 42

%

65.5*

34.5*

100.0

Highlypaired

2.4

respondentshvisiondiffered

h

0)

Albe

(N = 1

%

71.

27.

0 100

4 - Severelyimpaired

1.3

hadd

erta

,710)

%

.2

.8

0.0

175

APPENDIX G

G.6 R

Question6

Themajordifference

Figure 43

Table 57:

Yes

No

Total

Alber

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

G

Responde

61(Q61):Doy

rityofresponsinresponse

3: Responden

Responden

Cal

(N =

3

96

10

rta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ent in sha

youhavearoo

dents(92.8%eswerefound

nt in shared r

t in shared ro

lgary

= 259)

C

(N

%

3.5*

6.5*

00.0

Ye

7.

red room

ommate?

%)residedinadacrosszone

room

oom by AHS

Central

N = 423)

E

%

6.9

93.1

100.0

es

.2

asingle‐raths(p<0.05,T

zone and pr

Edmonton

(N = 774)

%

6.5

93.5

100.0

herthanashaTable57).

rovince

North

(N = 110)

%

4.5

95.5

100.0

ared‐resident

South

(N = 42

%

12.1*

87.9*

100.0

No

92.8

troom.Signifi

h

3)

Albe

(N = 1

%

7.2

92.

0 100

ficant

erta

,989)

%

2

.8

0.0

176

APPENDIX G

G.7 S

Q62:Ingen

ThemajorpercentoAHSzones

Figure 44

Table 58:

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

G

Self-repor

neral,howwo

rityofresponfrespondents.

4: Self-report

Self-reporte

Ca

(N

l 1

Exce

erta 6.9

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

rted overa

ouldyouratey

dentsstatedsratedtheir

ed overall he

ed overall hea

algary

= 259) (

%

7.3

25.9

38.6

20.8

7.3

100.0

llent V

9

all health

youroverallh

thattheywouoverallhealth

ealth

alth by AHS z

Central

(N = 424)

%

6.8

22.6

40.1

25.2

5.2

100.0

Very good

22.5

health?

uldratetheirhasPoor.Res

zone and pro

Edmonton

(N = 758)

%

7.7

21.8

35.9

25.5

9.2*

100.0

Good

38.6

roverallhealtsponsesdidn

ovince

North

(N = 107)

%

4.7

20.6

42.1

28.0

4.7

100.0

F

2

thasGood(3notdiffersign

South

(N = 425

%

6.1

22.1

40.9

24.9

5.9

100.0

Fair

24.8

8.6%).Only7nificantlyacro

5)

Albe

(N = 1,

%

6.9

22.5

38.6

24.8

7.1

100.

Poor

7.1

7.1oss

rta

973)

9

5

6

8

1

.0

177

APPENDIX G

G.8 S

Q63:Ingen

ThemajorGood(37.7AHSzones

Figure 45

Table 59:

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

G

Self-repor

neral,howwo

rityofrespon7%);only3.1s(p<0.05;Ta

5: Self-report

Self-reporte

Ca

(N

1

1

l 1

Exce

erta 11

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

rted menta

ouldyouratey

dentsstatedpercentrateable59).

ed mental an

ed mental and

algary

= 259) (

%

15.8*

34.4

38.6

10.0*

1.2

100.0

llent V

.7

al and em

youroverallm

thattheywouedtheirovera

nd emotional

d emotional h

Central

(N = 422)

%

8.5*

32.0

41.7

15.2

2.6

100.0

Very good

31.4

motional he

mentalorem

uldratetheirallhealthasP

health

health by AH

Edmonton

(N = 753)

%

13.0

31.2

33.5*

17.4

4.9*

100.0

Good

37.7

ealth

otionalhealth

roverallmentPoor.Respons

HS zone and

North

(N = 108)

%

10.2

18.5*

46.3

23.1

1.9

100.0

F

1

h?

talandemotisesdiffereds

province

South

(N = 42

%

10.4

32.5

38.4

16.8

1.9

100.0

Fair

16.1

ionalhealthaignificantlya

h

2)

Albe

(N = 1

%

11

31

37

16

3.

100

Poor

3.1

asacross

erta

,964)

%

.7

.4

.7

.1

1

0.0

178

APPENDIX G

G.9 D

ThedescripapersurvAssistance

Provincial(Figure46

Figure 46

Amongthoonthenat

M

o

M

o

o

ProvincialThisrepre

Thosewhorelativeto

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

G

Did someo

iptionofthenvey,and2)prereferstohel

lly,11.4perc6).

6: Did someo

osewhostatetureofthisas

inimalpossib

Readquest

orethanmin

AnsweredTranslatedresponses)

lly,60responesents2.9per

ostatedthattothosewhost

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

one help y

natureofassirovidedareslpfromindivi

entofallresp

one help you

edthattheyrsistance.Res

bleinfluenceo

tionsand/or

imalpossible

questionsfor,interpreted,).

ndentsstatedrcentofallre

theyreceivedtatedtheydid

Ye

11

you comp

istancewasliponsetowheidualsothert

pondentsstat

complete the

eceivedhelpponseswere

onresponse

circledanswe

einfluenceon

rresident(an,providedex

thattherewaespondents.

dhelpdidnotdnotreceive

es

.4

plete the s

imitedtothosethersomeonthaninterview

tedthatsome

e survey?

incompletincategorizeda

ersforreside

nresponses.

nd/orread/ciamplesforqu

asmorethan

tdiffersignifihelp(7.6ver

survey?

sewho:1)conehelpedthemwerstrained

eonehelpedt

ngthesurvey,as:

ents.

rcledresponsuestions/resp

minimalposs

icantlyinGlorsus7.6outo

ompletedasemcompletetinsurveydel

themtocomp

226respond

ses).ponses(and/

sibleinfluence

balOverallCaf10,respecti

No

88.6

lf‐administerthesurvey.livery.

pletethesurv

dentselabora

/orread/circl

eonresponses

areratingsively).

red

vey

ated

led

s.

179

APPENDIX G

Withrespecttothe11DimensionsofCare:

ThosewhoreceivedhelpfillingoutthesurveyreportedsignificantlylowerratingsontheLaundryDimensionofCarerelativetothosewhodidnotreceivehelp(adifferenceof3.5outof100;p<0.05).

ThosewhoreceivedhelpfillingoutthesurveyreportedsignificantlyhigherratingsontheMealsandDiningDimensionofCarerelativetothosewhodidnotreceivehelp(adifferenceof3.6outof100;p<0.05).

Toconclude,theinfluenceofothersinhelpingresidentscompletethesurveyisregardedasminimal,becausetheresults(i.e.,GlobalOverallCareratingsandDimensionsofCare),ingeneral,werenotdifferentamongrespondentswhoreceivedhelpcomparedtorespondentswhodidnotreceivehelp.

180

APPENDIX G

G.10 Respondent characteristics and differences in Global Overall Care ratings

EachofthevariablesconsideredunderthesectionRespondentDetailswereexaminedintheirinfluenceonGlobalOverallCareratings(ascorefrom0to10).Variableswithmorethantwolevelswereassessedusingaonewayanalysisofvariance,whereastwo‐levelcategoriessuchasgender(Male/Female)wereassessedusingt‐tests.Forsimplicity,CPSandVisionweredichotomizedasfollows:

CPS:Intact(0)versusNon‐intact(>1)

Vision:Adequate(0)versusImpaired(>1)

Educationwasdichotomizedasfollows:

Education:HighschoolorlessversusMorethanHighschool

Agewasassessedbothasacontinuousvariableandasadichotomizedvariable:

Age:71+versus≤70years39

Table 60: Respondent characteristics and differences in Global Overall Care ratings

Respondent characteristic and/or related questions

Comment: significant difference in Global Overall Care rating

Gender Not significant

Age

As age increases, the so does Global Overall Care rating (p < 0.05).

Respondents 71 years and older had higher Global Overall Care ratings than respondents 70 years and younger (7.9 versus 7.6 respectively; p < 0.05).

Education Not significant

CPS Score Not significant

Vision Score Not significant

Q61: Shared room Not significant

Q62: In general, how would you rate your overall health?

As the self reported overall health score becomes more positive, so does the Global Overall Care rating (p < 0.05). For example, the Global Overall Care rating for those who rated their health as Poor was 7.1 out of 10, whereas for those who rated their health as Excellent, it was 8.2 out of 10.

Q63: In general, how would you rate your overall mental or emotional health?

As the self reported overall mental/emotional score becomes more positive, so does the Global Overall Care rating (p < 0.05). For example, Global Overall Care rating for those who rated their mental/emotional health as Poor was 6.6 out of 10, whereas for those who rated their health as Excellent, it was 8.3 out of 10.

39Determinationofcut‐offwasdatadriven.PreliminaryanalysescomparingDimensionofCaremeansandagedeterminedthismeaningfulcut‐offpointof70years.DifferencesinDimensionofCaremeanswasobservedconsistentlyusingthiscut‐off.

181

APPENDIX H

APPENSUMMA

Thisappenemphasizenumberofstrategywconsequenresult,thepartiallymlevelresul

H.1 G

TheGlobawassignif

Figure 47

M

0

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Glo

bal

Ove

rall

Car

e R

atin

g m

ean

sco

re(0

to

10)

H

DIX H: PRARY MEAN

ndixdescribeeequalweighfrespondentswasdesignedntlynotallzodatadidnotmitigatedbyeltsinthissect

Global Ov

lOverallCareficantvariatio

7: Global Ove

Calg

Mean 7.8

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

0.0

ROVINCIANS AND P

esrespondenthttoeachinds),ratherthanforrepresentones)wereadlenditselftoemphasizingetionshouldb

verall Care

eratingforaloninGlobalO

erall Care rat

ary Ce

8 7

AL AND ZOPROPENS

t‐leveldataatividualresponindividualftativezone‐ledequatelyrepcomparativeequalweighteinterpreted

e ratings

llrespondentOverallCarera

tings by AHS

entral Ed

7.8

ONE-LEVEITY TO RE

tthezoneanondentwithinfacilitieswithevelanalysesresentedinthezone‐levelatoeachindivdwithcaution

tsintheproviatingsacross

S zone

dmonton

7.6

EL DIMENECOMME

dprovinciallneachzone(ihinthezones.(i.e.,acensustheresultingsnalyses.Althovidualresponn.

ince(N=1,89AHSzones(F

North

7.8

SIONS OFND

level.Analysei.e.,thedenomAlthoughthes),notallfacisamplingdistoughpotentiandentwithine

92)was7.7oFigure47).

South

7.9

F CARE

esinthissectminatoristheesamplinglities(andtribution.Asaalbiasmaybeachzone,zo

outof10.The

Alberta

7.7

tione

aene‐

re

182

APPENDIX H

H.2 G

Themean100.Signif

Figure 48

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Gen

eral

Sat

isfa

ctio

n m

ean

sco

re (

0 to

100

)

H

General S

scoreforGenficantdifferen

8: General Sa

Calga

ean 86.1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Satisfactio

neralSatisfacncesinmean

atisfaction Di

ry Cen

85

on

ctionforallrescoresacros

imension of C

ntral Edm

5.9 8

espondentsinszoneswere

Care by AHS

monton

81.4

ntheprovinceefound(Figu

S zone

North

82.8

e(N=1,978)re48).

South

87.5

was84.4out

Alberta

84.4

tof

183

APPENDIX H

H.3 M

ThemeanSignificant

Figure 49

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Mea

ls a

nd

Din

ing

mea

n s

core

(0

to 1

00)

H

Meals and

scoreforMetdifferences

9: Meals and

Calga

ean 80.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

d Dining

alsandDinininmeanscor

Dining Dime

ry Cen

2 81

ngforallrespesacrosszon

ension of Car

ntral Edm

.6 7

ondentsinthneswerefoun

re by AHS zo

monton

76.2

heprovince(Nnd(Figure49

one

North

81.5

N=1,985)wa9).

South

79.9

as79.0outof

Alberta

79.0

f100.

184

APPENDIX H

H.4 R

Themean100.Signif

Figure 50

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Res

iden

t E

nvi

ron

men

t m

ean

sco

re (

0 to

100

)

H

Resident E

scoreforResficantdifferen

0: Resident E

Calga

ean 92.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Environm

sidentEnvironcesinmean

Environment

ry Cen

2 92

ment

onmentforallscoresacros

Dimension o

ntral Edm

2.8 8

lrespondentsszoneswere

of Care by AH

monton

89.6

sintheproviefound(Figu

HS zone

North

91.5

nce(N=1,96re50).

South

92.1

65)was91.2o

Alberta

91.2

outof

185

APPENDIX H

H.5 A

ThemeanSignificant

Figure 51

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Act

ivit

ies

mea

n s

core

(0

to 1

00)

H

Activities

scoreforActtdifferences

1: Activities D

Calga

ean 83.6

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

tivitiesforallinmeanscor

Dimension of

ry Cen

6 78

respondentsesacrosszon

Care scores

ntral Edm

8.9 7

sintheprovinneswerefoun

s by AHS zon

monton

78.9

nce(N=1,94nd(Figure51

ne

North

76.4

2)was79.7o1).

South

80.5

outof100.

Alberta

79.7

186

APPENDIX H

H.6 R

Themean90.9outo

Figure 52

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Rel

atio

nsh

ip w

ith

Em

plo

yees

mea

n s

core

(0

to

100

)

H

Relationsh

scoreforRelf100.Signific

2: Relationsh

Cal

Mean 92

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

00.0

hip with E

lationshipwitcantdifferenc

ip with Empl

gary C

2.6 9

Employees

thEmployeescesinmeans

oyees Dimen

entral Ed

91.8

s

sforallrespocoresacross

nsion of Care

dmonton

89.2

ondentsinthezonesweref

e by AHS zon

North

89.6

eprovince(Nfound(Figure

ne

South

92.3

N=2,005)wae52).

Alberta

90.9

s

187

APPENDIX H

H.7 F

Themean100.Signif

Figure 53

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Fac

ility

En

viro

nm

ent

mea

n s

core

(0

to 1

00)

H

Facility En

scoreforFacficantdifferen

3: Facility Env

Calga

ean 91.5

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

nvironmen

cilityEnvironncesinmean

vironment Di

ry Cen

5 92

nt

mentforallrscoresacros

imension of C

ntral Edm

2.3 8

respondentsiszoneswere

Care by AHS

monton

89.3

intheprovincefound(Figu

S zone

North

88.7

ce(N=1,970re53).

South

92.5

0)was90.9ou

Alberta

90.9

utof

188

APPENDIX H

H.8 C

ThemeanSignificant

Figure 54

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

mea

n s

core

(0

to 1

00)

H

Communi

scoreforComtdifferences

4: Communic

Calga

ean 87.9

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

cation

mmunicationinmeanscor

cation Dimen

ry Cen

9 86

forallresponesacrosszon

sion of Care

ntral Edm

6.1 8

ndentsintheneswerefoun

by AHS zon

monton

85.1

eprovince(Nnd(Figure54

ne

North

83.5

=1,918)was4).

South

88.5

s86.3outof1

Alberta

86.3

100.

189

APPENDIX H

H.9 C

Themeandifference

Figure 55

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Ch

oic

e m

ean

sco

re (

0 to

100

)

H

Choice

scoreforChosinmeansco

5: Choice Dim

Calga

ean 91.4

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

oiceforallresoresacrosszo

mension of C

ry Cen

4 91

spondentsinoneswerefou

Care by AHS

ntral Edm

.0 9

theprovinceund(Figure5

zone

monton

90.1

e(N=2,002)55).

North

90.2

was90.7out

South

91.3

tof100.No

Alberta

90.7

190

APPENDIX H

H.10 E

Themeanoutof100

Figure 56

Me

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Em

plo

yee

Res

po

nsi

ven

ess

mea

n s

core

(0 t

o 1

00)

H

Employee

scoreforEm0.Significantd

6: Employee

Calga

ean 88.2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

e Respons

mployeeRespodifferencesin

Responsiven

ary Cen

2 88

siveness

onsivenessfonmeanscores

ness Dimens

ntral Edm

8.2

orallrespondsacrosszone

sion of Care b

monton

84.8

dentsintheprswerefound

by AHS zone

North

84.8

rovince(N=d(Figure56)

e

South

88.7

1,925)was8.

Alberta

86.9

6.9

191

APPENDIX H

H.11 C

ThemeanSignificant

Figure 57

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Car

e an

d S

ervi

ces

mea

n s

core

(0

to 1

00)

H

Care and

scoreforCartdifferences

7: Care and S

Calga

ean 83.4

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Services

reandServiceinmeanscor

Services Dim

ry Cen

4 84

esforallrespesacrosszon

mension of Ca

ntral Edm

4.0 7

pondentsinthneswerefoun

are by AHS z

monton

77.1

heprovince(nd(Figure57

zone

North

81.2

N=1,973)w7).

South

84.3

was81.2outo

Alberta

81.2

f100.

192

APPENDIX H

H.12 L

Themeansignificant

Figure 58

Lau

nd

ry m

ean

sco

re (

0 to

100

)

H

Laundry

scoreforLautdifferencesi

8: Laundry D

Ca

Mean

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

undryforallrinmeanscore

imension of C

algary

91.7

respondentsiesacrosszon

Care by AHS

Central

92.0

intheprovincneswerefoun

S zone

Edmonton

91.5

ce(N=1,153nd.

North

92.9

3)was91.6ou

South

91.0

utof100.No

h Albe

91.

erta

.6

193

APPENDIX H

H.13 P

Thepercepercent.S

Figure 59

Me

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

H

Propensit

ntageofrespSignificantdif

9: Percentage

Calga

ean 91.3

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ty to recom

ondentswhofferencesinp

e who would

ry Cen

3 91

mmend

owouldrecompercentagesac

recommend

ntral Edm

.8 8

mmendtheircrosszonesw

d facility by A

monton

83.9

facilityinthewerefound(F

AHS zone

North

88.1

eprovince(NFigure59).

South

93.7

=1,878)was

Alberta

88.9

s88.9

194

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX I: SUMMARY OF PROVINCIAL AND ZONE LEVEL RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL SURVEY QUESTIONS

ThissectionprovidesadetailedanalysisofresponsestotheindividualsurveyquestionswhichmakeuptheDimensionsofCare:1)Activities;2)Choice;3)CareandServices;4)RelationshipwithEmployees;5)EmployeeResponsiveness;6)Communication;7)MealsandDining;8)Laundry;9)FacilityEnvironment;10)ResidentEnvironment;and11)GeneralSatisfaction.

Resultsinthissectionarepresentedasfollows:

I.1GeneralSatisfaction

(Q46)Doyoufeelcomfortablehere?

(Q47)Doyoufeelyouaregettingyourmoney’sworthhere?

(Q48)Overall,doyoulikelivinghere?

(Q49)Wouldyourecommendthisplacetoafamilymemberorfriend?

I.2MealsandDining

(Q28)Doyougetenoughtoeat?

(Q29)Isthefoodheretasty?

(Q30)Canyougetthefoodsyoulike?

(Q31)Isyourfoodservedattherighttemperature?

(Q32)Doyoulikethewayyourmealsareservedhere?

I.3ResidentEnvironment

(Q40)Doyouhaveenoughprivacyinyourroomorapartment?

(Q41)Areyousatisfiedwithyourroomorapartment?

(Q42)Doyoufeelsafehere?

(Q43)Areyourbelongingssafehere?

(Q44)Doyouthinkthisisapleasantplaceforpeopletovisit?

(Q45)Istheroomtemperaturecomfortableforyou?

I.4Activities

(SurveyQuestion1)Doyouhaveenoughtodohere?

(Q2)Doyougetenoughinformationabouttheactivitiesofferedhere?

(Q3)Areyousatisfiedwiththeactivitiesofferedhere?

(Q4)Canyouchoosewhatactivitiesyoudohere?

I.5RelationshipwithEmployees

(Q15)Aretheemployeescourteoustoyou?

(Q16)Canyoudependontheemployees?

195

APPENDIX I

(Q17)Arethepeoplewhoworkherefriendly?

(Q18)Dotheemployeestreatyouwithrespect?

I.6FacilityEnvironment

(Q35)Doyoulikethelocationofthisplace?

(Q36)Aretheoutsidewalkwaysandgroundswelltakencareof?

(Q37)Doesthisplacelookattractivetoyou?

(Q38)Isthisplacecleanenough?

(Q39)Isthisplacequietwhenitshouldbe?

I.7Communication

(Q23)Arethepeopleinchargeavailabletotalkwithyou?

(Q24)Dothepeopleinchargetreatyouwithrespect?

(Q25)Wouldyoufeelcomfortablespeakingtothepeopleinchargeaboutaproblem?

(Q26)Doyouknowwhotogotoherewhenyouhaveaproblem?

(Q27)Doyourproblemsgettakencareofhere?

I.8Choice

(Q5)Canyougotobedwhenyoulike?

(Q6)Dotheemployeesleaveyoualoneifyoudon’twanttodoanything?

(Q7)Dothepeoplethatworkhereencourageyoutodothethingsyouareabletodoyourself?

(Q8)Areyoufreetocomeandgoasyouareable?

(Q9)Aretherulesherereasonable?

(Q10)Canyouchoosewhatclothestowear?

I.9EmployeeResponsiveness

(Q19)Duringtheweek,areemployeesavailabletohelpyouifyouneedit?

(Q20)Duringtheweekend,areemployeesavailabletohelpyouifyouneedit?

(Q21)Duringtheeveningandnight,areemployeesavailabletohelpyouifyouneedit?

(Q22)Doyoufeelconfidentthatemployeesknowhowtodotheirjobs?

I.10CareandServices

(Q11)Canyougetsnacksanddrinkswheneveryouwantthem?

(Q12)Doyougetyourmedicationsontime?

(Q13)Doemployeesexplainyourcareandservicestoyou?

(Q14)Dotheemployeeswhotakecareofyouknowwhatyoulikeanddon’tlike?

196

APPENDIX I

I.11Laundry

(Q33)Doyougetclothingbackfromthelaundry?

(Q34)Doesyourclothingcomebackingoodcondition?

I.12AdditionalQuestions

(Q51)Canyouseeadoctorifyouneedto?

(Q52)Areyouabletogettransportationtoorfrommedicalappointments?

(Q53)Besidesmedicalappointments,doyoumeetwithanonsitenurseorotherstafftoreviewchangesinyourhealth?

(Q54)Besidesmedicalappointments,doyoumeetwithanonsitenurseorotherstafftoreviewchangesinyourmedicationsorothermedicationrelatedissues?

(Q55)Areyouinvolvedinmakingdecisionsaboutyourcare?

(Q56)Doyouhaveenoughpersonalprivacywhenyouwantit?

(Q57)Ifyouareunhappywithsomething,orifyouwanttochangesomethingaboutyourcare,doyouknowwhotocontact?

(Q58)Overalldoyoufindthecostoflivingherereasonable?

Descriptivestatistics(meansandresponsepercentagesforall2,035respondents)werecomputedtoproduceprovincialandAHSzoneleveldatafortheindividualquestionsabove.Responseproportions(percentages)werecomparedusingthebinomialprobabilitytest,whichassesseswhetherazone‐specificpercentagediffersfromthepercentageobservedattheprovinciallevel.Forexample,(Table61):

A:ThepercentageofEdmontonrespondentswhoansweredusuallywas62.5percent.

B:Thepercentageofallrespondents(Albertapopulation)whoansweredusuallywas37.5percent.

Table 61: Example table of binomial probability test interpretation

Calgary

(N = 40)

Central

(N = 40)

Edmonton

(N = 80)

North

(N = 40)

South

(N = 40)

Alberta

(N = 240)

% % % % % %

Never 25.0 25.0 12.5 25.0 25.0 20.8

Sometimes 25.0 25.0 12.5 25.0 25.0 20.8

Usually 25.0 25.0 62.5* 25.0 25.0 37.5

Always 25.0 25.0 12.5 25.0 25.0 20.8

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Thebinomialprobabilitytestcompareswhether62.5percent(A),thosewhoansweredusually,issignificantlydifferentfromwhatisobservedintheAlbertapopulation(37.5%;B).Usingthistest,wecanseethat62.5percentissignificantlydifferentfromthehypothesizedprovincialaverage(37.5%)atp<0.05.

A B

197

APPENDIX I

Othernotes:

Percentagesmaynotalwaysaddto100percentduetorounding.

Facility,zone,andprovincialresultsarepresentedingraphswhichinclude95percentconfidenceintervals(95%CI).Theseintervalscanaidthereaderingaugingstatisticallysignificantdifferencesinresults.Asageneralrule,intervalsthatdonotoverlapreflectsignificantdifferencesbetweenmeasures.Incontrast,intervalsthatoverlapdonotreflectsignificantdifferencesbetweenmeasures.

198

APPENDIX I

I.1 G

I.1.1 Q

Figure 60

Table 62:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

General S

Question 46

0: Provincial s

Zone summ

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Satisfactio

6 (Q46): Do

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

(N = 257)

%

2.7

1.6

18.3

77.4

100.0

, never

1.6

on

o you feel c

responses fo

nses for Que

Central

(N = 422)

%

0.5

2.1

17.1

80.3

100.0

No, hardly

2.1

comfortable

or Question 4

estion 46 (Q4

Edmonton

(N = 764)

%

2.6*

2.2

17.5

77.6

100.0

y ever Y

e here?

46 (Q46)

46)

North

(N = 10

%

1.8

2.8

22.0

73.4

100.0

Yes, sometim

17.9

h

9)

Sout

(N = 4

%

0.2*

2.2

18.3

79.3

100.

mes Ye

th

416)

Albe

(N = 1

%

* 1.

2 2.

3 17

3 78

.0 100

es, always

78.3

erta

1,968)

%

.6

.1

7.9

8.3

0.0

199

APPENDIX I

I.1.2 Q

Figure 61

Table 63:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q47: Do yo

1: Provincial s

Zone summ

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ou feel you a

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

(N = 205)

%

2.9*

5.4

25.4

66.3*

100.0

, never

8.1

are getting

responses fo

nses for Q47

Central

(N = 361)

%

6.4

7.8

26.9

59.0

100.0

No, hardly

8.1

your mone

or Q47

7

Edmonton

(N = 679)

%

12.2*

10.3*

25.3

52.1*

100.0

y ever Y

ey’s worth h

North

(N = 91

%

9.9

5.5

23.1

61.5

100.0

Yes, sometim

25.4

here?

h

1)

Sout

(N = 3

%

4.5*

6.6

24.7

64.1

100.

mes Ye

th

376)

Albe

(N = 1

%

* 8.

6 8.

7 25

* 58

.0 100

es, always

58.4

erta

1,712)

%

.1

.1

5.4

8.4

0.0

200

APPENDIX I

I.1.3 Q

Figure 62

Table 64:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q48: Overa

2: Provincial s

Zone summ

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

all, do you li

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

(N = 251)

%

4.4

5.6

23.5

66.5

100.0

, never

4.6

ike living he

responses fo

nses for Q48

Central

(N = 419)

%

3.1

4.1

28.4

64.4

100.0

No, hardly

5.0

ere?

or Q48

8

Edmonton

(N = 745)

%

6.4*

4.6

23.2

65.8

100.0

y ever Y

North

(N = 10

%

4.8

6.7

32.4

56.2

100.0

Yes, sometim

24.8

h

5)

Sout

(N = 4

%

3.1

5.8

23.0

68.1

100.

mes Ye

th

417)

Albe

(N = 1

%

4.

8 5.

0 24

1 65

.0 100

es, always

65.6

erta

1,937)

%

.6

.0

4.8

5.6

0.0

201

APPENDIX I

I.1.4 Q

Figure 63

Table 65:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q49: Would

3: Provincial s

Zone summ

ever

imes

s

al

No

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

d you recom

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

(N = 241)

%

5.8

2.9

18.7

72.6

100.0

, never

7.7

mmend this

responses fo

nses for surv

Central

(N = 404)

%

4.5*

3.7

18.3

73.5

100.0

No, hardl

3.4

s place to a

or Q49

vey Q49

Edmonton

(N = 722)

%

12.3*

3.7

15.5

68.4*

100.0

y ever

4

family mem

North

(N = 101)

%

6.9

5.0

17.8

70.3

100.0

Yes, sometim

16.6

mber or frie

)

South

(N = 41

%

3.9*

2.4

15.1*

78.5*

100.0

mes Y

end?

h

10)

Albe

(N = 1

%

7.

3.

* 16

* 72

0 100

Yes, always

72.4

erta

,878)

%

7

4

.6

.4

0.0

202

APPENDIX I

I.2 M

I.2.1 Q

Figure 64

Table 66:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Meals and

Q28: Do yo

4: Provincial s

Zone summ

C

(

ever

imes

s

al

No

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

d Dining

ou get enou

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

N = 258)

%

0.0

0.8

14.3

84.9

100.0

, never

0.7

gh to eat?

responses fo

nses for Q28

Central

(N = 427)

%

0.7

1.9

10.8

86.7

100.0

No, hardl

1.8

or Q28

8

Edmonton

(N = 763)

%

1.2

2.5

12.7

83.6

100.0

y ever

8

North

(N = 109)

%

0.0

2.8

8.3

89.0

100.0

Yes, sometim

12.2

)

South

(N = 41

%

0.5

0.7

12.4

86.4

100.0

mes Y

h

19)

Albe

(N = 1

%

0.

1.

12

85

0 100

Yes, always

85.3

erta

,976)

%

7

8

.2

.3

0.0

203

APPENDIX I

I.2.2 Q

Figure 65

Table 67:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q29: Is the

5: Provincial s

Zone summ

C

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

food here t

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

N = 255)

%

3.1

5.1*

56.1*

35.7

100.0

, never

5.3

tasty?

responses fo

nses for Q29

Central

(N = 423)

%

4.5

8.7

42.6

44.2

100.0

No, hardly

9.4

or Q29

9

Edmonton

(N = 765)

%

8.0*

11.0

43.4

37.6

100.0

y ever Y

North

(N = 110)

%

2.7

5.5

39.1

52.7*

100.0

Yes, sometim

45.4

)

South

(N = 41

%

3.1*

10.8

47.2

38.8

100.0

mes Ye

h

15)

Albe

(N = 1

%

5.

9.

45

39

0 100

es, always

39.9

erta

,968)

%

3

4

.4

.9

0.0

204

APPENDIX I

I.2.3 Q

Figure 66

Table 68:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q30: Can y

6: Provincial s

Zone summ

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

you get the

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

(N = 245)

%

3.3*

11.4

52.2*

33.1

100.0

, never

9.2

foods you l

responses fo

nses for Q30

Central

(N = 400)

%

4.8*

12.5

46.3

36.5

100.0

No, hardly

12.7

like?

or Q30

0

Edmonton

(N = 708)

%

14.7*

12.7

40.4*

32.2

100.0

y ever Y

7

North

(N = 100)

%

8.0

10.0

52.0

30.0

100.0

Yes, sometim

44.3

)

South

(N = 38

%

7.8

14.5

42.2

35.5

100.0

mes Ye

h

86)

Albe

(N = 1

%

9.

12

44

33

0 100

es, always

33.8

erta

,839)

%

2

.7

.3

.8

0.0

205

APPENDIX I

I.2.4 Q

Figure 67

Table 69:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q31: Is you

7: Provincial s

Zone summ

Ca

(N

ever

imes

s

l 1

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ur food serv

summary of

mary of respo

algary

= 256) (

%

1.2

11.3

43.0

44.5

100.0

, never

2.5

ved at the ri

responses fo

nses for Q31

Central

(N = 426)

%

1.2

8.9

33.8

56.1*

100.0

No, hardly

10.2

ght temper

or Q31

1

Edmonton

(N = 753)

%

4.5*

10.6

36.7

48.2

100.0

y ever Y

2

rature?

North

(N = 110)

%

1.8

8.2

32.7

57.3

100.0

Yes, sometim

37.0

South

(N = 41

%

1.2

10.8

38.1*

49.9

100.0

mes Ye

h

7)

Albe

(N = 1

%

2.5

10

37

50

100

es, always

50.3

erta

,962)

%

5

.2

.0

.3

0.0

206

APPENDIX I

I.2.5 Q

Figure 68

Table 70:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q32: Do yo

8: Provincial s

Zone summ

Ca

(N

ever

imes

s

l 1

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ou like the w

summary of

mary of respo

algary

= 254) (

%

2.0

3.5

26.8

67.7

100.0

, never

3.0

way your me

responses fo

nses for Q32

Central

(N = 420)

%

1.9

2.4*

23.1

72.6

100.0

No, hardly

5.0

eals are se

or Q32

2

Edmonton

(N = 743)

%

5.1*

7.7*

20.6

66.6

100.0

y ever Y

erved here?

North

(N = 105)

%

2.9

5.7

24.8

66.7

100.0

Yes, sometim

23.4

?

South

(N = 41

%

1.2*

3.6

26.2

69.0

100.0

mes Ye

h

6)

Albe

(N = 1

%

3.0

5.0

23

68

100

es, always

68.6

erta

,938)

%

0

0

.4

.6

0.0

207

APPENDIX I

I.3 R

I.3.1 Q

Figure 69

Table 71:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Resident E

Q40: Do yo

9: Provincial s

Zone summ

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Environm

ou have eno

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

(N = 258)

%

1.2

3.1

14.0

81.8

100.0

, never

1.5

ment

ough privac

responses fo

nses for Q40

Central

(N = 422)

%

0.2*

0.9*

10.4

88.4*

100.0

No, hardly

2.7

cy in your ro

or Q40

0

Edmonton

(N = 766)

%

3.1**

3.8

12.8

80.3*

100.0

y ever Y

oom or apa

North

(N = 111)

%

0.0

0.0

16.2

83.8

100.0

Yes, sometim

12.0

artment?

)

South

(N = 42

%

0.5

2.8

9.9

86.8

100.0

mes Ye

h

23)

Albe

(N = 1

%

1.

2.

12

83

0 100

es, always

83.8

erta

,980)

%

5

7

.0

.8

0.0

208

APPENDIX I

I.3.2 Q

Figure 70

Table 72:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q41: Are yo

0: Provincial s

Zone summ

C

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ou satisfied

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

N = 259)

%

1.2

1.5

18.9

78.4

100.0

, never

2.0

d with your r

responses fo

nses for Q41

Central

(N = 420)

%

1.0

1.0

16.4

81.7

100.0

No, hardly

2.2

room or apa

or Q41

1

Edmonton

(N = 763)

%

3.3*

3.3*

14.7

78.8

100.0

y ever Y

artment?

North

(N = 108)

%

0.9

1.9

17.6

79.6

100.0

Yes, sometim

15.6

)

South

(N = 42

%

1.7

1.9

13.7

82.7

100.0

mes Ye

h

22)

Albe

(N = 1

%

2.

2.

15

80

0 100

es, always

80.2

erta

,972)

%

0

2

.6

.2

0.0

209

APPENDIX I

I.3.3 Q

Figure 71

Table 73:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q42: Do yo

1: Provincial s

Zone summ

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ou feel safe

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

(N = 257)

%

0.8

1.2

6.2

91.8

100.0

, never

0.8

here?

responses fo

nses for Q42

Central

(N = 421)

%

0.0

1.0

9.5

89.5

100.0

No, hardly

1.8

or Q42

2

Edmonton

(N = 769)

%

1.4

2.6

9.8

86.2

100.0

y ever Y

North

(N = 110)

%

0.9

0.9

15.5*

82.7

100.0

Yes, sometim

9.5

)

South

(N = 42

%

0.5

1.7

9.4

88.4

100.0

mes Ye

h

24)

Albe

(N = 1

%

0.

1.

9.

87

0 100

es, always

87.9

erta

,981)

%

8

8

5

.9

0.0

210

APPENDIX I

I.3.4 Q

Figure 72

Table 74:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q43: Are yo

2: Provincial s

Zone summ

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

our belongi

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

(N = 255)

%

1.6

4.3

13.3

80.8

100.0

, never

2.7

ngs safe he

responses fo

nses for Q43

Central

(N = 409)

%

0.7*

3.9

16.9

78.5

100.0

No, hardly

3.8

ere?

or Q43

3

Edmonton

(N = 741)

%

3.9

3.9

15.8

76.4

100.0

y ever Y

North

(N = 104)

%

1.9

1.0

18.3

78.8

100.0

Yes, sometim

16.3

)

South

(N = 41

%

3.4

3.8

18.0

74.8

100.0

mes Ye

h

16)

Albe

(N = 1

%

2.

3.

16

77

0 100

es, always

77.2

erta

,925)

%

7

8

.3

.2

0.0

211

APPENDIX I

I.3.5 Q

Figure 73

Table 75:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q44: Do yo

3: Provincial s

Zone summ

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ou think this

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

(N = 243)

%

0.8

1.2

16.0

81.9

100.0

, never

1.5

s is a pleasa

responses fo

nses for Q44

Central

(N = 413)

%

0.7

1.2

13.8

84.3

100.0

No, hardly

2.5

ant place fo

or Q44

4

Edmonton

(N = 742)

%

2.7*

4.0*

14.6

78.7

100.0

y ever Y

or people to

North

(N = 100)

%

0.0

2.0

18.0

80.0

100.0

Yes, sometim

14.5

o visit?

)

South

(N = 40

%

1.0

2.0

13.3

83.8

100.0

mes Ye

h

07)

Albe

(N = 1

%

1.

2.

14

81

0 100

es, always

81.5

erta

,905)

%

5

5

.5

.5

0.0

212

APPENDIX I

I.3.6 Q

Figure 74

Table 76:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q45: Is the

4: Provincial s

Zone summ

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

room temp

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

(N = 256)

%

1.2

4.7

25.8

68.4

100.0

, never

2.3

perature com

responses fo

nses for Q45

Central

(N = 426)

%

1.9

5.9

29.3*

62.9

100.0

No, hardly

6.2

mfortable fo

or Q45

5

Edmonton

(N = 761)

%

3.3

7.1

21.6*

68.1

100.0

y ever Y

or you?

North

(N = 108)

%

2.8

5.6

36.1*

55.6*

100.0

Yes, sometim

25.0

)

South

(N = 42

%

1.4

6.0

23.6

69.0

100.0

mes Ye

h

20)

Albe

(N = 1

%

2.

6.

25

66

0 100

es, always

66.5

erta

,971)

%

3

2

.0

.5

0.0

213

APPENDIX I

I.4 A

I.4.1 Q

Figure 75

Table 77:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Activities

Q1: Do you

5: Provincial s

Zone summ

Ca

(N

ever

imes

s

l 1

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

u have enou

summary of

mary of respo

algary

= 239) (

%

3.3

8.8*

35.1

52.7

100.0

, never

5.6

ugh to do he

responses fo

nses for Q1

Central

(N = 400)

%

4.5

12.8

35.0

47.8

100.0

No, hardly

13.4

ere?

or Q1

Edmonton

(N = 709)

%

7.6*

15.1

25.8*

51.5

100.0

y ever Y

4

North

(N = 104)

%

7.7

13.5

40.4*

38.5*

100.0

Yes, sometim

31.1

South

(N = 403

%

4.0

13.9

31.8

50.4

100.0

mes Ye

3)

Albe

(N = 1,

%

5.6

13.4

31.

49.9

100.

es, always

49.9

rta

855)

6

4

1

9

.0

214

APPENDIX I

I.4.2 Q

Figure 76

Table 78:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q2: Do you

6: Provincial s

Zone summ

C

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

u get enoug

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

N = 247)

%

2.0

6.5

21.5

70.0

100.0

, never

3.2

h informatio

responses fo

nses for Q2

Central

(N = 413)

%

3.1

7.3

29.5*

60.0*

100.0

No, hardly

7.4

on about th

or Q2

Edmonton

(N = 735)

%

3.8

7.1

18.8*

70.3*

100.0

y ever Y

he activities

North

(N = 102)

%

7.8*

8.8

26.5

56.9*

100.0

Yes, sometim

22.7

s offered he

)

South

(N = 41

%

1.9

8.2

22.7

67.2

100.0

mes Ye

ere?

h

15)

Albe

(N = 1

%

3.

7.

22

66

0 100

es, always

66.7

erta

,912)

%

2

4

.7

.7

0.0

215

APPENDIX I

I.4.3 Q

Figure 77

Table 79:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q3: Are you

7: Provincial s

Zone summ

Ca

(N

ever

imes

s

l 1

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

u satisfied w

summary of

mary of respo

algary

= 227) (

%

2.2*

7.5

31.7

58.6

100.0

, never

5.1

with the act

responses fo

nses for Q3

Central

(N = 401)

%

3.2

11.2

30.2

55.4

100.0

No, hardly

9.4

tivities offer

or Q3

Edmonton

(N = 693)

%

8.2*

9.8

28.6

53.4

100.0

y ever Y

red here?

North

(N = 100)

%

7.0

6.0

32.0

55.0

100.0

Yes, sometim

31.0

South

(N = 40

%

3.0*

8.6

35.5

53.0

100.0

mes Ye

h

6)

Albe

(N = 1

%

5.

9.4

31

54

100

es, always

54.5

erta

,827)

%

1

4

.0

.5

0.0

216

APPENDIX I

I.4.4 Q

Figure 78

Table 80:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Total

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q4: Can yo

8: Provincial s

Zone summ

Cal

(N =

3

ever 3

imes 1

s 77

10

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ou choose w

summary of

mary of respo

lgary

= 230) (

%

3.5

3.9

4.8

7.8*

00.0

, never

5.4

what activiti

responses fo

nses for Q4

Central

N = 402)

%

5.5

8.7*

24.6*

61.2*

100.0

No, hardly

5.5

es you do h

or Q4

Edmonton

(N = 684)

%

5.4

4.8

13.7*

76.0*

100.0

y ever Y

here?

North

(N = 95)

%

6.3

3.2

23.2

67.4

100.0

Yes, sometim

18.4

Sout

(N = 39

%

6.0

5.0

21.2

67.8

100.

mes Ye

th

97)

Alb

(N = 1

%

5

5

2 18

8 70

0 10

es, always

70.7

berta

1,808)

%

5.4

5.5

8.4

0.7

00.0

217

APPENDIX I

I.5 R

I.5.1 Q

Figure 79

Table 81:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Relationsh

Q15: Are th

9: Provincial s

Zone summ

Ca

(N

ever

imes

s

l 1

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

hip with E

he employe

summary of

mary of respo

algary

= 258) (

%

0.4

0.0*

16.7

82.9

100.0

, never

0.6

Employees

es courteou

responses fo

nses for Q15

Central

(N = 427)

%

0.7

2.1

15.5

81.7

100.0

No, hardly

1.8

s

us to you?

or Q15

5

Edmonton

(N = 768)

%

0.8

2.3

21.5*

75.4*

100.0

y ever Y

North

(N = 110)

%

0.9

0.0

20.0

79.1

100.0

Yes, sometim

18.6

South

(N = 42

%

0.2

1.9

17.6

80.3

100.0

mes Ye

h

7)

Albe

(N = 1

%

0.6

1.8

18

79

100

es, always

79.0

erta

,990)

%

6

8

.6

.0

0.0

218

APPENDIX I

I.5.2 Q

Figure 80

Table 82:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q16: Can y

0: Provincial s

Zone summ

C

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

you depend

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

N = 247)

%

1.2

1.6

34.0*

63.2

100.0

, never

1.9

on the em

responses fo

nses for Q16

Central

(N = 416)

%

0.5*

3.4

25.0

71.2*

100.0

No, hardly

3.8

ployees?

or Q16

6

Edmonton

(N = 746)

%

3.6*

5.1

26.8

64.5

100.0

y ever Y

North

(N = 105)

%

2.9

3.8

34.3

59.0

100.0

Yes, sometim

28.1

)

South

(N = 41

%

0.5*

3.4

28.4

67.7

100.0

mes Ye

h

15)

Albe

(N = 1

%

1.

3.

28

66

0 100

es, always

66.1

erta

,929)

%

9

8

.1

.1

0.0

219

APPENDIX I

I.5.3 Q

Figure 81

Table 83:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albert

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q17: Are th

1: Provincial s

Zone summ

Ca

(N

ever

imes

s

l 1

No,

ta 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

he people w

summary of

mary of respo

algary

= 257) (

%

0.0

0.0

17.5

82.5

100.0

never

0.4

who work he

responses fo

nses for Q17

Central

(N = 426)

%

0.5

1.9

18.3

79.3

100.0

No, hardly

1.0

ere friendly?

or Q17

7

Edmonton

(N = 774)

%

0.8

1.2

24.0*

74.0*

100.0

y ever Y

?

North

(N = 110)

%

0.0

0.9

27.3

71.8

100.0

Yes, sometim

20.5

South

(N = 42

%

0.0

0.2

16.2*

83.6*

100.0

mes Ye

h

7)

Albe

(N = 1

%

0.4

1.0

20

78

100

es, always

78.2

erta

,994)

%

4

0

.5

.2

0.0

220

APPENDIX I

I.5.4 Q

Figure 82

Table 84:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q18: Do the

2: Provincial s

Zone summ

ever

imes

s

tal

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

e employee

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

(N = 258)

%

0.4

0.0*

13.2

86.4

100.0

, never

0.8

es treat you

responses fo

nses for Q18

Central

(N = 428)

%

0.2

2.1

15.7

82.0

100.0

No, hardly

1.5

u with respe

or Q18

8

Edmonton

(N = 764)

%

1.6*

2.0

17.0

79.5

100.0

y ever Y

ect?

North

(N = 110

%

0.0

0.9

22.7

76.4

100.0

Yes, sometim

16.1

0)

South

(N = 42

%

0.2

0.9

14.9

84.0

100.0

mes Ye

h

24)

Albe

(N = 1

%

0.

1.

9 16

0 81

0 100

es, always

81.7

erta

,984)

%

8

5

.1

.7

0.0

221

APPENDIX I

I.6 F

I.6.1 Q

Figure 83

Table 85:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Facility En

Q35: Do yo

3: Provincial s

Zone summ

Ca

(N

ever

imes

s

l 1

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

nvironmen

ou like the lo

summary of

mary of respo

algary

= 237) (

%

5.5

5.9*

16.9

71.7

100.0

, never

4.6

nt

ocation of t

responses fo

nses for Q35

Central

(N = 402)

%

2.2*

2.0

17.2

78.6

100.0

No, hardly

3.3

his place?

or Q35

5

Edmonton

(N = 726)

%

6.6*

3.2

17.8

72.5

100.0

y ever Y

North

(N = 101)

%

4.0

5.0

22.8

68.3

100.0

Yes, sometim

17.1

South

(N = 39

%

2.8

2.8

14.6

79.9*

100.0

mes Ye

h

8)

Albe

(N = 1

%

4.6

3.3

17

75

100

es, always

75.1

erta

,864)

%

6

3

.1

.1

0.0

222

APPENDIX I

I.6.2 Q

Figure 84

Table 86:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q36: Are th

4: Provincial s

Zone summ

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

he outside w

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

(N = 217)

%

0.9

1.4

15.7

82.0

100.0

, never

0.9

walkways a

responses fo

nses for Q36

Central

(N = 382)

%

0.3

1.0

18.3

80.4

100.0

No, hardly

2.0

nd grounds

or Q36

6

Edmonton

(N = 672)

%

1.2

3.0

17.0

78.9

100.0

y ever Y

s well taken

North

(N = 92

%

1.1

4.3

16.3

78.3

100.0

Yes, sometim

16.3

n care of?

h

2)

Sout

(N = 3

%

0.8

1.3

13.4

84.6

100.

mes Ye

th

397)

Albe

(N = 1

%

8 0.

3 2.

4 16

6 80

.0 100

es, always

80.9

erta

1,760)

%

.9

.0

6.3

0.9

0.0

223

APPENDIX I

I.6.3 Q

Figure 85

Table 87:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q37: Does

5: Provincial s

Zone summ

C

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

this place l

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

N = 235)

%

1.3

2.1

20.0

76.6

100.0

, never

2.2

ook attract

responses fo

nses for Q37

Central

(N = 409)

%

0.7*

2.9

19.1

77.3

100.0

No, hardly

3.1

ive to you?

or Q37

7

Edmonton

(N = 736)

%

3.5*

3.9

17.3

75.3

100.0

y ever Y

North

(N = 105)

%

2.9

3.8

24.8

68.6

100.0

Yes, sometim

18.2

)

South

(N = 40

%

1.5

2.2

16.1

80.2

100.0

mes Ye

h

09)

Albe

(N = 1

%

2.

3.

18

76

0 100

es, always

76.6

erta

,894)

%

2

1

.2

.6

0.0

224

APPENDIX I

I.6.4 Q

Figure 86

Table 88:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q38: Is this

6: Provincial s

Zone summ

C

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

s place clea

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

N = 258)

%

0.0

1.9

10.9

87.2

100.0

, never

1.0

an enough?

responses fo

nses for Q38

Central

(N = 424)

%

0.2

1.9

14.2

83.7

100.0

No, hardly

1.9

or Q38

8

Edmonton

(N = 766)

%

1.8*

2.1

14.4

81.7

100.0

y ever Y

North

(N = 107)

%

0.9

0.9

13.1

85.0

100.0

Yes, sometim

13.7

)

South

(N = 42

%

0.9

1.9

13.9

83.3

100.0

mes Ye

h

24)

Albe

(N = 1

%

1.

1.

13

83

0 100

es, always

83.4

erta

,979)

%

0

9

.7

.4

0.0

225

APPENDIX I

I.6.5 Q

Figure 87

Table 89:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q39: Is this

7: Provincial s

Zone summ

C

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

s place quie

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

N = 256)

%

1.2

1.6

10.9*

86.3*

100.0

, never

1.0

et when it sh

responses fo

nses for Q39

Central

(N = 423)

%

0.2

2.1

15.8

81.8

100.0

No, hardly

3.2

hould be?

or Q39

9

Edmonton

(N = 763)

%

1.8*

4.6*

15.9

77.7

100.0

y ever Y

North

(N = 107)

%

0.9

6.5

22.4

70.1*

100.0

Yes, sometim

15.7

)

South

(N = 42

%

0.0*

1.9

16.5

81.6

100.0

mes Ye

h

24)

Albe

(N = 1

%

1.

3.

15

80

0 100

es, always

80.1

erta

,973)

%

0

2

.7

.1

0.0

226

APPENDIX I

I.7 C

I.7.1 Q

Figure 88

Table 90:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Communi

Q23: Are th

8: Provincial s

Zone summ

C

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

cation

he people in

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

N = 221)

%

2.3

5.9

31.7

60.2

100.0

, never

3.0

n charge av

responses fo

nses for Q23

Central

(N = 385)

%

2.1

6.8

29.1

62.1

100.0

No, hardly

7.3

vailable to ta

or Q23

3

Edmonton

(N = 686)

%

4.5*

8.6

27.0

59.9

100.0

y ever Y

alk with you

North

(N = 101)

%

5.0

6.9

30.7

57.4

100.0

Yes, sometim

27.8

u?

)

South

(N = 38

%

1.1*

6.6

25.0

67.4*

100.0

mes Ye

h

80)

Albe

(N = 1

%

3.

7.

27

* 61

0 100

es, always

61.9

erta

,773)

%

0

3

.8

.9

0.0

227

APPENDIX I

I.7.2 Q

Figure 89

Table 91:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q24: Do the

9: Provincial s

Zone summ

C

(

ever

imes

s

al

No

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

e people in

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

N = 243)

%

0.4

0.4

11.9

87.2

100.0

, never

0.5

charge tre

responses fo

nses for Q24

Central

(N = 404)

%

0.0

2.2

13.1

84.7

100.0

No, hardl

2.0

at you with

or Q24

4

Edmonton

(N = 729)

%

1.1

2.3

13.7

82.9

100.0

y ever

0

respect?

North

(N = 107)

%

0.9

3.7

18.7

76.6*

100.0

Yes, sometim

13.2

)

South

(N = 41

%

0.0

1.7

11.6

86.7

100.0

mes Y

h

15)

Albe

(N = 1

%

0.

2.

13

84

0 100

Yes, always

84.3

erta

,898)

%

5

0

.2

.3

0.0

228

APPENDIX I

I.7.3 Qp

Figure 90

Table 92:

No, never

No, hardly

Yes, some

Yes, alway

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q25: Wouldproblem?

0: Provincial s

Zone summ

C

(

y ever

etimes

ys

tal

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

d you feel c

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

N = 241)

%

1.7

2.9

19.5

75.9

100.0

, never

3.4

comfortable

responses fo

nses for Q25

Central

(N = 406)

%

3.0

6.2

21.2

69.7

100.0

No, hardly

5.6

e speaking t

or Q25

5

Edmonton

(N = 729)

%

4.8*

6.4

16.3

72.4

100.0

y ever Y

to the peop

North

(N = 107)

%

3.7

6.5

24.3

65.4

100.0

Yes, sometim

18.3

ple in charg

South

(N = 41

%

2.2

5.1

16.5

76.2

100.0

mes Ye

e about a

h

1)

Albe

(N = 1,

%

3.4

5.6

18.

72.

100

es, always

72.7

rta

,894)

4

6

3

7

.0

229

APPENDIX I

I.7.4 Q

Figure 91

Table 93:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q26: Do yo

1: Provincial s

Zone summ

C

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ou know wh

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

N = 235)

%

6.8

4.3

21.3

67.7

100.0

, never

6.1

o to go to h

responses fo

nses for Q26

Central

(N = 400)

%

5.0

6.3

24.8*

64.0*

100.0

No, hardly

4.9

here when y

or Q26

6

Edmonton

(N = 724)

%

6.4

4.1

14.9*

74.6*

100.0

y ever Y

you have a

North

(N = 101)

%

10.9

5.0

21.8

62.4

100.0

Yes, sometim

18.8

a problem?

)

South

(N = 40

%

5.2

5.5

17.7

71.6

100.0

mes Ye

h

01)

Albe

(N = 1

%

6.

4.

18

70

0 100

es, always

70.1

erta

,861)

%

1

9

.8

.1

0.0

230

APPENDIX I

I.7.5 Q

Figure 92

Table 94:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q27: Do yo

2: Provincial s

Zone summ

ever

imes

s

tal

No

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

our problem

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

(N = 211)

%

2.4

3.3

31.3

63.0

100.0

, never

4.2

ms get taken

responses fo

nses for Q27

Central

(N = 370)

%

5.1

4.9

29.2

60.8

100.0

No, hardl

5.6

n care of he

or Q27

7

Edmonton

(N = 644)

%

5.6

7.9*

27.6

58.9

100.0

y ever

6

ere?

n North

(N = 90)

%

2.2

4.4

41.1*

52.2

100.0

Yes, sometim

29.6

)

Sout

(N = 36

%

2.2

3.8

29.8

64.2

100.0

mes Y

h

69)

Albe

(N = 1

%

4.

5.

8 29

2 60

0 100

Yes, always

60.6

erta

,684)

%

2

6

9.6

0.6

0.0

231

APPENDIX I

I.8 C

I.8.1 Q

Figure 93

Table 95:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Total

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Choice

Q5: Can yo

3: Provincial s

Zone summ

Cal

(N =

%

0

ever 1

imes 13

s 84

10

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ou go to bed

summary of

mary of respo

gary

= 262)

C

(N

%

0.8

.9

3.0

4.4

00.0

, never

2.0

d when you

responses fo

nses for Q5

Central

N = 426)

%

1.9

1.6

16.0*

80.5

100.0

No, hardly

2.7

u like?

or Q5

Edmonton

(N = 768)

%

2.2

3.4

10.3

84.1

100.0

y ever Y

North

(N = 108)

%

1.9

1.9

11.1

85.2

100.0

Yes, sometim

12.3

South

(N = 433

%

2.3

3.2

12.2

82.2

100.0

mes Ye

3)

Albe

(N = 1

%

2.0

2.7

12.

83.

100

es, always

83.0

erta

,997)

%

0

7

.3

.0

0.0

232

APPENDIX I

I.8.2 Q

Figure 94

Table 96:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q6: Do the

4: Provincial s

Zone summ

Ca

(N

ever

imes

s

l 1

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

employees

summary of

mary of respo

algary

= 253) (

%

0.4

0.8

16.2

82.6

100.0

, never

1.2

s leave you

responses fo

nses for Q6

Central

(N = 415)

%

0.7

1.9

22.4*

74.9*

100.0

No, hardly

2.1

alone if yo

or Q6

Edmonton

(N = 759)

%

1.4

2.8

14.0*

81.8

100.0

y ever Y

ou don’t wan

North

(N = 106)

%

0.9

2.8

17.0

79.2

100.0

Yes, sometim

16.9

nt to do any

South

(N = 424

%

1.7

1.9

17.0

79.5

100.0

mes Ye

ything?

h

4)

Albe

(N = 1

%

1.2

2.

16

79

100

es, always

79.8

erta

,957)

%

2

1

.9

.8

0.0

233

APPENDIX I

I.8.3 Qd

Figure 95

Table 97:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q7: Do the do yourself?

5: Provincial s

Zone summ

ever

imes

s

tal

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

people tha?

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

(N = 237)

%

4.6

5.1

23.6

66.7

100.0

, never

4.5

t work here

responses fo

nses for Q7

Central

(N = 406)

%

2.7

5.4

28.1

63.8

100.0

No, hardly

5.9

e encourage

or Q7

Edmonton

(N = 686)

%

6.9*

6.4

21.6

65.2

100.0

y ever Y

e you to do

n North

(N = 103

%

3.9

6.8

28.2

61.2

100.0

Yes, sometim

24.4

o the things

3)

Sout

(N = 40

%

2.5*

5.7

25.0

66.8

100.0

mes Ye

you are ab

h

04)

Albe

(N = 1

%

* 4.

5.

0 24

8 65

0 100

es, always

65.2

ble to

erta

1,836)

%

5

9

4.4

5.2

0.0

234

APPENDIX I

I.8.4 Q

Figure 96

Table 98:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q8: Are you

6: Provincial s

Zone summ

C

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

u free to co

summary of

mary of respo

Calgary

N = 259)

%

3.1

1.2

12.0

83.8

100.0

, never

2.0

me and go

responses fo

nses for Q8

Central

(N = 420)

%

1.4

2.4

11.0

85.2

100.0

No, hardly

1.5

as you are

or Q8

Edmonton

(N = 756)

%

2.4

0.8

7.4*

89.4*

100.0

y ever Y

e able?

North

(N = 107)

%

0.0

2.8

18.7*

78.5*

100.0

Yes, sometim

9.6

)

South

(N = 42

%

1.7

1.9

8.3

88.2

100.0

mes Ye

h

22)

Albe

(N = 1

%

2.

1.

9.

86

0 100

es, always

86.9

erta

,964)

%

0

5

6

.9

0.0

235

APPENDIX I

I.8.5 Q

Figure 97

Table 99:

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q9: Are the

7: Provincial s

Zone summ

Ca

(N

ever

imes

s

l 1

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

e rules here

summary of

mary of respo

algary

= 251) (

%

2.4

0.8

20.7

76.1

100.0

, never

2.3

e reasonabl

responses fo

nses for Q9

Central

(N = 411)

%

0.7*

1.7

18.0

79.6

100.0

No, hardly

2.0

e?

or Q9

Edmonton

(N = 728)

%

4.0*

2.9

20.3

72.8*

100.0

y ever Y

North

(N = 107)

%

0.9

2.8

21.5

74.8

100.0

Yes, sometim

19.3

South

(N = 41

%

1.0

1.5

17.5

80.1

100.0

mes Ye

h

2)

Albe

(N = 1

%

2.3

2.0

19

76

100

es, always

76.4

erta

,909)

%

3

0

.3

.4

0.0

236

APPENDIX I

I.8.6 Q

Figure 98

Table 100

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q10: Can y

8: Provincial s

0: Zone summ

C

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

you choose

summary of

mary of resp

Calgary

N = 262)

%

0.0

0.4

4.2

95.4

100.0

, never

1.2

what clothe

responses fo

onses for Q1

Central

(N = 425)

%

0.5

1.4

8.0*

90.1

100.0

No, hardly

1.2

es to wear?

or Q10

10

Edmonton

(N = 768)

%

1.0

0.9

3.5*

94.5*

100.0

y ever Y

?

North

(N = 109)

%

2.8

0.9

8.3

88.1

100.0

Yes, sometim

5.6

)

South

(N = 43

%

2.3*

1.9

7.0

88.8*

100.0

mes Ye

h

30)

Albe

(N = 1

%

1.

1.

5.

* 92

0 100

es, always

92.1

erta

,994)

%

2

2

6

.1

0.0

237

APPENDIX I

I.9 E

I.9.1 Q

Figure 99

Table 101

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Employee

Q19: During

9: Provincial s

1: Zone summ

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

e Respons

g the week

summary of

mary of resp

Calgary

(N = 242)

%

0.4

2.5

21.9

75.2

100.0

, never

1.0

siveness

, are emplo

responses fo

onses for Q1

Central

(N = 421)

%

0.0*

1.2

24.5

74.3

100.0

No, hardly

2.3

oyees availa

or Q19

19

Edmonton

(N = 721)

%

1.7

3.5*

22.1

72.8

100.0

y ever Y

able to help

North

(N = 10

%

2.9

2.0

27.5

67.6

100.0

Yes, sometim

23.1

p you if you

h

2)

Sout

(N = 4

%

0.5

1.5

23.0

75.1

100.

mes Ye

u need it?

th

405)

Albe

(N = 1

%

5 1.

5 2.

0 23

1 73

.0 100

es, always

73.7

erta

1,891)

%

.0

.3

3.1

3.7

0.0

238

APPENDIX I

I.9.2 Q

Figure 10

Table 102

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q20: During

00: Provincia

2: Zone summ

ever

imes

s

tal

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

g the weeke

l summary of

mary of resp

Calgary

(N = 231)

%

0.9

3.5

32.9

62.8

100.0

, never

2.7

end, are em

f responses f

onses for Q2

Central

(N = 411)

%

2.4

4.6

33.6

59.4

100.0

No, hardly

5.7

mployees a

for Q20

20

Edmonton

(N = 700)

%

4.4*

7.3

32.9

55.4*

100.0

y ever Y

vailable to

n North

(N = 100

%

3.0

5.0

33.0

59.0

100.0

Yes, sometim

32.2

help you if

0)

Sout

(N = 39

%

1.0*

5.5

29.1

64.3*

100.0

mes Ye

you need i

h

98)

Albe

(N = 1

%

* 2.

5.

32

* 59

0 100

es, always

59.3

t?

erta

1,840)

%

7

7

2.2

9.3

0.0

239

APPENDIX I

I.9.3 Qn

Figure 10

Table 103

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q21: Duringneed it?

01: Provincia

3: Zone summ

ever

imes

s

tal

No

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

g the eveni

l summary of

mary of resp

Calgary

(N = 221)

%

0.9

2.7

19.9

76.5

100.0

, never

1.9

ng and nigh

f responses f

onses for Q2

Central

(N = 402)

%

1.2

4.5

19.9

74.4

100.0

No, hardl

4.0

ht, are emp

for Q21

21

Edmonton

(N = 671)

%

3.1*

4.6

21.2

71.1

100.0

y ever

0

ployees ava

n North

(N = 101

%

2.0

5.0

30.7*

62.4*

100.0

Yes, sometim

21.6

ailable to he

1)

Sout

(N = 38

%

0.8

2.9

22.6

73.8

100.0

mes Y

elp you if yo

h

85)

Albe

(N = 1

%

1.

4.

6 21

8 72

0 100

Yes, always

72.6

ou

erta

1,780)

%

9

0

.6

2.6

0.0

240

APPENDIX I

I.9.4 Q

Figure 10

Table 104

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q22: Do yo

02: Provincia

4: Zone summ

Ca

(N

ever

imes

s

l 1

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ou feel confi

l summary of

mary of resp

algary

= 247) (

%

2.0

2.4

32.8

62.8

100.0

, never

1.3

ident that e

f responses f

onses for Q2

Central

(N = 423)

%

0.2

2.4

26.0

71.4*

100.0

No, hardly

4.3

employees k

for Q22

22

Edmonton

(N = 747)

%

2.1*

6.8*

28.6

62.4*

100.0

y ever Y

know how t

North

(N = 105)

%

1.0

5.7

28.6

64.8

100.0

Yes, sometim

28.4

to do their j

South

(N = 41

%

0.5

2.6

27.9*

69.0

100.0

mes Ye

jobs?

h

9)

Albe

(N = 1

%

1.3

4.3

28

65

100

es, always

65.9

erta

,941)

%

3

3

.4

.9

0.0

241

APPENDIX I

I.10 C

I.10.1 Q

Figure 10

Table 105

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Care and

Q11: Can y

03: Provincia

5: Zone summ

Ca

(N

ever

imes

s 7

l 1

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

Services

you get sna

l summary of

mary of resp

algary

= 233) (

%

2.6*

4.7

21.0

71.7*

100.0

, never

8.1

cks and dri

f responses f

onses for Q1

Central

(N = 385)

%

1.6*

4.2*

23.6

70.6*

100.0

No, hardly

8.2

nks whene

for Q11

11

Edmonton

(N = 663)

%

15.5*

11.5*

22.5

50.5*

100.0

y ever Y

ever you wa

North

(N = 96)

%

9.4

5.2

32.3*

53.1

100.0

Yes, sometim

22.8

ant them?

South

(N = 37

%

4.6*

9.4

21.3

64.7

100.0

mes Ye

h

1)

Albe

(N = 1

%

8.

8.2

22

60

100

es, always

60.9

erta

,748)

%

1

2

.8

.9

0.0

242

APPENDIX I

I.10.2 Q

Figure 10

Table 106

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q12: Do yo

04: Provincia

6: Zone summ

ever

imes

s

tal

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ou get your

l summary of

mary of resp

Calgary

(N = 235)

%

0.0

0.4

20.0

79.6

100.0

, never

0.7

medication

f responses f

onses for Q1

Central

(N = 397)

%

0.0

3.0*

21.4

75.6

100.0

No, hardly

1.6

ns on time?

for Q12

12

Edmonton

(N = 729)

%

1.4*

1.6

18.8

78.2

100.0

y ever Y

n North

(N = 101

%

2.0

0.0

18.8

79.2

100.0

Yes, sometim

20.1

1)

Sout

(N = 39

%

0.3

1.3

21.6

76.8

100.0

mes Ye

h

93)

Albe

(N = 1

%

0.

1.

6 20

8 77

0 100

es, always

77.6

erta

1,855)

%

7

6

0.1

7.6

0.0

243

APPENDIX I

I.10.3 Q

Figure 10

Table 107

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q13: Do em

05: Provincia

7: Zone summ

Ca

(N

ever

imes

s

l 1

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

mployees ex

l summary of

mary of resp

algary

= 234) (

%

7.7

9.8

29.1

53.4

100.0

, never

9.3

xplain your

f responses f

onses for Q1

Central

(N = 393)

%

5.9*

12.2

28.0

53.9

100.0

No, hardly

11.1

r care and s

for Q13

13

Edmonton

(N = 682)

%

15.4*

11.3

21.0*

52.3

100.0

y ever Y

1

services to

North

(N = 104)

%

6.7

8.7

23.1

61.5

100.0

Yes, sometim

24.7

you?

South

(N = 39

%

3.8*

11.2

25.5

59.4

100.0

mes Ye

h

2)

Albe

(N = 1

%

9.3

11

24

54

100

es, always

54.9

erta

,805)

%

3

.1

.7

.9

0.0

244

APPENDIX I

I.10.4 Q

Figure 10

Table 108

No, never

No, hardly

Yes, some

Yes, alway

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q14: Do the

06: Provincia

8: Zone summ

(

y ever

etimes

ys

tal

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

e employee

l summary of

mary of resp

Calgary

(N = 225)

%

4.0

6.7

37.3

52.0

100.0

, never

4.1

es who take

f responses f

onses for Q1

Central

(N = 396)

%

1.8*

5.3

37.6

55.3

100.0

No, hardly

6.2

e care of yo

for Q14

14

Edmonton

(N = 665)

%

6.9*

6.8

35.5

50.8

100.0

y ever Y

ou know wh

North

(N = 100)

%

5.0

9.0

35.0

51.0

100.0

Yes, sometim

36.4

hat you like

South

(N = 391)

%

1.3*

5.4

36.6

56.8

100.0

mes Ye

and don’t l

Alberta

(N = 1,777

%

4.1

6.2

36.4

53.3

100.0

es, always

53.3

ike?

7)

245

APPENDIX I

I.11 L

I.11.1 Q

Figure 10

Table 109

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Laundry

Q33: Do yo

07: Provincia

9: Zone summ

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ou get clothi

l summary of

mary of resp

Calgary

(N = 117)

%

0.0

1.7

23.1

75.2

100.0

, never

0.4

ing back fro

f responses f

onses for Q3

Central

(N = 248)

%

0.4

0.8

19.8

79.0

100.0

No, hardly

1.7

om the laun

for Q33

33

Edmonton

(N = 425)

%

0.7

2.1

19.5

77.6

100.0

y ever Y

ndry?

North

(N = 84)

%

0.0

0.0

25.0

75.0

100.0

Yes, sometim

20.5

South

(N = 26

%

0.0

2.3

20.2

77.6

100.0

mes Ye

h

63)

Albe

(N = 1

%

0.

1.

20

77

0 100

es, always

77.5

erta

,137)

%

4

7

.5

.5

0.0

246

APPENDIX I

I.11.2 Q

Figure 10

Table 110

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q34: Does

08: Provincia

0: Zone summ

C

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

your clothin

l summary of

mary of resp

Calgary

N = 117)

%

0.0

1.7

20.5

77.8

100.0

, never

0.4

ng come ba

f responses f

onses for Q3

Central

(N = 251)

%

0.4

2.0

19.5

78.1

100.0

No, hardly

3.0

ack in good

for Q34

34

Edmonton

(N = 427)

%

0.5

3.7

16.9

78.9

100.0

y ever Y

d condition?

North

(N = 80)

%

0.0

1.3

16.3

82.5

100.0

Yes, sometim

18.2

?

South

(N = 26

%

0.8

3.8

18.7

76.7

100.0

mes Ye

h

62)

Albe

(N = 1

%

0.

3.

18

78

0 100

es, always

78.4

erta

,137)

%

4

0

.2

.4

0.0

247

APPENDIX I

I.12 A

I.12.1 Q

Figure 10

Table 111

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Additiona

Q51: Can y

09: Provincia

1: Zone summ

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

l Question

you see a d

l summary of

mary of resp

Calgary

(N = 226)

%

3.1

4.9

23.0

69.0

100.0

, never

3.0

ns

octor if you

f responses f

onses for Q5

Central

(N = 396)

%

1.5

2.5

19.9

76.0

100.0

No, hardly

4.4

u need to?

for Q51

51

Edmonton

(N = 704)

%

3.8

5.4

19.2

71.6

100.0

y ever Y

North

(N = 97)

%

3.1

8.2

27.8

60.8*

100.0

Yes, sometim

19.8

South

(N = 38

%

3.1

3.4

16.8

76.7

100.0

mes Ye

h

86)

Albe

(N = 1

%

3.

4.

19

72

0 100

es, always

72.7

erta

,809)

%

0

4

.8

.7

0.0

248

APPENDIX I

I.12.2 Q

Figure 11

Table 112

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tota

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q52: Are yo

10: Provincia

2: Zone summ

Ca

(N

ever

imes

s

l 1

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ou able to g

l summary of

mary of resp

algary

= 205) (

%

5.4

3.9

15.1

75.6

100.0

, never

6.3

get transpo

f responses f

onses for Q5

Central

(N = 368)

%

3.3*

3.3

17.9

75.5

100.0

No, hardly

4.0

rtation to or

for Q52

52

Edmonton

(N = 598)

%

11.7*

4.2

12.0*

72.1

100.0

y ever Y

r from med

North

(N = 95)

%

2.1

5.3

29.5*

63.2*

100.0

Yes, sometim

15.6

ical appoin

South

(N = 374

%

2.4*

4.0

15.8

77.8

100.0

mes Ye

tments?

h

4)

Albe

(N = 1

%

6.3

4.0

15

74

100

es, always

74.1

erta

,640)

%

3

0

.6

.1

0.0

249

APPENDIX I

I.12.3 Qs

Figure 11

Table 113

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q53: Besidstaff to revie

11: Provincia

3: Zone summ

(

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta 2

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

es medical ew change

l summary of

mary of resp

Calgary

(N = 228)

%

22.4

11.8

29.4

36.4

100.0

, never

27.4

appointmes in your he

f responses f

onses for Q5

Central

(N = 370)

%

22.2*

16.2*

30.0

31.6

100.0

No, hardly

12.4

ents, do youealth?

for Q53

53

Edmonton

(N = 671)

%

35.5**

10.3

23.4*

30.8

100.0

y ever Y

4

u meet with

North

(N = 96

%

26.0

11.5

31.3

31.3

100.0

Yes, sometim

26.8

h an onsite

h

6)

Sout

(N = 3

%

21.6

13.0

27.0

38.4

100.

mes Ye

nurse or ot

th

370)

Albe

(N = 1

%

6* 27

0 12

0 26

4* 33

.0 100

es, always

33.4

her

erta

1,735)

%

7.4

2.4

6.8

3.4

0.0

250

APPENDIX I

I.12.4 Qs

Figure 11

Table 114

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q54: Besidstaff to revie

12: Provincia

4: Zone summ

ever

imes

s

tal

No,

erta 3

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

es medical ew change

l summary of

mary of resp

Calgary

(N = 218)

%

32.1

10.6

20.2

37.2

100.0

, never

33.6

appointmes in your m

f responses f

onses for Q5

Central

(N = 355)

%

30.7

17.7*

22.0

29.6

100.0

No, hardly

12.4

ents, do youmedications

for Q54

54

Edmonton

(N = 657)

%

40.6*

10.5

21.3

27.5*

100.0

y ever Y

4

u meet withor other me

North

(N = 90)

%

25.6

8.9

31.1

34.4

100.0

Yes, sometim

22.8

h an onsite edication-re

)

South

(N = 34

%

26.2*

12.4

25.9

35.4

100.0

mes Ye

nurse or otelated issue

h

47)

Albe

(N = 1

%

* 33

4 12

9 22

4 31

0 100

es, always

31.3

her es?

erta

,667)

%

.6

.4

.8

.3

0.0

251

APPENDIX I

I.12.5 Q

Figure 11

Table 115

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q55: Are yo

13: Provincia

5: Zone summ

ever

imes

s

tal

No,

erta 1

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ou involved

l summary of

mary of resp

Calgary

(N = 237)

%

14.3

9.3

22.8

53.6

100.0

, never

15.7

d in making

f responses f

onses for Q5

Central

(N = 384)

%

15.4

17.7**

26.0

40.9*

100.0

No, hardly

13.0

decisions a

for Q55

55

Edmonton

(N = 698)

%

18.8*

12.0

20.9

48.3

100.0

y ever Y

0

about your

North

(N = 88)

%

15.9

11.4

37.5*

35.2*

100.0

Yes, sometim

24.1

care?

)

South

(N = 38

%

11.5*

12.5

25.5

50.5

100.0

mes Ye

h

84)

Albe

(N = 1

%

* 15

5 13

5 24

5 47

0 100

es, always

47.2

erta

,791)

%

5.7

.0

.1

.2

0.0

252

APPENDIX I

I.12.6 Q

Figure 11

Table 116

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q56: Do yo

14: Provincia

6: Zone summ

ever

imes

s

tal

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

ou have eno

l summary of

mary of resp

Calgary

(N = 253)

%

2.4

2.4

12.6

82.6

100.0

, never

1.6

ough perso

f responses f

onses for Q5

Central

(N = 426)

%

0.7

1.4

13.1

84.7

100.0

No, hardly

2.7

nal privacy

for Q56

56

Edmonton

(N = 750)

%

2.4

3.3

11.9

82.4

100.0

y ever Y

when you

North

(N = 103

%

0.0

4.9

23.3*

71.8*

100.0

Yes, sometim

12.9

want it?

3)

Sout

(N = 41

%

1.0

2.6

12.3

84.1

100.0

mes Ye

h

16)

Albe

(N = 1

%

1.

2.

3 12

82

0 100

es, always

82.8

erta

,948)

%

6

7

.9

.8

0.0

253

APPENDIX I

I.12.7 Qa

Figure 11

Table 117

No, never

No, hardly e

Yes, somet

Yes, always

Tot

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q57: If you about your

15: Provincia

7: Zone summ

ever

imes

s

al

No,

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

are unhappcare, do yo

l summary of

mary of resp

Calgary

(N = 237)

%

11.0

3.4

14.3

71.3

100.0

, never

9.2

py with somou know wh

f responses f

onses for Q5

Central

(N = 390)

%

8.2

7.9

19.5

64.4

100.0

No, hardly

6.1

mething, or ho to contac

for Q57

57

Edmonton

(N = 716)

%

9.1

6.3

12.6*

72.1*

100.0

y ever Y

if you wantct?

North

(N = 99)

%

18.2*

4.0

23.2

54.5*

100.0

Yes, sometim

16.3

t to change

South

(N = 38

%

6.8

6.3

19.6

67.4

100.0

mes Ye

e something

h

83)

Albe

(N = 1

%

9.

6.

16

68

0 100

es, always

68.4

g

erta

,825)

%

2

1

.3

.4

0.0

254

APPENDIX I

I.12.8 Q

Figure 11

Table 118

No

Yes

Total

Albe

0.

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Q58: Overa

16: Provincia

8: Zone summ

Ca

(N

1

8

l 1

erta

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

all, do you f

l summary of

mary of resp

algary

= 187) (

%

8.2*

81.8*

00.0

N

28

find the cos

f responses f

onses for Q5

Central

(N = 340)

%

33.5*

66.5*

100.0

No

8.0

st of living h

for Q58

58

Edmonton

(N = 622)

%

33.3*

66.7*

100.0

here reason

North

(N = 87)

%

23.0

77.0

100.0

nable?

South

(N = 351

%

19.7*

80.3*

100.0

Yes

72.0

h

1)

Albe

(N = 1

%

28.

72.

100

erta

,587)

%

.0

.0

0.0

255

APPENDIX J

APPENDIX J: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS – DETAILED RESULTS

J.1 Introduction

Overthecourseofsurveyadministrationandinaccordancewiththestudyprotocol,interviewersrecordedatotalof2,352comments.Ofthese,197wererelevanttoresidentexperiences,whiletheremainderwererelatedto:motivationstoparticipateornotparticipateinthesurvey;commentsdetailingsurveystatus,includingneedforfollowupwithresidents;andgeneralcommentsaboutthesurvey.Thesecommentsprovidedinsightsandinformationnotcapturedinsurveyresponsesandasaresult,aqualitativeanalysiswasundertakentoexplorethecommentsingreaterdepth.Asthesecommentswereunsolicitedandtheoriginalintentwasnottousethesecommentstosupplementsurveyfindings,considerationsweremadeinlightofthisandarepresentedinthesectiontofollow.

J.2 Scope, privacy, confidentiality, and ethical considerations

Aspartofthesurveysamplingframe,residentswhowereseverelycognitivelyimpairedwereexcluded,ensuringinterviewstookplacewithresidentsthatwereabletomakeinformeddecisionsabouttheirparticipation.Thosewhodidnotcompleteanin‐personinterviewordidnotconsenttohavetheiropinionsrecordedorusedwereexcludedfromthisportionoftheanalysis.Asaresult,31ofthe197commentswereremovedforthesereasonsandtheremaining166commentswereusedtosupplementthesurveyfindings.

Interviewstookplaceinprivateandwithoutthepresenceoffacilityemployees.Additionally,neitherresidents,employees,norinterviewerswerereferredtobynameandallpotentiallyidentifyinginformationwasremovedfromthesurveyandthecomments.Furthermore,directcommentsarenotreportedforthisportionoftheanalysis.Rather,generalthemesfromthecommentsarediscussedwhicheitherfallintoexistingDimensionsofCareorwereoutsidethescopeofexistingDimensionsofCare(emergent).Asthemeswereaggregateinnature,conclusionswereunabletobedrawnattheresident,facility,orzonelevels.Withtheseconsiderationsinmind,theanalyticapproachispresentedbelow.

J.3 Method and analysis of comments

Eachofthe166interviewercommentswasexaminedformultiplethemesandideas(seeTable118forthebreakdownofthemesidentifiedininterviewercomments).Astherewereasmallnumberofcomments,codingintothemeswasdonebyhand.Throughtheanalysis,patternsininterviewercommentswereidentified.Patternsandideasthatemergedfrominterviewercommentswereconsistentwithandcategorizedintooneofthe11surveyDimensionsofCare:

GeneralSatisfaction

MealsandDining

ResidentEnvironment

Activities

RelationshipwithEmployees

FacilityEnvironment

256

APPENDIX J

Communication

Choice

EmployeeResponsivness

CareandServices

Laundry

Attimes,athemewasrelevanttoaDimensionofCarebutitwasnotanexistingcomponentofit.Forexample,anemergenttheme‘senseofbelongingatthefacility’wasincludedundertheDimensionofCare,‘activities’.Toreflectthis,thecriteriathatguideshowtocodeacommentwithineachDimensionofCarewasmodified(seeTable120).

Whenacommentcouldnotbecategorizedintooneofthe11surveyDimensionsofCare,anewthemewasidentified.Intotal,threenew‘Other’themeswereidentifiedandincluded:Transportation,Safetyandsecurity,andHealthcareservices.The11surveyDimensionsofCareandthethreenewemergentthemesweredefinedbyaseriesofattributesthatguidedhowcommentswerecoded(seeTable120forcodingbytheme).Inadditiontocodinginterviewercommentsthematically,commentswerealsoclassifiedasbeingeitherconstructiveorpositive/neutralasfollows:

Commentswereclassifiedasbeingconstructivewhenthesubject‐matterofthecommentconveyeddissatisfaction,indicatingroomforimprovement;

Commentswerecateogrizedaspositive/neutralwhenthesubjectofthecommentconveyedsatisfactionandpositiveexperiencesorwhentherewasnoindicationthatacommentwasconstructive.

Toensurecodingconsistency,threecoderscodedcommentsaccordingtotheattributesthatdefinedeachofthe11surveyDimensionsofCareandidentifiedotherthemesastheyemerged.Eachcoderwasaskedtoidentifywhetherathemewasconstructiveorwaspositive/neutral.Thefirstcheckresultedin65percentinter‐raterreliability.Toimprovethis,theprimarycoderreviewedthecomments,andre‐codedseveralcommentstoaddressnewanalyticinsights.Followingthis,asecondandthirdcodingcheckwascompletedandbothresultedinover90percentagreement.

257

APPENDIX J

Table119summarizesthepercentofthematicstatementsbythemeandcommenttype:constructiveorpositive/neutral.Thematicstatementsaretheindependentthemespresentinacomment.Asmultiplethemesandideaswereexploredineachinterviewercomment,itwaspossiblethatonecommentcontainedmorethanonethematicstatement.Intotal,251thematicstatementswereidentifiedinthe166interviewercomments.Theaveragenumberofthematicstatementsidentifiedineachcommentwas1.5.Overall,interviewersmostfrequentlyrecordedconstructivecommentsandofthese,mostrelatedtothesurveyDimensionsofCareandthemesGeneralSatisfaction,EmployeeResponsiveness,Transportation,andRelationshipwithEmployees.

Table 119: Breakdown of thematic statements by theme and comment type

Theme Constructive

comments (%) Positive/neutral comments (%)

Total number of comments (%)

General Satisfaction 8.0 11.6 19.5

Meals and Dining 6.8 1.6 8.4

Resident Environment 6.8 0.8 7.6

Activities 4.0 2.0 6.0

Relationship with Employees 5.6 3.6 8.8

Facility Environment 4.0 0.8 4.8

Communication 5.6 1.6 7.2

Choice 4.0 0.4 4.4

Care and Services 6.0 1.2 7.2

Employee Responsiveness 8.0 1.6 9.6

Laundry 1.2 0.0 1.2

Transportation 2.0 7.6 9.6

Safety and Security 3.2 0.4 3.6

Healthcare Services 0.8 1.2 2.0

Total (%) 66.0 34.4 100.0

258

APPENDIX J

Table 120: Qualitative coding details

Dimension of Care Description Attributes

General Satisfaction General comments about the

facility.

Overall impressions of the facility

Whether cost of living is reasonable

Whether the facility is recommended

Meals and Dining

Quality of food served at the

facility and resident’s

satisfaction with the food.

Tastiness

Whether the food preferences of residents is

addressed

Portion size

Temperature of food

How food is served

Resident Environment The room in which residents

live.

Whether residents have privacy in their room

Whether residents are satisfied with the room

Whether residents feel safe and that their belongings

are safe, in their room

Whether room temperature is comfortable

Activities

Resident’s participation or lack

of participation in activities,

sense of inclusion, and

general satisfaction with

activities offered.

Satisfaction with activities

Number of activities available

Choice in activities available

Information about activities

Whether residents are included by employees in

activities

Whether efforts are made to encourage residents to

get to know one another


The way residents said they

are treated by employees, and

their level of satisfaction with

employees.

Whether employees are: courteous, dependable,

friendly, and respectful

Whether employees are well-liked

If residents get along with employees

Facility Environment The physical building in which

residents live.

Building location

Grounds maintenance

Attractiveness of the building

Cleanliness of the building

Quietness of the building

Communication Interactions between residents

and employees

If management is available and approachable

Whether management are respectful

Whether residents’ concerns are addressed

Whether residents are comfortable speaking to

management

Whether there are language barriers between

employees and residents

Whether residents are able to understand

information provided to them

Whether residents are informed about general

issues within the facility

259

APPENDIX J

Dimension of Care Description Attributes

Choice

The ability or inability of a

resident to make a choice

because of employees or

facility rules and regulations.

Whether residents have choices and are able to

make decisions

Whether rules and regulations are reasonable

If employees encourage residents to do what they

are able

If employees leave residents alone when residents

do not need them

Care and Services

The help and services

employees provide to

residents.

Employees’ familiarity with residents preferences

Whether employees provide help and services

Whether employees communicate care and services

Employee Responsiveness Employee availability in order

to provide help to residents.

During: weekdays, weekends, and evenings

Confidence in employees ability to do their jobs

correctly

Laundry The quality of laundry services

in the facility.

Whether laundry is returned

The condition in which laundry is returned

Transportation

Use of transportation and

satisfaction with transportation

offered.

Availability

Affordability

Reliability

Safety and Security

Residents sense of personal

safety and security within the

facility.

Whether residents feel safe within the facility

If residents feel safe with employees

Whether residents feel their placement within the

facility is secure

Healthcare Services

Availability and access to

medical care and services

both within and outside of the

facility.

Availability of medical professionals within the facility

Availability of medical care and services within the

facility

Accessing medical care and services outside of the

facility

260

APPENDIX K

APPENDIX K: GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING REGRESSION MODELS

K.1 Model description – Dimension of Care variables

Tosimplifytheinterpretationofthedata,questionswhichmeasuresimilarconstructswerecombinedintosinglevariablescalledDimensionsofCare.TheseDimensionsofCarefacilitatethedevelopmentofaregressionmodelfortheGlobalOverallCarerating.Suchamodelexploresthestrengthofassociationbetweenmorespecificqualityvariables(theDimensionsofCareinthiscase)withtheoutcomevariable(theGlobalOverallCarerating).

DimensionsofCarevariablesaretheweightedaveragescoresofallquestionswithineachDimensionofCare.Theyprovideasummaryrecordforthecommonattributeofcarerepresentedbythedimension.Inthissection,aregressionmodelwasdevelopedtoidentifytheDimensionsofCarewiththestrongestrelationshiptotheGlobalOverallCareratings.ThisprovidesabetterunderstandingofwhichfactorsimpacttheGlobalOverallCareratingandmayprovideusefulinformationforqualityimprovementactivities.

SeeAppendixB.2.3andB.2.4formoreinformationonsurveyresponsescoring.

K.2 Regression model

Reportedmodelincludesadjustmentsforconfoundingvariables.

LaundrywastheleaststronglyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCareratingswiththeloweststandardizedbetacoefficientandlowestpercentofvarianceexplained(R2=8.5%).Inaddition,theDimensionofCarerelatedtolaundryislimitedtofacilitieswithlaundryavailableinthefacilitiesandalsotothoseresidentswhochoosetouselaundryservices.Forthesereasons,thefinalmodelexcludestheLaundryDimensionofCare.

GeneralSatisfactionwasthemoststronglyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCareratings.ThisisexpectedgiventhatthequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCarereflectoverallorgeneralopinionsaboutthefacility.40However,withthegoalofidentifyingspecificareasforimprovement,GeneralSatisfactionandthequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCareisnotamenabletothistypeofevaluationorinterpretation,limitingitsutilitywhentargetingmeaningfulaspectsofcaretopotentiallychangeforthebenefitofresidents.DespitetheimportanceofGeneralSatisfactioninthepredictionofGlobalOverallCareratings(correlationcoefficientr=0.643),theDimensionofGeneralSatisfactionisexcludedintheformulationofthefinaladjustedmodel(Table121).

40GeneralSatisfactionaskswhether1)residentsarecomfortableatthefacility,2)residentsthinkthattheyweregettingtheirmoney’sworth,3)ingeneraltheylikedlivingatthefacility,and4)residentswouldrecommendthefacility.

261

APPENDIX K

Table 121: Regression model- Dimensions of Care versus Global Overall Care rating adjusted for confounders

Dimension of Care Standardized beta coefficient

Meals and Dining 0.170*

Resident Environment 0.162*

Activities 0.138*

Relationship with Employees 0.118*

Facility Environment 0.116*

Communication 0.100*

Choice 0.021

Employee Responsiveness -0.013

Care and Services -0.002

Constant (unstandardized: -12.84)

N 1,334

R-Squared 0.372

Adjusted R-Squared 0.360

p-value < 0.001

Note:AdjustedforCPSScore,VisionScore,age,sex,sharedroom,numberofbeds,ownershiptype,andsurveymodality.ModelexcludesGeneralSatisfactionandLaundryDimensionsofCare.

WhenallDimensionsofCare(withexceptionofGeneralSatisfactionandLaundry)andconfoundingvariablesaresimultaneouslyconsidered(Table121),allbutthreeDimensionsofCareweresignificantlyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCareratings.Thismodelexplained36.0percentofthevarianceintheGlobalOverallCareratingscore.DimensionsofCarethatwerenotsignificantlyassociatedwere:Choice,CareandServices,andEmployeeResponsiveness.NotethatalthoughtheseDimensionsofCarearenotstatisticallysignificant,Choice,CareandServices,andEmployeeResponsivenessmaybeimportanttothecareandservicesprovidedbyfacilities.

ThereportisorganizedwithaccordancetothemodelinTable121,sortedfromstrongesttoweakestinfluencewiththeGlobalOverallcareratings.

1. GeneralSatisfaction2. MealsandDining3. ResidentEnvironment4. Activities5. RelationshipwithEmployees6. FacilityEnvironment7. Communication8. Choice9. EmployeeResponsiveness10. CareandServices11. Laundry

262

APPENDIX L

APPENDIX L: DIMENSIONS OF CARE BY OVERALL CARE RATING QUARTILE

Note:Forthetablesbelow,asingleasterisk(*)indicatesthattheupperquartileresultsaresignificantlydifferentthanlowerquartileresultsatp<0.05.

L.1 General Satisfaction by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Table 122: General Satisfaction - by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Quartiles General Satisfaction mean

(out of 100)

95% confidence interval

Lower Upper

Upper (20 facilities; 255 respondents) 92.2* 90.7 93.7

Upper middle (19 facilities; 461 respondents) 87.2 85.6 88.8

Lower middle (20 facilities; 439 respondents) 85.9 84.1 87.6

Lower (21 facilities; 443 respondents) 74.9 72.5 77.4

Table 123: General Satisfaction - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Questions

Provincial Total

Upper quartile

20 facilities

Lower quartile

21 facilities

Upper minus Lower

% n % n % n %

Q46: Do you feel comfortable here?

% Sometimes or Always 96.2 1,894 98.0 249 93.0 409 5.0*

Q47: Do you feel you are getting your money’s worth here?


Q48: Overall, do you like living here?


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


263

APPENDIX L

L.2 Meals and Dining by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Table 124: Meals and Dining - by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Quartiles Meals and Dining mean (out of 100) 95% confidence interval

Lower Upper





Table 125: Meals and Dining - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Questions

Provincial Total

Upper quartile

20 facilities

Lower quartile

21 facilities

Upper minus Lower

% n % n % n %

Q28: Do you get enough to eat?


Q29: Is the food here tasty?


Q30: Can you get the foods you like?


Q31: Is your food served at the right temperature?


Q32: Do you like the way your meals are served here?


264

APPENDIX L

L.3 Resident Environment by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Table 126: Resident Environment - by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Quartiles Resident Environment mean

(out of 100)


Lower Upper





Table 127: Resident Environment - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Questions

Provincial Total

Upper quartile

20 facilities

Lower quartile

21 facilities

Upper minus Lower

% n % n % n %

Q40: Do you have enough privacy in your room or apartment?


Q41: Are you satisfied with your room or apartment?


Q42: Do you feel safe here?


Q43: Are your belongings safe here?


Q44: Do you think this is a pleasant place for people to visit?


Q45: Is the room temperature comfortable for you?


265

APPENDIX L

L.4 Activities by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Table 128: Activities - by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Quartiles Activities mean (out of 100) 95% confidence interval

Lower Upper





Table 129: Activities - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Questions Provincial Total

Upper quartile

20 facilities

Lower quartile

21 facilities

Upper minus Lower

% n % n % n %

Q1: Do you have enough to do here?


Q2: Do you get enough information about the activities offered here?


Q3: Are you satisfied with the activities offered here?


Q4: Can you choose what activities you do here?

% Sometimes or Always 89.1 1,611 88.9 217 86.4 344 2.5

266

APPENDIX L

L.5 Relationship with Employees by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Table 130: Relationship with Employees - by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Quartiles Relationship with Employees mean

(out of 100)


Lower Upper





Table 131: Relationship with Employees - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Questions

Provincial Total

Upper quartile

20 facilities

Lower quartile

21 facilities

Upper minus Lower

% n % n % n %

Q15: Are the employees courteous to you?


Q16: Can you depend on the employees?


Q17: Are the people who work here friendly?


Q18: Do the employees treat you with respect?


267

APPENDIX L

L.6 Facility Environment by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Table 132: Facility Environment - by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Quartiles Facility Environment mean

(out of 100)


Lower Upper





Table 133: Facility Environment - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile


Upper quartile

20 facilities

Lower quartile

21 facilities

Upper minus Lower

% n % n % n %

Q35: Do you like the location of this place?


Q36: Are the outside walkways and grounds well taken care of?


Q37: Does this place look attractive to you?


Q38: Is this place clean enough?


Q39: Is this place quiet when it should be?


268

APPENDIX L

L.7 Communication by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Table 134: Communication - by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Quartiles Communication mean (out of 100) 95% confidence interval

Lower Upper





Table 135: Communication - Individual questions of by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Questions

Provincial Total

Upper quartile

20 facilities

Lower quartile

21 facilities

Upper minus Lower

% n % n % n %

Q23: Are the people in charge available to talk with you?


Q24: Do the people in charge treat you with respect?


Q25: Would you feel comfortable speaking to the people in charge about a problem?


Q26: Do you know who to go to here when you have a problem?


Q27: Do your problems get taken care of here?


269

APPENDIX L

L.8 Choice by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Table 136: Choice - by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Quartiles Choice mean (out of 100) 95% confidence interval

Lower Upper





Table 137: Choice - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Questions

Provincial Total

Upper quartile

20 facilities

Lower quartile

21 facilities

Upper minus Lower

% n % n % n %

Q5: Can you go to bed when you like?


Q6: Do the employees leave you alone if you don’t want to do anything?


Q7: Do the people that work here encourage you to do the things you are able to do yourself?


Q8: Are you free to come and go as you are able?


Q9: Are the rules here reasonable?


Q10: Can you choose what clothes to wear?


270

APPENDIX L

L.9 Employee Responsiveness by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Table 138: Employee Responsiveness - by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Quartiles Employee Responsiveness mean

(out of 100)


Lower Upper





Table 139: Employee Responsiveness - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Questions

Provincial Total

Upper quartile

20 facilities

Lower quartile

21 facilities

Upper minus Lower

% n % n % n %

Q19: During the week, are employees available to help you if you need it?


Q20: During the weekend, are employees available to help you if you need it?


Q21: During the evening and night, are employees available to help you if you need it?


Q22: Do you feel confident that employees know how to do their jobs?


271

APPENDIX L

L.10 Care and Services by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Table 140: Care and Services - by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Quartiles Care and Services mean (out of 100) 95% confidence interval

Lower Upper





Table 141: Care and Services - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Questions

Provincial Total

Upper quartile

20 facilities

Lower quartile

21 facilities

Upper minus Lower

% n % n % n %

Q11: Can you get snacks and drinks whenever you want them?


Q12: Do you get your medications on time?


Q13: Do employees explain your care and services to you?


Q14: Do the employees who take care of you know what you like and don’t like?


272

APPENDIX L

L.11 Laundry by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Table 142: Laundry - by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Quartiles General Satisfaction mean

(out of 100)


Lower Upper





Table 143: Laundry - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Questions

Provincial Total

Upper quartile

20 facilities

Lower quartile

21 facilities

Upper minus Lower

% n % n % n %

Q33: Do you get clothing back from the laundry?


Q34: Does your clothing come back in good condition?


273

APPENDIX L

L.12 Additional Questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile

Table 144: Additional Questions - by Global Overall Care rating quartile


Upper quartile

20 facilities

Lower quartile

21 facilities

Upper minus Lower

% n % n % n %

Q51: Can you see a doctor if you need to?


Q52: Are you able to get transportation to or from medical appointments?


Q53: Besides medical appointments, do you meet with an onsite nurse or other staff to review changes in your health?

% Sometimes or Always

60.2 1,044 64.6 144 55.3 209 9.3*

Q54: Besides medical appointments, do you meet with an onsite nurse or other staff to review changes in your medications or other medication related issues?


54.0 901 52.8 113 51.9 189 0.9

Q55: Are you involved in making decisions about your care?

% Sometimes or Always 71.3 1,277 69.4 159 73.4 290 -4.0

Q56: Do you have enough personal privacy when you want it?


Q57: If you are unhappy with something, or if you want to change something about your care, do you know who to contact?


84.7 1,546 85.6 208 84.1 345 1.5

Q58: Overall do you find the cost of living here reasonable?

% Yes 72.0 1,143 81.7 165 58.0 210 23.7*

274

APPENDIX M

APPENDIX M: FACILITY SIZE RELATIVE TO GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATINGS AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE

Regressionanalysiswasusedtoproducearegressionline,whichestimatesandvisuallydepictstherelationshipbetweenfacilitysize,GlobalOverallCarerating,andeachoftheDimensionofCaremeanscores.Facility‐levelmeanswerecomputedbyaddingthescoresforallfacilitiesandthendividingthisnumberbythenumberoffacilitiesintheprovince.

Figure 117: Global Overall Care rating scores as a function of facility size

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

111

121

131

141

151

161

171

181

191

201

211

221

231

241

251

261

271

281

Glo

bal

Ove

rall

Car

e R

atin

g m

ean

sco

re(0

to

10)

Facility Bed Size

Linear Prediction Facilities Site Level Facility Mean (7.8)

Adj‐R2 = 0.052

275

APPENDIX M

Figure 118: General Satisfaction as a function of facility size

Figure 119: Meals and Dining as a function of facility size

Note:Quadraticpolynomial(redline)producesacurvilinearregressionlinewhichestimatesandvisuallydepictstherelationshipbetweenfacilitysizeandMealsandDiningscores.Thequadraticpolynomialvertexisthelowestpointofapolynomial.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

111

121

131

141

151

161

171

181

191

201

211

221

231

241

251

261

271

281

Gen

eral

Sat

isfa

ctio

n m

ean

sco

re (

0 to

100

)

Facility Bed Size


Adj‐R2 = 0.052

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

111

121

131

141

151

161

171

181

191

201

211

221

231

241

251

261

271

281

Mea

ls a

nd

Din

ing

mea

n s

core

(0

to 1

00)

Facility Bed SizeQuadratic Polynomial FacilitiesQuadratic Polynomial Vertex at 166 Beds Site Level Facility Mean (79.9)Linear Prediction

Adj‐R2 = 0.172

Adj‐R2 = 0.114

276

APPENDIX M

Figure 120: Resident Environment as a function of facility size

Note:Facilitiesinyellowareidentifiedoutliers,identifiedviaboxplotandweregreaterthanthreestandarddeviationsfromthemeanor1.5timestheinterquartilerange.Facilitymeansofoutlierfacilitiesdidnotsignificantlydifferfromfacilitiesthatwerenotoutliers;however,thelinearprediction(red)excludesthesefacilities.

Figure 121: Activities as a function of facility size

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

111

121

131

141

151

161

171

181

191

201

211

221

231

241

251

261

271

281

Res

iden

t E

nvi

ron

men

t m

ean

sco

re(0

to

100

)

Facility Bed Size


Adj‐R2 = 0.041

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

111

121

131

141

151

161

171

181

191

201

211

221

231

241

251

261

271

281

Act

ivit

ies

mea

n s

core

(0

to 1

00)

Facility Bed Size


Adj‐R2 = 0.069

277

APPENDIX M

Figure 122: Relationship with Employees as a function of facility size

Figure 123: Facility Environment as a function of facility size

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

111

121

131

141

151

161

171

181

191

201

211

221

231

241

251

261

271

281Rel

atio

nsh

ip w

ith

Em

plo

yees

mea

n s

core

(0

to

100

)

Facility Bed Size

Linear prediction Facilities Site Level Facility Mean (92.2)

Adj‐R2 = 0.108

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

111

121

131

141

151

161

171

181

191

201

211

221

231

241

251

261

271

281

Fac

ility

En

viro

nm

ent

mea

n s

core

(0

to 1

00)

Facility Bed Size


Adj‐R2 = 0.040

278

APPENDIX M

Figure 124: Communication as a function of facility size

Figure 125: Choice as a function of facility size


0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

111

121

131

141

151

161

171

181

191

201

211

221

231

241

251

261

271

281

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

mea

n s

core

(0

to 1

00)

Facility Bed Size

Linear prediction Facilities Site Level Facility Mean (87.7)

Adj‐R2 = 0.053

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

111

121

131

141

151

161

171

181

191

201

211

221

231

241

251

261

271

281

Ch

oic

e m

ean

sco

re (

0 to

100

)

Facility Bed Size


Adj‐R2 = 0.037

279

APPENDIX M

Figure 126: Employee Responsiveness as a function of facility size

Figure 127: Care and Services as a function of facility size

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

111

121

131

141

151

161

171

181

191

201

211

221

231

241

251

261

271

281E

mp

loye

e R

esp

on

sive

nes

s m

ean

sco

re(0

to

100

)

Facility Bed Size


Adj‐R2 = 0.147

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

111

121

131

141

151

161

171

181

191

201

211

221

231

241

251

261

271

281C

are

and

Ser

vice

s m

ean

sco

re (

0 to

100

)

Facility Bed Size


Adj‐R2 = 0.062

280

APPENDIX M

Figure 128: Laundry as a function of facility size


Figure 129: Propensity to recommend as a function of facility size


0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

111

121

131

141

151

161

171

181

191

201

211

221

231

241

251

261

271

281

Lau

nd

ry m

ean

sco

re (

0 to

100

)

Facility Bed SizeLinear Prediction Facilities Site Level Facility Mean (92.2)

Adj‐R2 = 0.054

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

111

121

131

141

151

161

171

181

191

201

211

221

231

241

251

261

271

281

Per

cen

tag

e (%

)

Facility Bed Size

Linear Prediction Facilities Median 90.5%

Adj‐R2 = 0.101

281

APPENDIX N

APPENDIX N: QUESTION-LEVEL RESULTS BY OWNERSHIP TYPE

Table 145: Facility ownership – General Satisfaction

Questions Measure AHS Private Voluntary Significant differences

Q46: Do you feel comfortable here?

% Yes Always/Sometimes 94.4 96.7 95.3

N 128 1,031 809

Q47: Do you feel like you are getting your money’s worth here?


%Vol < %AHS and %Priv

N 117 880 715

Q48: Overall, do you like living here?


%Vol < %AHS

N 128 1,009 800

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



N 126 981 771

Table 146: Facility ownership – Meals and Dining


Q28: Do you get enough to eat?


N 129 1,033 814

Q29: Is the food here tasty?


%Vol < %Priv

N 127 1,029 812

Q30: Can you get the foods you like?


% Vol < % Priv

N 117 964 758

Q31: Is your food served at the right temperature?


N 127 1,026 809

Q32: Do you like the way that your meals are served here?



N 125 1,011 802

282

APPENDIX N

Table 147: Facility ownership – Resident Environment


Q40: Do you have enough privacy in your room or apartment?

% Yes Always/Sometimes 95.3 96.9 94.5 %Vol < %Priv

N 128 1,033 818

Q41: Are you satisfied with your room or apartment?


N 127 1,028 817

Q42: Do you feel safe here? % Yes Always/Sometimes 98.4 97.7 97.0

N 127 1,034 820

Q43: Are your belongings safe here?


N 124 1,003 798

Q44: Do you think this is a pleasant place to visit?

% Yes Always/Sometimes 98.4 97.7 93.4 %Vol < %AHS and %Priv

N 128 984 793

Q45: Is the room temperature comfortable here?


N 130 1,024 817

Table 148: Facility ownership – Activities


Q1: Do you have enough to do here?

% Yes Always/Sometimes 72.6 81.5 81.7 %AHS < %Priv and %Vol

N 123 962 770

Q2: Do you get enough information about the activities offered here?


N 127 996 789

Q3: Are you satisfied with the activities offered here?


N 121 943 763

Q4: Can you choose what activities you do here?

% Yes Always/Sometimes 86.0 91.5 86.6 %Priv > %AHS and %Vol

N 121 939 748

283

APPENDIX N

Table 149: Facility ownership – Relationship with Employees


Q15: Are the employees courteous to you?


N 131 1,039 820

Q16: Can you depend on the Employees?

% Yes Always/Sometimes 97.7 95.4 92.2 %Vol < %AHS and %Priv

N 129 1,008 792

Q17: Are the people that work here friendly?


N 131 1,041 822

Q18: Do the employees treat you with respect?


N 130 1,035 819

Table 150: Facility ownership – Facility Environment


Q35: Do you like the location of this place?


N 121 964 779

Q36: Are the outside walkways and grounds well taken care of?


N 115 888 757

Q37: Does this place look attractive to you?


N 122 981 791

Q38: Is this place clean enough? % Yes Always/Sometimes 98.4 97.8 96.0

%Vol < %Priv N 128 1,034 817

Q39: Is this place quiet when it should be?


N 127 1,031 815

284

APPENDIX N

Table 151: Facility ownership – Communication


Q23: Are the people in charge available to talk with you?


N 110 918 745

Q24: Do the people in charge treat you with respect?


N 118 986 794

Q25: Would you feel comfortable speaking to the people in charge about a problem?


N 125 981 788

Q26: Do you know who to go to here when you have a problem?


N 123 960 778

Q27: Do your problems get taken care of here?


N 111 856 717

Table 152: Facility ownership – Choice


Q5: Can you go to bed when you like?

% Yes Always/Sometimes 82.0 97.0 95.3 %AHS < %Priv and %Vol %Vol < %Priv

N 128 1,046 823

Q6: Do the employees leave you alone when you don’t want to do anything?


N 126 1,020 811

Q7: Do the people who work here encourage you to do the things you are able to do yourself?


N 120 959 757

Q8: Are you free to come and go as you are able?


N 126 1,022 816

Q9: Are the rules here reasonable?


N 130 995 784

Q10: Can you choose what clothes to wear?


N 130 1,041 823

285

APPENDIX N

Table 153: Facility ownership – Employee Responsiveness


Q19: During the week, are employees available to help you if you need it?


N 126 984 781

Q20: During the weekend, are employees available to help you if you need it?


N 122 945 773

Q21: During the evening and night, are employees available to help you if you need it?


N 120 907 753

Q22: Do you feel confident that employees know how to do their jobs?


N 126 1,004 811

Table 154: Facility ownership – Care and Services


Q11: Can you get snacks and drinks whenever you want them?

% Yes Always/Sometimes 77.8 88.0 79.3 %Priv > %AHS and %Vol

N 108 910 730

Q12: Do you get your medications on time?


N 124 965 766

Q13: Do employees explain your care and services to you?


N 119 933 753

Q14: Do the employees who take care of you know what you like and you don’t like?


N 119 913 745

Table 155: Facility ownership – Laundry


Q33: Do you get your clothing back from the laundry?


N 99 528 510

Q24: Does your laundry come back in good condition?


N 99 532 506

286

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Facility size quintile groupings ......................................................................................... 20 Table 2: Comprehensive summary of facility results ..................................................................... 21 Table 3: Guide for interpretation .................................................................................................... 26 Table 4: Summary of facility mean Global Overall Care ratings by zone ....................................... 27 Table 5: Guide for interpretation .................................................................................................... 31 Table 6: Summary of facility means for General Satisfaction ........................................................ 32 Table 7: Guide for interpretation .................................................................................................... 36 Table 8: Summary of facility means for Meals and Dining ............................................................. 37 Table 9: Guide for interpretation .................................................................................................... 41 Table 10: Summary of facility means for Resident Environment ..................................................... 42 Table 11: Guide for interpretation .................................................................................................... 46 Table 12: Summary of facility means for Activities .......................................................................... 47 Table 13: Guide for interpretation .................................................................................................... 50 Table 14: Summary of facility means for Relationship with Employees ........................................... 51 Table 15: Guide for interpretation .................................................................................................... 55 Table 16: Summary of facility means for Facility Environment ........................................................ 56 Table 17: Guide for interpretation .................................................................................................... 60 Table 18: Summary of facility means for Communication ................................................................ 61 Table 19: Guide for interpretation .................................................................................................... 65 Table 20: Summary of facility means for Choice ............................................................................. 66 Table 21: Guide for interpretation .................................................................................................... 70 Table 22: Summary of facility means for Employee Responsiveness ............................................. 71 Table 23: Guide for interpretation .................................................................................................... 75 Table 24: Summary of facility means for Care and Services ........................................................... 76 Table 25: Guide for interpretation .................................................................................................... 80 Table 26: Summary of facility means for Laundry ............................................................................ 81 Table 27: Additional questions ......................................................................................................... 86 Table 28: Mean number of beds by Global Overall Care rating quartiles ........................................ 99 Table 29: Mean number of beds by General Satisfaction Dimension of Care quartiles ................... 99 Table 30: Mean number of beds by Meals and Dining Dimension of Care quartiles ..................... 100 Table 31: Mean number of beds by Resident Environment Dimension of Care quartiles .............. 100 Table 32: Mean number of beds by Activities Dimension of Care quartiles ................................... 100 Table 33: Mean number of beds by Relationship with Employees Dimension of Care quartiles ... 101 Table 34: Mean number of beds by Facility Environment Dimension of Care quartiles ................. 101 Table 35: Mean number of beds by Communication Dimension of Care quartiles ........................ 101 Table 36: Mean number of beds by Choice Dimension of Care quartiles ...................................... 102 Table 37: Mean number of beds by Employee Responsiveness Dimension of Care quartiles ...... 102 Table 38: Mean number of beds by Care and Services Dimension of Care quartiles .................... 102 Table 39: Mean number of beds by Laundry Dimension of Care quartiles .................................... 103 Table 40: Facility ownership – Additional questions ...................................................................... 111 Table 41: Q49: Zone summary of responses for propensity to recommend .................................. 113 Table 42: Summary of the percentage of respondents who would recommend the facility by

Global Overall Care rating ............................................................................................. 114

287

LIST OF TABLES

Table 43: Number of beds by percentage of respondents who would recommend the facility (median 94.0%) ............................................................................................................. 119

Table 44: Survey scale conversion ................................................................................................ 146 Table 45: Response rate ............................................................................................................... 152 Table 46: Final survey disposition criteria ...................................................................................... 153 Table 47: Exclusion criteria as applied by site liaisons/staff/administrators ................................... 154 Table 48: Remoteness by AHS zone ............................................................................................. 156 Table 49: Dimension-specific means by survey modality .............................................................. 157 Table 50: Facility inclusion criteria ................................................................................................. 159 Table 51: Facilities excluded from provincial reporting .................................................................. 162 Table 52: Dimension-specific means by included versus excluded facilities ................................. 163 Table 53: Resident gender by AHS zone and province ................................................................. 171 Table 54: Respondent level Education by AHS zone and province ............................................... 173 Table 55: Respondent Cognitive Performance Scale by AHS zone and province ......................... 174 Table 56: Respondent Vision score by AHS zone and province .................................................... 175 Table 57: Respondent in shared room by AHS zone and province ............................................... 176 Table 58: Self-reported overall health by AHS zone and province ................................................ 177 Table 59: Self-reported mental and emotional health by AHS zone and province ......................... 178 Table 60: Respondent characteristics and differences in Global Overall Care ratings .................. 181 Table 61: Example table of binomial probability test interpretation ................................................ 197 Table 62: Zone summary of responses for Question 46 (Q46) ...................................................... 199 Table 63: Zone summary of responses for Q47 ............................................................................ 200 Table 64: Zone summary of responses for Q48 ............................................................................ 201 Table 65: Zone summary of responses for survey Q49 ................................................................. 202 Table 66: Zone summary of responses for Q28 ............................................................................ 203 Table 67: Zone summary of responses for Q29 ............................................................................ 204 Table 68: Zone summary of responses for Q30 ............................................................................ 205 Table 69: Zone summary of responses for Q31 ............................................................................ 206 Table 70: Zone summary of responses for Q32 ............................................................................ 207 Table 71: Zone summary of responses for Q40 ............................................................................ 208 Table 72: Zone summary of responses for Q41 ............................................................................ 209 Table 73: Zone summary of responses for Q42 ............................................................................ 210 Table 74: Zone summary of responses for Q43 ............................................................................ 211 Table 75: Zone summary of responses for Q44 ............................................................................ 212 Table 76: Zone summary of responses for Q45 ............................................................................ 213 Table 77: Zone summary of responses for Q1 .............................................................................. 214 Table 78: Zone summary of responses for Q2 .............................................................................. 215 Table 79: Zone summary of responses for Q3 .............................................................................. 216 Table 80: Zone summary of responses for Q4 .............................................................................. 217 Table 81: Zone summary of responses for Q15 ............................................................................ 218 Table 82: Zone summary of responses for Q16 ............................................................................ 219 Table 83: Zone summary of responses for Q17 ............................................................................ 220 Table 84: Zone summary of responses for Q18 ............................................................................ 221 Table 85: Zone summary of responses for Q35 ............................................................................ 222 Table 86: Zone summary of responses for Q36 ............................................................................ 223 Table 87: Zone summary of responses for Q37 ............................................................................ 224

288

LIST OF TABLES

Table 88: Zone summary of responses for Q38 ............................................................................ 225 Table 89: Zone summary of responses for Q39 ............................................................................ 226 Table 90: Zone summary of responses for Q23 ............................................................................ 227 Table 91: Zone summary of responses for Q24 ............................................................................ 228 Table 92: Zone summary of responses for Q25 ............................................................................ 229 Table 93: Zone summary of responses for Q26 ............................................................................ 230 Table 94: Zone summary of responses for Q27 ............................................................................ 231 Table 95: Zone summary of responses for Q5 .............................................................................. 232 Table 96: Zone summary of responses for Q6 .............................................................................. 233 Table 97: Zone summary of responses for Q7 .............................................................................. 234 Table 98: Zone summary of responses for Q8 .............................................................................. 235 Table 99: Zone summary of responses for Q9 .............................................................................. 236 Table 100: Zone summary of responses for Q10 ............................................................................ 237 Table 101: Zone summary of responses for Q19 ............................................................................ 238 Table 102: Zone summary of responses for Q20 ............................................................................ 239 Table 103: Zone summary of responses for Q21 ............................................................................ 240 Table 104: Zone summary of responses for Q22 ............................................................................ 241 Table 105: Zone summary of responses for Q11 ............................................................................ 242 Table 106: Zone summary of responses for Q12 ............................................................................ 243 Table 107: Zone summary of responses for Q13 ............................................................................ 244 Table 108: Zone summary of responses for Q14 ............................................................................ 245 Table 109: Zone summary of responses for Q33 ............................................................................ 246 Table 110: Zone summary of responses for Q34 ............................................................................ 247 Table 111: Zone summary of responses for Q51 ............................................................................ 248 Table 112: Zone summary of responses for Q52 ............................................................................ 249 Table 113: Zone summary of responses for Q53 ............................................................................ 250 Table 114: Zone summary of responses for Q54 ............................................................................ 251 Table 115: Zone summary of responses for Q55 ............................................................................ 252 Table 116: Zone summary of responses for Q56 ............................................................................ 253 Table 117: Zone summary of responses for Q57 ............................................................................ 254 Table 118: Zone summary of responses for Q58 ............................................................................ 255 Table 119: Breakdown of thematic statements by theme and comment type .................................. 258 Table 120: Qualitative coding details ............................................................................................... 259 Table 121: Regression model- Dimensions of Care versus Global Overall Care rating adjusted

for confounders .............................................................................................................. 262 Table 122: General Satisfaction - by Global Overall Care rating quartile ........................................ 263 Table 123: General Satisfaction - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile ........ 263 Table 124: Meals and Dining - by Global Overall Care rating quartile ............................................. 264 Table 125: Meals and Dining - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile ............. 264 Table 126: Resident Environment - by Global Overall Care rating quartile ..................................... 265 Table 127: Resident Environment - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile ..... 265 Table 128: Activities - by Global Overall Care rating quartile........................................................... 266 Table 129: Activities - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile .......................... 266 Table 130: Relationship with Employees - by Global Overall Care rating quartile ........................... 267 Table 131: Relationship with Employees - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating

quartile ........................................................................................................................... 267

289

LIST OF TABLES

Table 132: Facility Environment - by Global Overall Care rating quartile ........................................ 268 Table 133: Facility Environment - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile ........ 268 Table 134: Communication - by Global Overall Care rating quartile ................................................ 269 Table 135: Communication - Individual questions of by Global Overall Care rating quartile ........... 269 Table 136: Choice - by Global Overall Care rating quartile ............................................................. 270 Table 137: Choice - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile ............................. 270 Table 138: Employee Responsiveness - by Global Overall Care rating quartile.............................. 271 Table 139: Employee Responsiveness - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating

quartile ........................................................................................................................... 271 Table 140: Care and Services - by Global Overall Care rating quartile ........................................... 272 Table 141: Care and Services - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile ........... 272 Table 142: Laundry - by Global Overall Care rating quartile ............................................................ 273 Table 143: Laundry - Individual questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile ........................... 273 Table 144: Additional Questions - by Global Overall Care rating quartile ........................................ 274 Table 145: Facility ownership – General Satisfaction ...................................................................... 282 Table 146: Facility ownership – Meals and Dining ........................................................................... 282 Table 147: Facility ownership – Resident Environment ................................................................... 283 Table 148: Facility ownership – Activities ........................................................................................ 283 Table 149: Facility ownership – Relationship with Employees ......................................................... 284 Table 150: Facility ownership – Facility Environment ...................................................................... 284 Table 151: Facility ownership – Communication ............................................................................. 285 Table 152: Facility ownership – Choice ........................................................................................... 285 Table 153: Facility ownership – Employee Responsiveness ........................................................... 286 Table 154: Facility ownership – Care and Services ......................................................................... 286 Table 155: Facility ownership – Laundry ......................................................................................... 286

290

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Streams of continuing care ................................................................................................ 8 Figure 2: General Satisfaction Dimension of Care by Global Overall Care rating quartile .............. 92 Figure 3: Meals and Dining Dimension of Care by Global Overall Care rating quartile ................... 93 Figure 4: Resident Environment Dimension of Care by Global Overall Care rating quartile ........... 93 Figure 5: Activities Dimension of Care by Global Overall Care rating quartile ................................ 94 Figure 6: Relationship with Employees Dimension of Care by Global Overall Care rating quartile 94 Figure 7: Facility Environment Dimension of Care by Global Overall Care rating quartile .............. 95 Figure 8: Communication Dimension of Care by Global Overall Care rating quartile ..................... 95 Figure 9: Choice Dimension of Care by Global Overall Care rating quartile ................................... 96 Figure 10: Employee Responsiveness Dimension of Care by Global Overall Care rating quartile ... 96 Figure 11: Care and Services Dimension of Care by Global Overall Care rating quartile ................. 97 Figure 12: Laundry Dimension of Care by Global Overall Care rating quartile ................................. 97 Figure 13: Global Overall Care ratings as a function of ownership type ......................................... 104 Figure 14: General Satisfaction as a function of ownership type .................................................... 105 Figure 15: Meals and Dining as a function of ownership type ......................................................... 105 Figure 16: Resident Environment as a function of ownership type ................................................. 106 Figure 17: Activities as a function of ownership type ...................................................................... 106 Figure 18: Relationship with Employees as a function of ownership type ....................................... 107 Figure 19: Facility Environment as a function of ownership type .................................................... 107 Figure 20: Communication as a function of ownership type............................................................ 108 Figure 21: Choice as a function of ownership type ......................................................................... 108 Figure 22: Employee Responsiveness as a function of ownership type ......................................... 109 Figure 23: Care and Services as a function of ownership type ....................................................... 109 Figure 24: Laundry as a function of ownership type ....................................................................... 110 Figure 25: Provincial summary of responses for propensity to recommend ................................... 113 Figure 26: Percentage who would recommend their facility by Global Overall Care rating quartile 118 Figure 27: Percentage who would recommend facility by ownership type ...................................... 120 Figure 28: Word Cloud – Qualitative Analysis ................................................................................. 121 Figure 29: Sample definition – intended sampling frame ................................................................ 150 Figure 30: Study flow-chart ............................................................................................................. 151 Figure 31: Survey response rates by AHS zone and province........................................................ 152 Figure 32: Completed surveys and survey modality by AHS zone and province ............................ 155 Figure 33: Resident gender by response type ................................................................................ 165 Figure 34: Age distribution by response type .................................................................................. 166 Figure 35: Education by response type .......................................................................................... 167 Figure 36: Cognitive Performance Scale score by response type .................................................. 169 Figure 37: Vision score by response type ....................................................................................... 170 Figure 38: Respondent gender ....................................................................................................... 171 Figure 39: Respondent Age Distribution by AHS zones ................................................................. 172 Figure 40: Respondent level of Education ...................................................................................... 173 Figure 41: Respondent Cognitive Performance Scale .................................................................... 174 Figure 42: Respondent Vision score ............................................................................................... 175 Figure 43: Respondent in shared room .......................................................................................... 176

291

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 44: Self-reported overall health ............................................................................................ 177 Figure 45: Self-reported mental and emotional health .................................................................... 178 Figure 46: Did someone help you complete the survey? ................................................................ 179 Figure 47: Global Overall Care ratings by AHS zone ...................................................................... 182 Figure 48: General Satisfaction Dimension of Care by AHS zone .................................................. 183 Figure 49: Meals and Dining Dimension of Care by AHS zone ....................................................... 184 Figure 50: Resident Environment Dimension of Care by AHS zone ............................................... 185 Figure 51: Activities Dimension of Care scores by AHS zone ......................................................... 186 Figure 52: Relationship with Employees Dimension of Care by AHS zone .................................... 187 Figure 53: Facility Environment Dimension of Care by AHS zone .................................................. 188 Figure 54: Communication Dimension of Care by AHS zone ......................................................... 189 Figure 55: Choice Dimension of Care by AHS zone ....................................................................... 190 Figure 56: Employee Responsiveness Dimension of Care by AHS zone ....................................... 191 Figure 57: Care and Services Dimension of Care by AHS zone ..................................................... 192 Figure 58: Laundry Dimension of Care by AHS zone ..................................................................... 193 Figure 59: Percentage who would recommend facility by AHS zone .............................................. 194 Figure 60: Provincial summary of responses for Question 46 (Q46) .............................................. 199 Figure 61: Provincial summary of responses for Q47 ..................................................................... 200 Figure 62: Provincial summary of responses for Q48 ..................................................................... 201 Figure 63: Provincial summary of responses for Q49 ..................................................................... 202 Figure 64: Provincial summary of responses for Q28 ..................................................................... 203 Figure 65: Provincial summary of responses for Q29 ..................................................................... 204 Figure 66: Provincial summary of responses for Q30 ..................................................................... 205 Figure 67: Provincial summary of responses for Q31 ..................................................................... 206 Figure 68: Provincial summary of responses for Q32 ..................................................................... 207 Figure 69: Provincial summary of responses for Q40 ..................................................................... 208 Figure 70: Provincial summary of responses for Q41 ..................................................................... 209 Figure 71: Provincial summary of responses for Q42 ..................................................................... 210 Figure 72: Provincial summary of responses for Q43 ..................................................................... 211 Figure 73: Provincial summary of responses for Q44 ..................................................................... 212 Figure 74: Provincial summary of responses for Q45 ..................................................................... 213 Figure 75: Provincial summary of responses for Q1 ....................................................................... 214 Figure 76: Provincial summary of responses for Q2 ....................................................................... 215 Figure 77: Provincial summary of responses for Q3 ....................................................................... 216 Figure 78: Provincial summary of responses for Q4 ....................................................................... 217 Figure 79: Provincial summary of responses for Q15 ..................................................................... 218 Figure 80: Provincial summary of responses for Q16 ..................................................................... 219 Figure 81: Provincial summary of responses for Q17 ..................................................................... 220 Figure 82: Provincial summary of responses for Q18 ..................................................................... 221 Figure 83: Provincial summary of responses for Q35 ..................................................................... 222 Figure 84: Provincial summary of responses for Q36 ..................................................................... 223 Figure 85: Provincial summary of responses for Q37 ..................................................................... 224 Figure 86: Provincial summary of responses for Q38 ..................................................................... 225 Figure 87: Provincial summary of responses for Q39 ..................................................................... 226 Figure 88: Provincial summary of responses for Q23 ..................................................................... 227 Figure 89: Provincial summary of responses for Q24 ..................................................................... 228

292

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 90: Provincial summary of responses for Q25 ..................................................................... 229 Figure 91: Provincial summary of responses for Q26 ..................................................................... 230 Figure 92: Provincial summary of responses for Q27 ..................................................................... 231 Figure 93: Provincial summary of responses for Q5 ....................................................................... 232 Figure 94: Provincial summary of responses for Q6 ....................................................................... 233 Figure 95: Provincial summary of responses for Q7 ....................................................................... 234 Figure 96: Provincial summary of responses for Q8 ....................................................................... 235 Figure 97: Provincial summary of responses for Q9 ....................................................................... 236 Figure 98: Provincial summary of responses for Q10 ..................................................................... 237 Figure 99: Provincial summary of responses for Q19 ..................................................................... 238 Figure 100: Provincial summary of responses for Q20 ..................................................................... 239 Figure 101: Provincial summary of responses for Q21 ..................................................................... 240 Figure 102: Provincial summary of responses for Q22 ..................................................................... 241 Figure 103: Provincial summary of responses for Q11 ..................................................................... 242 Figure 104: Provincial summary of responses for Q12 ..................................................................... 243 Figure 105: Provincial summary of responses for Q13 ..................................................................... 244 Figure 106: Provincial summary of responses for Q14 ..................................................................... 245 Figure 107: Provincial summary of responses for Q33 ..................................................................... 246 Figure 108: Provincial summary of responses for Q34 ..................................................................... 247 Figure 109: Provincial summary of responses for Q51 ..................................................................... 248 Figure 110: Provincial summary of responses for Q52 ..................................................................... 249 Figure 111: Provincial summary of responses for Q53 ..................................................................... 250 Figure 112: Provincial summary of responses for Q54 ..................................................................... 251 Figure 113: Provincial summary of responses for Q55 ..................................................................... 252 Figure 114: Provincial summary of responses for Q56 ..................................................................... 253 Figure 115: Provincial summary of responses for Q57 ..................................................................... 254 Figure 116: Provincial summary of responses for Q58 ..................................................................... 255 Figure 117: Global Overall Care rating scores as a function of facility size ...................................... 275 Figure 118: General Satisfaction as a function of facility size ........................................................... 276 Figure 119: Meals and Dining as a function of facility size ............................................................... 276 Figure 120: Resident Environment as a function of facility size ........................................................ 277 Figure 121: Activities as a function of facility size ............................................................................. 277 Figure 122: Relationship with Employees as a function of facility size ............................................. 278 Figure 123: Facility Environment as a function of facility size ........................................................... 278 Figure 124: Communication as a function of facility size .................................................................. 279 Figure 125: Choice as a function of facility size ................................................................................ 279 Figure 126: Employee Responsiveness as a function of facility size ................................................ 280 Figure 127: Care and Services as a function of facility size .............................................................. 280 Figure 128: Laundry as a function of facility size .............................................................................. 281 Figure 129: Propensity to recommend as a function of facility size .................................................. 281

293

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

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

Documents

supportive living resident experience survey report