supportive living resident experience survey report
TRANSCRIPT
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
2. ResidentEnvironment
3. Activities
4. RelationshipwithEmployees
5. FacilityEnvironment
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
SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
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
SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
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
SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
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?
3. ResidentEnvironment
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?
5. RelationshipwithEmployees
a) (Q15)Aretheemployeescourteoustoyou?
b) (Q16)Canyoudependontheemployees?
c) (Q17)Arethepeoplewhoworkherefriendly?
d) (Q18)Dotheemployeestreatyouwithrespect?
14
SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
6. FacilityEnvironment
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?
9. EmployeeResponsiveness
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
SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
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
SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
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
3. ResidentEnvironment
4. Activities
5. RelationshipwithEmployees
6. FacilityEnvironment
7. Communication
8. Choice
9. EmployeeResponsiveness
10. CareandServices
11. Laundry
17Aquartilerepresentsfourequalgroupsintowhichapopulationcanbedividedaccordingtothedistributionofvaluesofaparticularmeasure;eachgroupcomprises25percentofthedata.18GeneralSatisfactionwasthemoststronglyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCareratings.ThisisexpectedgiventhatthequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCarereflectoverallorgeneralopinionsaboutthefacility.However,withthegoalofidentifyingspecificareasforimprovement,GeneralSatisfactionandthequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCareisnotamenabletothistypeofevaluationorinterpretation,limitingitsutilitywhentargetingmeaningfulaspectsofcaretopotentiallychangeforthebenefitofresidents.DespitetheimportanceofGeneralSatisfactioninthepredictionofGlobalOverallCareratings(correlationcoefficientr=0.643),theDimensionofGeneralSatisfactionwillbeexcludedintheformulationofthefinaladjustedmodel(AppendixK).
17
SURVEY PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
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
3. ResidentEnvironment
4. Activities
5. RelationshipwithEmployees
6. FacilityEnvironment
7. Communication
8. Choice
9. EmployeeResponsiveness
10. CareandServices
11. Laundry
DetailedzoneanalysesofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixI.
25
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
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
(25-50th percentile) 7.4-7.9
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-7.4
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixE.
26
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
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
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
7.9 7.8
Providence Place 5 9.2 8.2 10.0† Above Above Upper
Islay Assisted Living 11 8.7 7.9 9.6 Above Above Upper
West Park Lodge 18 8.7 8.3 9.2 Above Above Upper
Pines Lodge 7 8.7 7.9 9.5 Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Olds 12 8.7 8.0 9.3 Above Above Upper
Hillview Lodge 18 8.6 7.8 9.3 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Good 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
7 7.7 6.6 8.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Points West Living Lloydminster 27 7.5 6.5 8.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
27
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
7.9 7.8
Wetaskiwin Meadows 10 7.4 6.5 8.3 Below Below Low. Mid.
Manor at Royal Oak 18 7.3 6.6 8.1 Below Below Lower
Clearwater Centre 15 7.3 6.3 8.4 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Ponoka 8 7.3 6.0 8.5 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 6 7.2 6.4 8.0 Below Below Lower
Viewpoint 10 7.1 5.7 8.5 Below Below Lower
Bethany Meadows 10 6.6 4.9 8.3 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Camrose 31 6.2 5.4 7.0 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
7.7 7.8
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place
14 9.0 8.3 9.7 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre
12 8.9 8.1 9.7 Above Above Upper
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
10 8.0 7.1 8.9 Above Above Up. Mid.
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
18 7.7 6.6 8.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
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
37 7.2 6.4 8.0 Below Below Lower
28
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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
63 6.6 6.1 7.1 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle 37 6.4 5.5 7.4 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 3 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
7.7 7.8
Ridgevalley Seniors Home 6 9.0 8.0 10.0† Above Above Upper
Points West Living Grande Prairie 24 7.1 6.1 8.2 Below Below Lower
Mountain View Centre 15 7.1 6.1 8.1 Below Below Lower
Chinook Lodge 6 9.5 8.8 10.0† Above Above Upper
Haven of Rest - South Country Village
10 9.0 8.2 9.8 Above Above Upper
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
8.1 7.8
Clearview Lodge 10 8.7 8.0 9.4 Above Above Upper
Sunny South Lodge 11 8.6 7.7 9.6 Above Above Upper
Cypress View 8 8.6 7.2 10.0† Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Vista Village 17 8.3 7.6 9.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
Good Samaritan Garden Vista 7 8.1 7.6 8.7 Above Above Up. Mid.
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre
58 8.1 7.6 8.6 Above Above Up. Mid.
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village
22 8.0 7.3 8.7 Below Above Up. Mid.
The Wellington Retirement Residence
18 8.0 7.2 8.8 Below Above Up. Mid.
Columbia Assisted Living 22 8.0 7.4 8.5 Below Above Up. Mid.
Piyami Lodge 7 7.9 6.9 8.9 Below Above Up. Mid.
Orchard Manor 13 7.8 6.8 8.9 Below Above Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Lee Crest 25 7.7 6.9 8.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Legacy Lodge 28 7.5 6.8 8.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
29
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
8.1 7.8
Extendicare Fairmont Park 39 7.3 6.7 7.9 Below Below Lower
York Creek Lodge 6 7.2 6.0 8.3 Below Below Lower
Meadow Lands 9 6.8 5.5 8.0 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.Intheeventofatie,thelowerlimitoftheconfidenceintervalwasusedasasortingcriterion.
30
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
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).
Table 5: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (N = 80 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
91.4-100.0
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 86.9-91.4
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 81.2-86.9
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-81.2
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixE.
31
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=80facilities).
Table 6: Summary of facility means for General Satisfaction
Calgary
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 12 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
86.3 85.2
Whitehorn Village 12 94.9 90.4 99.3 Above Above Upper
Aspen Ridge Lodge 12 93.2 88.7 97.7 Above Above Upper
Millrise Place 18 91.8 85.4 98.3 Above Above Upper
Eau Claire Retirement Residence 21 89.2 83.0 95.5 Above Above Up. Mid.
Edgemont Retirement Residence 18 89.1 83.8 94.4 Above Above Up. Mid.
Sagewood Supportive Living 21 88.0 78.6 97.4 Above Above Up. Mid.
Silver Willow Lodge 11 87.5 79.0 95.9 Above Above Up. Mid.
Prince of Peace Manor 20 85.6 78.3 92.9 Below Above Low. Mid.
Walden Supportive Living Community
50 82.5 76.7 88.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court
11 81.2 70.0 92.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Monterey Place 32 80.3 72.4 88.2 Below Below Lower
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence
14 72.1 55.9 88.2 Below Below Lower
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
85.7 85.2
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 14 96.4 91.5 100.0† Above Above Upper
West Park Lodge 20 96.0 92.9 99.2 Above Above Upper
Pines Lodge 8 95.8 91.4 100.0† Above Above Upper
Islay Assisted Living 11 95.3 90.1 100.0† Above Above Upper
Manor at Royal Oak 19 93.4 89.9 96.8 Above Above Upper
Hillview Lodge 19 93.3 88.4 98.1 Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Olds 12 92.4 86.6 98.2 Above Above Upper
Vermillion Valley Lodge 15 92.3 88.7 95.8 Above Above Upper
Bethany Sylvan Lake 13 89.9 83.7 96.1 Above Above Up. Mid.
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
25 89.1 84.3 93.9 Above Above Up. Mid.
Sunset Manor 45 88.6 84.3 92.9 Above Above Up. Mid.
Sunrise Village Ponoka 8 86.8 75.7 98.0 Above Above Low. Mid.
Providence Place 6 83.5 66.8 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
Clearwater Centre 15 83.1 70.5 95.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
32
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
85.7 85.2
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre
10 82.7 75.0 90.3 Below Below Low. Mid.
Points West Living Lloydminster 26 81.8 73.8 89.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Extendicare Michener Hill 34 81.2 73.7 88.7 Below Below Lower
Wetaskiwin Meadows 10 76.6 64.4 88.8 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 7 74.0 65.7 82.3 Below Below Lower
Bethany Meadows 10 73.3 50.7 95.9 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Camrose 33 72.4 64.7 80.1 Below Below Lower
Viewpoint 10 68.6 49.8 87.4 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
82.9 85.2
Place Beausejour 17 95.5 91.5 99.4 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place
14 93.3 88.5 98.0 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre
13 92.5 84.2 100.0† Above Above Upper
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood
57 90.9 87.4 94.4 Above Above Up. Mid.
West Country Hearth 5 90.0 70.4 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.
Glastonbury Village 29 88.6 83.0 94.2 Above Above Up. Mid.
Country Cottage Seniors Residence
10 88.5 78.5 98.6 Above Above Up. Mid.
Rosedale St. Albert 28 88.4 81.8 95.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
Rosedale at Griesbach 48 86.9 81.8 92.0 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.
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village
17 84.5 75.6 93.3 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
LifeStyle Options Riverbend 10 77.5 63.9 91.1 Below Below Lower
33
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
82.9 85.2
Riverbend Retirement Residence 9 77.2 59.8 94.7 Below Below Lower
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre
39 73.2 65.6 80.8 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite
63 68.7 62.0 75.5 Below Below Lower
Shepherd’s Care Ashbourne 17 66.8 48.6 84.9 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle 38 60.4 49.8 71.0 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 3 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
81.4 85.2
Ridgevalley Seniors Home 6 93.8 85.9 100.0† Above Above Upper
Mountain View Centre 16 78.1 65.6 90.6 Below Below Lower
Points West Living Grande Prairie 27 72.2 62.6 81.8 Below Below Lower
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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
The Wellington Retirement Residence
18 91.4 82.4 100.0† 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.
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre
64 89.4 84.7 94.1 Above Above Up. Mid.
Haven of Rest - South Country Village
10 89.2 82.0 96.4 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.
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village
23 87.8 80.5 95.0 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
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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
Meadow Lands 9 71.4 52.4 90.5 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
35
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
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).
Table 7: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (N = 80 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
83.8-100
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 80.3-83.8
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 77.2-80.3
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-77.2
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
21Itisimportanttonotethatresidentsatsupportivelivingfacilitiesarenotlimitedtothemealsservedonsite.Someroomsareequippedwithstovesand/ormicrowavestohelpresidentspreparetheirownmeals.Therefore,therelevanceofsomequestionsmaydifferbyfacility.ThequestionsinthisDimensionwereaskedwithoutcapturingwhethertheseaspectswereapplicable.
36
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixE.
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=80facilities).
Table 8: Summary of facility means for Meals and Dining
Calgary
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 12 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
79.6 79.9
Millrise Place 19 84.0 76.7 91.2 Above Above Upper
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.
Edgemont Retirement Residence 18 83.0 78.2 87.9 Above Above Up. Mid.
Sagewood Supportive Living 20 81.1 73.1 89.1 Above Above Up. Mid.
Monterey Place 32 81.0 76.2 85.8 Above Above Up. Mid.
Walden Supportive Living Community
50 79.5 75.0 84.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Whitehorn Village 13 79.3 72.6 85.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Eau Claire Retirement Residence 21 77.7 69.0 86.5 Below Below Low. 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
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court
11 69.6 58.6 80.6 Below Below Lower
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
81.7 79.9
Islay Assisted Living 11 95.5 92.6 98.4 Above Above Upper
West Park Lodge 20 92.3 88.5 96.1 Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 14 89.8 80.9 98.7 Above Above Upper
Vermillion Valley Lodge 15 87.9 82.1 93.6 Above Above Upper
Pines Lodge 8 87.0 79.9 94.1 Above Above Upper
Manor at Royal Oak 19 86.9 80.5 93.2 Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Olds 12 86.4 79.0 93.9 Above Above Upper
37
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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.
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre
10 81.6 73.6 89.7 Below 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.
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
25 80.0 74.4 85.6 Below Above Low. Mid.
Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 8 74.0 69.7 78.3 Below Below Lower
Viewpoint 10 66.6 47.7 85.5 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Camrose 32 66.1 58.1 74.2 Below Below Lower
Bethany Meadows 10 62.7 44.4 80.9 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
77.6 79.9
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place
14 90.6 86.2 94.9 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre
13 89.6 81.3 97.9 Above Above Upper
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
Place Beausejour 18 86.2 79.8 92.6 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.
Citadel Mews West 29 78.5 73.0 84.0 Above Below Low. Mid.
Glastonbury Village 29 77.7 70.1 85.2 Above Below Low. Mid.
LifeStyle Options Riverbend 9 77.5 68.1 87.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Shepherd’s Gardens 21 77.2 70.7 83.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
38
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
77.6 79.9
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood
55 77.2 73.2 81.2 Below Below Lower
Aspen House 30 77.1 70.5 83.6 Below Below Lower
Riverbend Retirement Residence 11 77.0 65.7 88.4 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village
18 75.0 64.9 85.0 Below Below Lower
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 19 73.6 65.5 81.7 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite
62 70.3 64.3 76.4 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
Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle 36 68.2 59.3 77.0 Below Below Lower
Shepherd’s Care Ashbourne 17 62.4 51.0 73.8 Below Below Lower
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre
41 60.4 52.5 68.3 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 3 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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.
Points West Living Grande Prairie 27 74.5 66.3 82.8 Below Below Lower
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
80.8 79.9
Clearview Lodge 11 93.0 85.8 100.0† Above Above Upper
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
The Wellington Retirement Residence
18 82.5 74.2 90.8 Above Above Up. Mid.
Cypress View 8 81.0 70.2 91.7 Above Above Up. Mid.
Haven of Rest - South Country Village
10 80.9 72.2 89.6 Above Above Up. Mid.
Legacy Lodge 27 80.9 73.7 88.1 Above Above Up. Mid.
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre
65 80.8 76.0 85.6 Below Above Up. Mid.
39
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
80.8 79.9
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village
25 80.5 73.8 87.2 Below Above Up. Mid.
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.
York Creek Lodge 6 75.7 69.6 81.7 Below Below Lower
Extendicare Fairmont Park 40 74.0 67.9 80.1 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
40
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
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).
Table 9: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (N = 80 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
94.2-100
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 92.2-94.2
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 89.3-92.2
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-89.3
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
41
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixE.
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=80facilities).
Table 10: Summary of facility means for Resident Environment
Calgary
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 12 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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
Aspen Ridge Lodge 12 94.3 91.4 97.3 Above Above Upper
Edgemont Retirement Residence 18 94.3 88.9 99.8 Above Above Upper
Prince of Peace Manor 20 93.6 90.9 96.4 Above Above Up. Mid.
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.
Whitehorn Village 12 90.7 84.1 97.3 Below Below Low. Mid.
Walden Supportive Living Community
49 90.4 87.0 93.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court
11 90.3 84.0 96.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Monterey Place 31 89.3 84.9 93.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence
14 88.3 77.8 98.9 Below Below Lower
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
92.8 91.6
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 14 97.8 96.1 99.6 Above Above Upper
Manor at Royal Oak 19 97.7 96.2 99.2 Above Above Upper
Hillview Lodge 19 97.1 95.2 98.9 Above Above Upper
Islay Assisted Living 11 96.7 94.6 98.8 Above Above Upper
Vermillion Valley Lodge 14 95.2 91.7 98.7 Above Above Upper
West Park Lodge 20 95.2 91.8 98.6 Above Above Upper
Sunset Manor 45 95.0 92.8 97.2 Above Above Upper
42
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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.
Bethany Sylvan Lake 13 93.0 87.9 98.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre
9 92.2 87.8 96.6 Below 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.
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
24 91.8 87.6 96.0 Below Above Low. Mid.
Extendicare Michener Hill 34 91.8 88.5 95.0 Below Above Low. Mid.
Sunrise Village Camrose 32 87.6 83.5 91.7 Below Below Lower
Bethany Meadows 10 87.2 73.3 100.0† Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 7 86.2 80.4 92.1 Below Below Lower
Viewpoint 10 86.0 78.7 93.3 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
90.4 91.6
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre
13 96.8 92.9 100.0† Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place
14 96.1 93.2 99.0 Above Above Upper
Place Beausejour 17 96.0 92.1 99.9 Above Above Upper
Citadel Mews West 29 94.1 90.9 97.4 Above Above Up. Mid.
Rosedale St. Albert 26 94.0 90.8 97.2 Above Above Up. Mid.
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood
56 93.8 91.4 96.2 Above Above Up. Mid.
Devonshire Manor 28 93.8 90.7 97.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
Glastonbury Village 29 93.4 90.1 96.7 Above Above Up. Mid.
Country Cottage Seniors Residence
10 93.2 87.2 99.2 Above Above Up. Mid.
Garneau Hall 15 93.1 88.6 97.6 Above Above Up. Mid.
Rosedale at Griesbach 49 93.0 90.3 95.8 Above Above Up. Mid.
Shepherd’s Gardens 21 92.9 88.5 97.4 Above Above Up. Mid.
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village
18 92.9 87.6 98.2 Above Above Up. Mid.
43
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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.
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 19 88.6 82.3 94.8 Below Below Lower
Aspen House 30 88.3 83.0 93.6 Below Below Lower
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre
40 87.4 83.6 91.2 Below Below Lower
Wild Rose Cottage 13 86.8 75.9 97.7 Below Below Lower
Riverbend Retirement Residence 10 85.7 77.3 94.0 Below Below Lower
LifeStyle Options Riverbend 9 85.4 73.2 97.6 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite
63 83.8 79.7 87.9 Below Below Lower
Shepherd’s Care Ashbourne 17 78.8 70.3 87.3 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle 38 76.4 68.3 84.6 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 3 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
91.6 91.6
Ridgevalley Seniors Home 6 98.6 96.9 100.0† Above Above Upper
Points West Living Grande Prairie 27 88.6 84.0 93.2 Below Below Lower
Mountain View Centre 16 87.5 81.4 93.6 Below Below Lower
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
91.3 91.6
Clearview Lodge 11 97.5 94.9 100.0† Above Above Upper
Chinook Lodge 6 97.0 92.6 100.0† Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Vista Village 17 95.2 91.8 98.5 Above Above Upper
Sunny South Lodge 12 94.5 89.9 99.1 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Lee Crest 25 93.8 90.4 97.2 Above Above Up. Mid.
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre
63 93.7 90.1 97.3 Above Above Up. Mid.
The Wellington Retirement Residence
17 93.4 88.1 98.7 Above Above Up. Mid.
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
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
91.3 91.6
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village
23 91.2 86.9 95.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Extendicare Fairmont Park 41 90.9 87.5 94.3 Below Below Low. Mid.
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.
Haven of Rest - South Country Village
10 89.8 78.6 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
Piyami Lodge 7 89.3 81.2 97.3 Below Below Lower
Legacy Lodge 27 87.7 82.2 93.1 Below Below Lower
Meadow Lands 9 83.4 71.6 95.2 Below Below Lower
York Creek Lodge 6 81.6 68.1 95.0 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
45
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
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).
Table 11: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (N = 80 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
86.4-100.0
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 81.9-86.4
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 75.8-81.9
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-75.8
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixE.
46
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=80facilities).
Table 12: Summary of facility means for Activities
Calgary
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 12 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
85.6 81.1
Edgemont Retirement Residence 15 94.0 90.3 97.7 Above Above Upper
Whitehorn Village 11 90.7 83.5 98.0 Above Above Upper
Aspen Ridge Lodge 12 90.7 85.6 95.8 Above Above Upper
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence
12 89.1 80.9 97.3 Above Above Upper
Silver Willow Lodge 11 89.0 81.6 96.3 Above Above Upper
Millrise Place 18 86.7 81.0 92.5 Above Above Upper
Prince of Peace Manor 19 85.2 78.9 91.4 Below Above Up. Mid.
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court
11 84.1 74.2 94.0 Below Above Up. Mid.
Sagewood Supportive Living 22 83.3 75.4 91.2 Below Above Up. Mid.
Monterey Place 35 81.0 74.8 87.3 Below Below Low. Mid.
Eau Claire Retirement Residence 20 78.0 68.5 87.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Walden Supportive Living Community
43 75.1 68.9 81.3 Below Below Lower
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
78.8 81.1
Hillview Lodge 19 88.9 84.0 93.9 Above Above Upper
Pines Lodge 8 86.5 78.1 94.9 Above Above Upper
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.
Vermillion Valley Lodge 15 85.2 79.3 91.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 14 83.7 72.5 95.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
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.
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre
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
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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
Clearwater Centre 15 74.9 66.6 83.2 Below Below Lower
Extendicare Michener Hill 35 72.1 65.0 79.2 Below Below Lower
Bethany Meadows 9 66.3 51.4 81.3 Below Below Lower
Wetaskiwin Meadows 10 66.2 45.9 86.5 Below Below Lower
Viewpoint 10 56.5 43.0 70.0 Below Below Lower
Edmonton Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
80.3 81.1
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place
14 96.6 91.9 100.0 Above Above Upper
Devonshire Manor 26 89.3 85.2 93.5 Above Above Upper
Country Cottage Seniors Residence
11 88.0 81.0 94.9 Above Above Upper
Wild Rose Cottage 12 87.5 76.5 98.6 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre
13 86.1 78.4 93.8 Above Above Up. Mid.
Lifestyle Options Terra Losa 23 84.6 76.7 92.5 Above Above Up. Mid.
LifeStyle Options Riverbend 8 84.5 78.4 90.6 Above Above Up. Mid.
Citadel Mews West 28 84.4 78.7 90.1 Above Above Up. Mid.
West Country Hearth 5 83.6 66.5 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.
Rosedale St. Albert 26 83.2 76.3 90.1 Above Above Up. Mid.
Rosedale at Griesbach 43 82.0 75.6 88.4 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.
Shepherd’s Gardens 21 78.7 69.3 88.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood
55 77.6 72.4 82.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Aspen House 30 76.2 68.5 84.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite
63 76.1 69.7 82.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Glastonbury Village 27 75.6 67.3 83.9 Below Below Lower
Shepherd’s Care Ashbourne 17 74.8 64.3 85.4 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle 36 74.5 65.0 84.0 Below Below Lower
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 19 73.7 62.4 85.0 Below Below Lower
48
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
80.3 81.1
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre
41 72.0 65.3 78.8 Below Below Lower
Garneau Hall 15 72.0 59.7 84.2 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village
18 64.9 52.5 77.2 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 3 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
73.0 81.1
Ridgevalley Seniors Home 7 86.2 75.3 97.2 Above Above Up. Mid.
Points West Living Grande Prairie 27 67.7 57.9 77.6 Below Below Lower
Mountain View Centre 14 65.1 51.7 78.5 Below Below Lower
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
83.3 81.1
Piyami Lodge 7 98.7 96.0 100.0† Above Above Upper
Clearview Lodge 11 93.5 87.7 99.3 Above Above Upper
Chinook Lodge 6 92.0 80.8 100.0† Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Vista Village 17 90.4 83.7 97.2 Above Above Upper
Orchard Manor 12 90.3 83.6 97.0 Above Above Upper
Sunny South Lodge 12 88.9 81.2 96.7 Above Above Upper
Haven of Rest - South Country Village
10 87.9 77.4 98.5 Above Above Upper
The Wellington Retirement Residence
18 87.7 78.4 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.
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre
63 81.8 77.2 86.4 Below Above Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Lee Crest 26 80.3 74.2 86.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Columbia Assisted Living 23 79.4 72.1 86.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village
25 79.0 71.5 86.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
York Creek Lodge 5 78.8 56.5 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
Meadow Lands 9 72.3 55.8 88.8 Below Below Lower
Extendicare Fairmont Park 38 70.3 65.0 75.5 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Garden Vista 8 63.6 54.0 73.1 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
49
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
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).
Table 13: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (N = 80 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
95.7-100.0
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 93.3-95.7
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 89.7-93.3
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-89.7
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.Formoredetailsonthe
50
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
determinationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixE.
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=80facilities).
Table 14: Summary of facility means for Relationship with Employees
Calgary
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 12 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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.
Edgemont Retirement Residence 18 94.7 89.8 99.6 Above Above Up. Mid.
Silver Willow Lodge 12 94.3 90.3 98.3 Above Above Up. Mid.
Eau Claire Retirement Residence 20 93.4 89.0 97.7 Above Above Up. Mid.
Prince of Peace Manor 20 93.3 89.5 97.1 Above Above Up. Mid.
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court
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.
Whitehorn Village 13 91.2 84.2 98.1 Below Below Low. Mid.
Monterey Place 34 90.6 86.7 94.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence 14 87.7 78.9 96.5 Below Below Lower
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
92.5 92.2
Manor at Royal Oak 19 99.1 97.9 100.0† Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 14 98.8 97.2 100.0† Above Above Upper
Islay Assisted Living 11 98.6 96.6 100.0† Above Above Upper
Pines Lodge 8 97.9 95.2 100.0† Above Above Upper
West Park Lodge 20 97.6 95.6 99.6 Above Above Upper
Hillview Lodge 19 97.0 93.4 100.0† Above Above Upper
Sunset Manor 45 96.2 93.5 98.9 Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Olds 12 95.0 90.1 99.9 Above Above Up. Mid.
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
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
92.5 92.2
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
25 91.9 86.9 96.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 7 91.8 85.6 98.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Clearwater Centre 15 90.9 83.8 98.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Extendicare Michener Hill 36 89.6 85.3 93.9 Below Below Lower
Points West Living Lloydminster 27 89.4 83.7 95.1 Below Below Lower
Bethany Sylvan Lake 13 89.1 81.6 96.6 Below Below Lower
Bethany Meadows 10 84.3 70.2 98.4 Below Below Lower
Viewpoint 10 81.7 70.7 92.8 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Camrose 32 76.9 68.0 85.7 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
91.3 92.2
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre 13 98.1 95.5 100.0† Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place
14 97.6 94.0 100.0† 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
Rosedale St. Albert 27 95.7 93.0 98.4 Above Above Up. Mid.
Country Cottage Seniors Residence 11 95.3 89.0 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.
Shepherd’s Care Kensington 20 95.2 92.1 98.4 Above Above Up. Mid.
Place Beausejour 18 95.2 91.9 98.4 Above Above Up. Mid.
Rosedale at Griesbach 49 94.6 91.2 98.1 Above Above Up. Mid.
Lifestyle Options Terra Losa 24 93.8 90.3 97.4 Above Above Up. Mid.
Glastonbury Village 29 93.4 88.9 97.9 Above Above Up. Mid.
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 20 93.4 90.0 96.9 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.
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village
18 89.4 82.4 96.4 Below Below Lower
Shepherd’s Care Ashbourne 17 89.3 83.9 94.7 Below Below Lower
LifeStyle Options Riverbend 10 86.4 78.8 94.1 Below Below Lower
52
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
91.3 92.2
Saint Thomas Assisted Living
Centre 42 83.7 78.1 89.2 Below Below Lower
Riverbend Retirement Residence 11 83.3 73.2 93.5 Below Below Lower
Aspen House 30 82.1 75.6 88.7 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle 38 80.2 72.5 87.9 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite 63 79.8 74.6 85.0 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 3 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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.
Points West Living Grande Prairie 26 81.9 74.7 89.2 Below Below Lower
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
93.1 92.2
Chinook Lodge 6 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Clearview Lodge 11 98.6 96.6 100.0† Above Above Upper
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
Orchard Manor 13 94.9 90.5 99.3 Above Above Up. Mid.
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.
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre
64 91.9 88.6 95.1 Below Below Low. Mid.
Piyami Lodge 7 91.7 82.9 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
Extendicare Fairmont Park 41 91.1 87.5 94.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village
25 90.4 85.7 95.1 Below Below Low. Mid.
York Creek Lodge 6 89.7 78.7 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
Cypress View 8 89.7 81.0 98.3 Below Below Lower
53
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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
Legacy Lodge 28 86.3 80.9 91.7 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
54
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
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).
Table 15: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (N = 80 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
95.4-100.0
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 92.3-95.4
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 88.8-92.3
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-88.8
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.Formoredetailsonthe
55
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
determinationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixE.
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=80facilities).
Table 16: Summary of facility means for Facility Environment
Calgary
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 12 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
92.8 91.6
Aspen Ridge Lodge 12 98.8 96.7 100.0† Above Above Upper
Whitehorn Village 13 97.0 94.1 99.9 Above Above Upper
Silver Willow Lodge 12 97.0 94.9 99.0 Above Above Upper
Eau Claire Retirement Residence
21 95.8 92.9 98.8 Above Above Upper
Millrise Place 19 95.2 91.4 99.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
Edgemont Retirement Residence
18 91.9 86.4 97.5 Below Above Low. Mid.
Prince of Peace Manor 20 91.8 87.8 95.7 Below Above Low. Mid.
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court
10 91.7 85.5 98.0 Below Above Low. Mid.
Sagewood Supportive Living 20 91.6 85.7 97.5 Below Above Low. Mid.
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence
13 90.5 84.3 96.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
Monterey Place 31 86.0 80.9 91.1 Below Below Lower
Walden Supportive Living Community
46 85.7 81.4 89.9 Below Below Lower
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
92.3 91.6
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 14 98.7 97.1 100.0† Above Above Upper
Hillview Lodge 19 98.6 97.5 99.7 Above Above Upper
Manor at Royal Oak 19 97.7 96.0 99.5 Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Olds 11 97.6 95.8 99.4 Above Above Upper
Vermillion Valley Lodge 15 96.3 93.5 99.0 Above Above Upper
West Park Lodge 20 95.6 92.9 98.4 Above Above Upper
Providence Place 7 95.6 89.8 100.0† Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
23 95.5 93.2 97.8 Above Above Upper
Sunset Manor 45 94.9 92.7 97.1 Above Above Up. Mid.
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
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
92.3 91.6
Points West Living Lloydminster
25 93.1 89.0 97.2 Above Above Up. Mid.
Bethany Sylvan Lake 13 92.8 87.6 98.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
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.
Bethany Meadows 10 87.3 77.5 97.2 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 8 87.0 79.6 94.4 Below Below Lower
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre
9 86.8 80.2 93.4 Below Below Lower
Wetaskiwin Meadows 10 85.1 77.6 92.7 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Camrose 32 84.3 79.8 88.8 Below Below Lower
Viewpoint 10 81.3 69.6 93.0 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
90.2 91.6
Place Beausejour 18 98.2 96.1 100.0† Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre
13 96.8 92.0 100.0† Above Above Upper
Rosedale St. Albert 24 96.5 95.0 97.9 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place
14 95.7 92.9 98.6 Above Above Upper
LifeStyle Options Riverbend 10 95.4 92.8 98.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
Devonshire Manor 28 94.6 91.7 97.6 Above Above Up. Mid.
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 20 93.9 90.1 97.7 Above Above Up. Mid.
West Country Hearth 5 93.8 84.5 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood
55 93.8 91.5 96.1 Above Above Up. Mid.
Rosedale at Griesbach 49 92.8 89.7 96.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
Shepherd’s Gardens 21 92.0 85.3 98.8 Above Above Low. Mid.
Citadel Mews West 29 91.2 87.5 94.9 Above Below Low. Mid.
Shepherd’s Care Kensington 19 90.9 84.0 97.8 Above Below Low. Mid.
Glastonbury Village 28 90.6 85.7 95.5 Above Below Low. Mid.
Wild Rose Cottage 12 89.3 81.7 97.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Riverbend Retirement Residence
10 89.2 82.5 95.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Lifestyle Options Terra Losa 23 88.8 84.7 92.9 Below Below Lower
57
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
90.2 91.6
Garneau Hall 15 88.3 82.0 94.7 Below Below Lower
Aspen House 30 86.5 82.7 90.2 Below Below Lower
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre
41 86.2 81.1 91.3 Below Below Lower
Country Cottage Seniors Residence
10 86.1 73.7 98.6 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village
18 86.0 77.1 94.9 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite
63 84.5 80.8 88.2 Below Below Lower
Shepherd’s Care Ashbourne 17 79.8 69.2 90.5 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle
38 74.7 66.4 83.0 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 3 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
87.3 91.6
Ridgevalley Seniors Home 7 93.6 86.5 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.
Mountain View Centre 16 85.2 79.3 91.1 Below Below Lower
Points West Living Grande Prairie
27 83.1 78.0 88.1 Below Below Lower
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
92.4 91.6
Clearview Lodge 11 99.4 98.3 100.0† Above Above Upper
Chinook Lodge 6 96.7 93.7 99.7 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Vista Village 17 95.9 92.2 99.7 Above Above Upper
Sunny South Lodge 12 95.8 90.9 100.0† Above Above Upper
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.
Good Samaritan Lee Crest 26 92.6 88.4 96.8 Above Above Up. Mid.
The Wellington Retirement Residence
18 92.5 88.0 97.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre
63 92.4 89.0 95.7 Below Above Up. Mid.
Orchard Manor 13 92.3 88.2 96.5 Below Above Up. Mid.
58
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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.
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village
25 91.6 87.1 96.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Legacy Lodge 27 90.7 85.7 95.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Columbia Assisted Living 23 89.8 84.4 95.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
Haven of Rest - South Country Village
10 88.9 83.1 94.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
York Creek Lodge 5 78.4 67.4 89.5 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
59
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
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).
Table 17: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (N = 80 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
92.8-100.0
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 88.2-92.8
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 84.7-88.2
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-84.7
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.Formoredetailsonthe
60
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
determinationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixE.
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=80facilities).
Table 18: Summary of facility means for Communication
Calgary
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 12 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
88.5 87.7
Aspen Ridge Lodge 12 94.0 91.1 96.9 Above Above Upper
Millrise Place 19 92.7 89.1 96.4 Above Above Up. Mid.
Edgemont Retirement Residence 17 91.3 84.5 98.1 Above Above Up. Mid.
Prince of Peace Manor 20 90.9 86.7 95.2 Above Above Up. Mid.
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence
13 88.6 82.4 94.7 Above Above Up. Mid.
Eau Claire Retirement Residence 21 88.3 82.5 94.1 Below Above Up. Mid.
Sagewood Supportive Living 20 88.1 81.0 95.3 Below Above Low. Mid.
Whitehorn Village 13 87.5 78.0 97.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Monterey Place 29 86.4 81.5 91.3 Below Below Low. Mid.
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court
11 85.4 77.4 93.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Walden Supportive Living Community
45 85.2 81.8 88.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Silver Willow Lodge 11 83.6 74.5 92.7 Below Below Lower
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
86.4 87.7
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 14 97.5 92.6 100.0† Above Above Upper
Pines Lodge 8 93.7 83.9 100.0† Above Above Upper
West Park Lodge 20 93.3 89.5 97.1 Above Above Upper
Islay Assisted Living 11 93.0 86.5 99.5 Above Above Upper
Manor at Royal Oak 18 92.8 88.9 96.8 Above Above Upper
Hillview Lodge 18 92.7 89.3 96.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
Sunrise Village Olds 12 92.3 87.1 97.5 Above Above Up. Mid.
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre
10 91.0 84.8 97.1 Above Above Up. Mid.
Sunset Manor 43 90.5 86.2 94.7 Above Above Up. Mid.
Vermillion Valley Lodge 15 89.6 84.3 95.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
23 89.5 83.7 95.2 Above Above Up. Mid.
61
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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.
Wetaskiwin Meadows 10 84.3 72.6 96.0 Below Below Lower
Bethany Sylvan Lake 13 84.0 77.4 90.6 Below Below Lower
Points West Living Lloydminster 26 82.9 75.4 90.4 Below Below Lower
Bethany Meadows 10 77.7 68.0 87.5 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 8 77.0 67.2 86.8 Below Below Lower
Viewpoint 9 69.8 57.2 82.4 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Camrose 31 63.8 55.6 72.0 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
87.1 87.7
West Country Hearth 5 98.5 95.5 100.0† Above Above Upper
Wild Rose Cottage 11 96.8 93.6 99.9 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre
13 95.8 90.2 100.0† Above Above Upper
Place Beausejour 16 93.9 87.7 100.0 Above Above Upper
Rosedale St. Albert 24 93.5 89.7 97.3 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place
14 93.2 88.6 97.8 Above Above Upper
Lifestyle Options Terra Losa 22 92.1 87.6 96.5 Above Above Up. Mid.
Country Cottage Seniors Residence
11 91.3 86.4 96.1 Above Above Up. Mid.
Devonshire Manor 24 90.7 85.0 96.5 Above Above Up. Mid.
Rosedale at Griesbach 46 89.6 84.7 94.6 Above Above Up. Mid.
Citadel Mews West 28 89.3 84.5 94.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
LifeStyle Options Riverbend 9 88.2 81.2 95.1 Above Above Low. Mid.
Shepherd’s Care Kensington 18 87.6 79.4 95.8 Above Below Low. Mid.
Shepherd’s Gardens 21 87.2 82.1 92.3 Above Below Low. Mid.
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood
54 85.7 81.7 89.8 Below 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.
Aspen House 28 84.6 78.0 91.3 Below Below Lower
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 20 83.3 78.8 87.9 Below Below Lower
62
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
87.1 87.7
Glastonbury Village 28 83.2 76.9 89.6 Below Below Lower
Riverbend Retirement Residence 11 79.9 68.6 91.3 Below Below Lower
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre
40 78.5 72.5 84.6 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite
61 78.5 73.6 83.4 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle 37 73.5 65.9 81.0 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village
17 73.1 60.6 85.6 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 3 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
81.8 87.7
Ridgevalley Seniors Home 6 93.5 82.9 100.0† Above Above Upper
Points West Living Grande Prairie 25 77.6 69.9 85.3 Below Below Lower
Mountain View Centre 16 74.2 62.5 85.9 Below Below Lower
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
90.4 87.7
Haven of Rest - South Country Village
10 98.2 96.3 100.0† Above Above Upper
York Creek Lodge 5 97.1 93.6 100.0† Above Above Upper
Chinook Lodge 6 96.1 91.2 100.0† Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Vista Village 17 95.1 90.5 99.6 Above Above Upper
Clearview Lodge 11 94.5 90.6 98.3 Above Above Upper
Sunny South Lodge 12 93.4 89.1 97.8 Above Above Upper
Meadow Lands 9 93.3 83.2 100.0† Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Garden Vista 7 91.7 82.0 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.
The Wellington Retirement Residence
18 91.1 86.0 96.2 Above Above Up. Mid.
Orchard Manor 13 90.7 82.9 98.4 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.
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village
25 87.7 81.7 93.7 Below Above Low. Mid.
63
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
90.4 87.7
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre
61 87.3 83.6 91.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Piyami Lodge 7 85.9 73.4 98.3 Below Below Low. Mid.
Columbia Assisted Living 22 84.9 79.0 90.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
Legacy Lodge 27 83.2 76.9 89.6 Below Below Lower
Cypress View 8 80.8 65.9 95.8 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
64
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
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).
Table 19: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (N = 80 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
93.4-100.0
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 91.9-93.4
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 89.4-91.9
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-89.4
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
65
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixE.
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=80facilities).
Table 20: Summary of facility means for Choice
Calgary
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 12 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
92.2 91.4
Edgemont Retirement Residence 18 95.7 93.1 98.4 Above Above Upper
Aspen Ridge Lodge 12 95.0 91.5 98.5 Above Above Upper
Prince of Peace Manor 20 95.0 92.6 97.3 Above Above Upper
Millrise Place 19 94.9 91.8 98.1 Above Above Upper
Eau Claire Retirement Residence 21 94.5 90.0 99.0 Above Above Upper
Whitehorn Village 13 93.5 88.5 98.6 Above Above Upper
Silver Willow Lodge 12 92.0 85.6 98.4 Below Above Up. Mid.
Sagewood Supportive Living 21 91.4 85.3 97.5 Below Above Low. Mid.
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court
11 89.4 84.6 94.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence
14 89.3 82.5 96.2 Below Below Lower
Monterey Place 34 88.8 84.7 92.9 Below Below Lower
Walden Supportive Living Community
50 86.9 83.6 90.2 Below Below Lower
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
91.0 91.4
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 14 97.4 94.8 100.0† Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Ponoka 8 94.3 87.8 100.0† Above Above Upper
Islay Assisted Living 11 93.9 88.7 99.0 Above Above Upper
Hillview Lodge 19 93.1 89.3 97.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
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.
Sunrise Village Olds 12 92.7 88.8 96.7 Above Above Up. Mid.
66
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
91.0 91.4
Manor at Royal Oak 19 92.6 89.3 95.9 Above Above Up. Mid.
Vermillion Valley Lodge 15 92.5 87.6 97.4 Above Above Up. Mid.
Sunset Manor 44 92.3 89.6 94.9 Above Above Up. Mid.
West Park Lodge 20 91.9 86.1 97.7 Above Above Up. Mid.
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre
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.
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
23 91.3 87.2 95.4 Above Below Low. Mid.
Clearwater Centre 15 90.8 84.2 97.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Wetaskiwin Meadows 10 89.9 81.7 98.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
Extendicare Michener Hill 36 89.2 84.3 94.2 Below Below Lower
Providence Place 6 89.2 76.3 100.0† Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Camrose 32 87.8 83.9 91.6 Below Below Lower
Bethany Sylvan Lake 13 86.3 79.1 93.4 Below Below Lower
Viewpoint 10 84.9 78.0 91.9 Below Below Lower
Bethany Meadows 10 83.8 75.1 92.4 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
90.9 91.4
Rosedale at Griesbach 47 96.8 95.6 98.1 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre
13 95.4 90.0 100.0† Above Above Upper
Country Cottage Seniors Residence
11 94.8 88.1 100.0† Above Above Upper
Shepherd’s Care Kensington 20 94.3 90.7 97.9 Above Above Upper
West Country Hearth 5 93.8 86.3 100.0† Above Above Upper
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 20 93.3 89.6 96.9 Above Above Up. Mid.
Wild Rose Cottage 13 93.3 89.7 96.9 Above Above Up. Mid.
Shepherd’s Gardens 21 93.2 89.9 96.5 Above Above Up. Mid.
Citadel Mews West 30 93.1 89.9 96.3 Above Above Up. Mid.
Garneau Hall 15 93.1 88.3 97.8 Above Above Up. Mid.
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre
42 92.3 89.5 95.1 Above Above Up. Mid.
Place Beausejour 18 92.0 87.6 96.4 Above Above Up. Mid.
Devonshire Manor 28 91.8 88.7 95.0 Above Above Low. Mid.
Glastonbury Village 29 91.2 87.1 95.4 Above Below Low. Mid.
67
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
90.9 91.4
Rosedale St. Albert 27 91.0 87.6 94.5 Above Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village
18 89.7 83.7 95.7 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place
14 89.5 83.7 95.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Lifestyle Options Terra Losa 23 89.5 85.0 93.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood
57 88.9 85.8 92.0 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite
63 87.4 84.0 90.8 Below Below Lower
Aspen House 30 86.8 81.9 91.8 Below Below Lower
LifeStyle Options Riverbend 10 86.6 82.4 90.8 Below Below Lower
Shepherd’s Care Ashbourne 17 86.6 81.2 92.0 Below Below Lower
Riverbend Retirement Residence 11 84.7 75.4 94.0 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle 37 82.3 76.4 88.3 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 3 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
90.2 91.4
Ridgevalley Seniors Home 7 97.5 94.2 100.0† Above Above Upper
Mountain View Centre 16 90.8 85.0 96.6 Above Below Low. Mid.
Points West Living Grande Prairie 26 82.3 76.1 88.5 Below Below Lower
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
92.2 91.4
Chinook Lodge 6 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Sunny South Lodge 12 96.1 93.6 98.7 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Vista Village 17 95.3 91.1 99.5 Above Above Upper
Piyami Lodge 7 94.9 90.2 99.7 Above Above Upper
Clearview Lodge 11 94.6 90.7 98.4 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.
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre
65 92.1 89.1 95.1 Below Above Up. Mid.
68
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
92.2 91.4
The Wellington Retirement Residence
18 91.6 86.3 96.9 Below Above Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village
25 91.5 87.8 95.3 Below Above Low. Mid.
Orchard Manor 13 91.4 83.1 99.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Haven of Rest - South Country Village
10 90.8 85.6 96.0 Below Below Low. Mid.
York Creek Lodge 6 90.6 78.1 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Lee Crest 26 89.5 84.6 94.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Legacy Lodge 28 88.6 83.6 93.5 Below Below Lower
Extendicare Fairmont Park 42 88.1 84.2 92.0 Below Below Lower
Meadow Lands 9 86.4 78.5 94.4 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
69
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
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).
Table 21: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (N = 80 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
92.7-100.0
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 89.4-92.7
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 84.9-89.4
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-84.9
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.Formoredetailsonthe
70
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
determinationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixE.
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=80facilities).
Table 22: Summary of facility means for Employee Responsiveness
Calgary
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 12 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
89.0 88.7
Aspen Ridge Lodge 12 96.0 93.0 99.1 Above Above Upper
Prince of Peace Manor 19 92.4 87.4 97.4 Above Above Up. Mid.
Eau Claire Retirement Residence 19 91.4 86.6 96.2 Above Above Up. Mid.
Millrise Place 18 91.3 86.9 95.7 Above Above Up. Mid.
Edgemont Retirement Residence 15 91.2 84.7 97.6 Above Above Up. Mid.
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence
14 90.2 84.0 96.3 Above Above Up. Mid.
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.
Walden Supportive Living Community
48 85.3 81.1 89.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court
11 84.2 75.8 92.7 Below Below Lower
Monterey Place 30 82.4 75.8 89.0 Below Below Lower
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
89.6 88.7
Islay Assisted Living 11 97.7 93.3 100.0† Above Above Upper
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre
10 97.4 92.3 100.0† Above Above Upper
Pines Lodge 8 95.6 89.2 100.0† Above Above Upper
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
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 14 93.2 87.0 99.5 Above Above Upper
Sunset Manor 44 92.8 89.9 95.6 Above Above Upper
Vermillion Valley Lodge 15 92.7 88.8 96.7 Above Above Upper
Providence Place 6 92.7 83.3 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.
West Park Lodge 20 92.1 85.8 98.4 Above Above Up. Mid.
Hillview Lodge 19 92.0 87.5 96.5 Above Above Up. Mid.
71
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
89.6 88.7
Manor at Royal Oak 17 91.2 86.3 96.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
25 89.8 85.7 93.8 Above Above Up. Mid.
Sunrise Village Olds 12 89.0 83.8 94.1 Below Above Low. Mid.
Points West Living Lloydminster 27 88.9 82.7 95.1 Below Above Low. Mid.
Clearwater Centre 15 87.5 80.2 94.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Bethany Meadows 10 87.3 75.3 99.3 Below Below Low. Mid.
Extendicare Michener Hill 35 85.5 80.9 90.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 7 84.9 72.6 97.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
Bethany Sylvan Lake 13 83.4 71.5 95.3 Below Below Lower
Viewpoint 10 77.7 66.9 88.4 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Camrose 32 69.3 61.2 77.5 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
87.5 88.7
West Country Hearth 5 98.2 94.8 100.0† Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre
13 98.2 96.4 100.0† Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place
14 97.7 95.1 100.0† Above Above Upper
Garneau Hall 13 96.1 91.0 100.0† Above Above Upper
Rosedale St. Albert 25 93.9 90.5 97.4 Above Above Upper
LifeStyle Options Riverbend 8 93.0 88.3 97.7 Above Above Upper
Shepherd’s Care Kensington 18 92.4 88.5 96.3 Above Above Up. Mid.
Shepherd’s Gardens 21 92.3 86.8 97.9 Above Above Up. Mid.
Place Beausejour 17 92.3 87.2 97.3 Above Above Up. Mid.
Country Cottage Seniors Residence
10 92.2 88.4 95.9 Above Above Up. Mid.
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.
Wild Rose Cottage 10 86.9 80.0 93.9 Below Below Low. Mid.
72
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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.
Lifestyle Options Terra Losa 22 84.9 75.6 94.1 Below Below Lower
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 19 84.6 78.9 90.3 Below Below Lower
Devonshire Manor 25 84.6 76.7 92.5 Below Below Lower
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood
57 83.5 78.9 88.0 Below Below Lower
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre
40 82.8 76.5 89.0 Below Below Lower
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village
18 81.6 72.4 90.8 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite
58 78.4 72.6 84.1 Below Below Lower
Riverbend Retirement Residence 10 75.9 62.9 88.9 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle 38 75.4 67.4 83.4 Below Below Lower
Shepherd’s Care Ashbourne 17 74.8 64.9 84.8 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 3 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
82.6 88.7
Ridgevalley Seniors Home 6 92.2 82.0 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.
Mountain View Centre 15 82.2 69.1 95.3 Below Below Lower
Points West Living Grande Prairie 26 73.3 64.5 82.1 Below Below Lower
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
90.0 88.7
Clearview Lodge 9 99.0 97.1 100.0† Above Above Upper
Orchard Manor 12 97.8 95.2 100.0† Above Above Upper
Sunny South Lodge 12 95.9 91.7 100.0† Above Above Upper
Chinook Lodge 6 92.9 88.0 97.8 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Vista Village 17 92.9 87.7 98.0 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Garden Vista 7 92.5 84.6 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.
Good Samaritan Lee Crest 25 90.7 86.0 95.5 Above Above Up. Mid.
Meadow Lands 9 90.6 81.0 100.0† Above Above Up. Mid.
73
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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.
Haven of Rest - South Country Village
10 89.0 80.8 97.2 Below Above Low. Mid.
The Wellington Retirement Residence
18 88.6 82.9 94.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Columbia Assisted Living 23 87.3 81.2 93.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre
60 87.3 82.5 92.1 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village
25 86.9 81.7 92.1 Below Below Low. Mid.
Legacy Lodge 29 84.2 76.6 91.8 Below Below Lower
Extendicare Fairmont Park 40 83.2 77.7 88.6 Below Below Lower
York Creek Lodge 6 81.6 70.6 92.6 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
74
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
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).
Table 23: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (N = 80 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
87.1-100.0
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 84.1-87.1
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 79.6-84.1
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-79.6
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixE.
75
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=80facilities).
Table 24: Summary of facility means for Care and Services
Calgary
Respondents
(N)
Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 12 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
84.3 82.9
Silver Willow Lodge 11 90.7 84.9 96.5 Above Above Upper
Aspen Ridge Lodge 12 90.2 84.2 96.2 Above Above Upper
Millrise Place 19 86.8 80.4 93.3 Above Above Up. Mid.
Sagewood Supportive Living 19 86.8 81.2 92.3 Above Above Up. Mid.
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court
11 85.8 77.0 94.5 Above Above Up. Mid.
Edgemont Retirement Residence 18 85.3 79.5 91.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
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.
Whitehorn Village 13 81.3 71.2 91.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence
13 81.0 72.6 89.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Monterey Place 33 79.9 74.6 85.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
Walden Supportive Living Community
47 78.4 73.5 83.3 Below Below Lower
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
85.1 82.9
Sunrise Village Wetaskiwin 14 96.8 93.9 99.7 Above Above Upper
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre
10 92.3 87.8 96.8 Above Above Upper
Islay Assisted Living 11 91.5 84.4 98.5 Above Above Upper
Providence Place 7 90.4 82.2 98.5 Above Above Upper
West Park Lodge 20 89.3 85.0 93.7 Above Above Upper
Vermillion Valley Lodge 15 89.0 83.8 94.3 Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 7 88.7 85.5 91.9 Above Above Upper
Sunrise Village Olds 12 88.4 81.6 95.3 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.
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
23 86.7 81.1 92.3 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
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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.
Extendicare Michener Hill 35 81.9 76.1 87.8 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.
Points West Living Lloydminster 27 79.5 72.0 87.0 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Camrose 31 72.7 66.9 78.5 Below Below Lower
Bethany Meadows 10 69.7 57.3 82.0 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
79.4 82.9
West Country Hearth 5 90.6 79.5 100.0† Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place
14 90.1 82.2 98.0 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre
13 88.5 83.6 93.5 Above Above Upper
Rosedale at Griesbach 46 86.4 82.3 90.4 Above Above Up. Mid.
Shepherd’s Care Kensington 19 86.0 81.4 90.6 Above Above Up. Mid.
Rosedale St. Albert 27 85.7 79.9 91.6 Above Above Up. Mid.
Place Beausejour 17 85.4 79.7 91.1 Above Above Up. Mid.
Citadel Mews West 29 84.4 79.7 89.1 Above Above Up. Mid.
Wild Rose Cottage 12 84.2 76.5 92.0 Above Above Up. Mid.
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood
56 82.1 78.2 86.1 Above Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village
18 82.0 73.6 90.5 Above Below Low. Mid.
Devonshire Manor 28 81.6 75.4 87.8 Above Below Low. Mid.
Country Cottage Seniors Residence
11 81.3 74.4 88.3 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
Garneau Hall 15 76.9 66.4 87.4 Below Below Lower
Lifestyle Options Terra Losa 24 76.4 70.6 82.3 Below Below Lower
Glastonbury Village 26 75.8 69.2 82.4 Below Below Lower
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre
41 75.1 68.0 82.2 Below Below Lower
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 19 73.2 65.8 80.6 Below Below Lower
77
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
79.4 82.9
Shepherd’s Care Ashbourne 17 72.1 63.4 80.7 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite
63 71.1 65.8 76.4 Below Below Lower
Riverbend Retirement Residence 10 70.2 57.9 82.5 Below Below Lower
Aspen House 30 65.5 58.8 72.2 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle 36 60.7 52.5 68.8 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 3 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
79.2 82.9
Ridgevalley Seniors Home 7 95.1 88.4 100.0† Above Above Upper
Points West Living Grande Prairie 27 71.8 63.7 80.0 Below Below Lower
Mountain View Centre 16 70.6 61.9 79.3 Below Below Lower
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
84.6 82.9
Chinook Lodge 6 96.1 90.6 100.0† Above Above Upper
Clearview Lodge 11 88.9 82.5 95.3 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Garden Vista 8 87.7 82.4 93.0 Above Above Upper
Good Samaritan Vista Village 17 87.2 79.3 95.1 Above Above Upper
Sunny South Lodge 12 87.1 80.5 93.7 Above Above Upper
Haven of Rest - South Country Village
10 87.0 79.7 94.3 Above Above Up. Mid.
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre
65 86.9 83.5 90.3 Above Above Up. Mid.
Piyami Lodge 7 86.7 79.0 94.5 Above Above Up. Mid.
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village
25 86.2 81.1 91.3 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.
The Wellington Retirement Residence
18 81.6 74.1 89.1 Below Below Low. Mid.
Orchard Manor 13 81.5 73.1 89.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Extendicare Fairmont Park 41 79.3 74.9 83.8 Below Below Lower
78
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
84.6 82.9
Cypress View 8 78.0 70.8 85.2 Below Below Lower
York Creek Lodge 6 71.8 58.4 85.1 Below Below Lower
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesbasedonthemeanextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
79
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
7.12 Laundry
TheLaundryDimensionofCareiscomprisedofthefollowingquestions(detailedzoneresultsofindividualquestionresponsescanbefoundinAppendixI):
(Q33)Doyougetclothingbackfromthelaundry?
(Q34)Doesyourclothingcomebackingoodcondition?
Table26summarizestheLaundryDimensionofCareforfacilitiesthatparticipatedinthesurvey.FacilitiesarepresentedbymeanscoresonLaundryandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.Tobetteraidintheinterpretationofthefindings,thefollowingfeatureshavebeenincludedinthetable:
Beloworabovezonedimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageLaundryscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityscorefortheassociatedzone.
Beloworaboveprovincialdimensionsummarymean:Whetherthefacility’saverageLaundryscoreisaboveorbelowtheaveragefacilityratingfortheprovince.
Quartile:Specifiesthefacility’squartilegroupingrelativetoallfacilitiesintheprovincebasedontheLaundryDimensionofCare(seeTable25foradescriptionofthecategories).
Table 25: Guide for interpretation
Quartile details (N = 80 facilities)
Quartiles Range
Upper (Highest 25% of scores)
97.4-100.0
Upper middle
(50-75th percentile) 92.9-97.4
Lower middle
(25-50th percentile) 88.1-92.9
Lower (Lowest 25% of scores)
0.0-88.1
Note:Categoricaldecisionrulesextendbeyondthefirstdecimalplace.
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixE.
80
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=80facilities).
Table 26: Summary of facility means for Laundry
Calgary
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 12 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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.
Walden Supportive Living Community
23 93.0 88.3 97.7 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.
Monterey Place 15 87.2 79.6 94.7 Below Below Lower
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court
4 86.7 77.6 95.9 Below Below Lower
Aspen Ridge Lodge 7 85.7 74.4 96.9 Below Below Lower
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence
4 85.2 66.6 100.0† Below Below Lower
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
92.7 92.2
Sunrise Village Olds 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Manor at Royal Oak 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Bethany Meadows 5 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Islay Assisted Living 10 98.6 96.0 100.0† 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.
Hillview Lodge 13 93.8 88.0 99.6 Above Above Up. Mid.
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
19 93.1 87.4 98.8 Above Above Up. Mid.
Points West Living Lloydminster 24 92.2 88.2 96.3 Below Above Low. Mid.
Viewpoint 4 91.7 81.9 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
81
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Central
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 22 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
92.7 92.2
Extendicare Michener Hill 16 91.4 81.0 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
Coronation Hospital and Care Centre
6 89.9 77.3 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
Sunset Manor 21 89.2 82.5 95.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Clearwater Centre 9 87.4 76.8 97.9 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Camrose 21 86.9 78.9 95.0 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Ponoka 4 86.7 60.7 100.0† Below Below Lower
Bethany Sylvan Lake 8 85.8 76.1 95.5 Below Below Lower
Sunrise Village Drayton Valley 3 77.8 56.0 99.6 Below Below Lower
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
92.6 92.2
Good Samaritan Spruce Grove Centre
7 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
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
Good Samaritan George Hennig Place
8 98.3 95.0 100.0† 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.
West Country Hearth 3 95.5 86.6 100.0† 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 Kensington 16 92.9 85.9 99.9 Above Above Up. Mid.
Shepherd’s Care Vanguard 5 91.9 81.2 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
Country Cottage Seniors Residence
4 91.7 75.3 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
CapitalCare Laurier House Lynnwood
50 90.8 87.1 94.6 Below Below Low. Mid.
Lifestyle Options Terra Losa 21 90.5 84.6 96.5 Below Below Low. Mid.
Saint Thomas Assisted Living Centre
27 90.2 84.9 95.4 Below Below Low. Mid.
Innovative Housing - Villa Marguerite
40 89.7 85.1 94.2 Below Below Low. Mid.
Wild Rose Cottage 7 89.6 73.2 100.0† Below Below Low. Mid.
82
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
Edmonton
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 25 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
92.6 92.2
Shepherd’s Care Ashbourne 10 88.8 77.9 99.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Wedman House/Village
14 87.0 76.1 98.0 Below Below Lower
Rosedale at Griesbach 22 84.8 77.8 91.9 Below Below Lower
Innovative Housing - 114 Gravelle 19 84.0 74.8 93.2 Below Below Lower
Aspen House 9 74.4 59.0 89.8 Below Below Lower
North
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 3 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
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
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
91.1 92.2
Chinook Lodge 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Clearview Lodge 7 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
Sunny South Lodge 5 100.0 100.0 100.0 Above Above Upper
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
Meadow Lands 7 98.1 94.3 100.0† 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.
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre
48 91.8 87.0 96.6 Above Below Low. Mid.
Good Samaritan Park Meadows Village
17 89.0 82.3 95.8 Below Below Low. Mid.
Legacy Lodge 19 87.0 80.1 94.0 Below Below Lower
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
The Wellington Retirement Residence
8 86.0 74.6 97.3 Below Below Lower
Haven of Rest - South Country Village
4 81.1 49.6 100.0† Below Below Lower
83
FACILITY RESULTS BY GLOBAL OVERALL CARE RATING AND DIMENSIONS OF CARE
South
Respondents
(N) Mean
95% CI Below/above zone mean
(N = 18 facilities)
Below/above provincial
mean
(N = 80 facilities)
Quartile Lower Upper
91.1 92.2
Cypress View 4 78.4 62.9 93.8 Below Below Lower
Piyami Lodge 3 69.1 52.2 86.1 Below Below Lower
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
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
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
Facilitiesi13.6outo(Figure3)
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
intheupperqf100points)).
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
quartileofGlothanfacilitie
Dining Dimen
Environm
quartileofGlonfacilitiesint
nvironment D
Lower
72.2
Lower
86.9
OF CARE AND G
obalOverallCesinthelowe
nsion of Care
ment
obalOverallCthelowerqua
Dimension of
Lower
78
Lower
92
GLOBAL OVERA
Careratingssrquartileon
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
quartileofGlothanfacilitie
mension of C
hip with E
quartileofGlonfacilitiesint
p with Emplo
ower
75.1
Lower
86.1
OF CARE AND G
obalOverallCesinthelowe
Care by Glob
Employees
obalOverallCthelowerqua
yees Dimens
Lower m
79.1
Lower
91
GLOBAL OVERA
Careratingssrquartileon
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
Facilitiesi11.9outo(Figure8)
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
intheupperqf100points)).
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
quartileofGlonfacilitiesint
ironment Dim
cation
quartileofGlothanfacilitie
ation Dimensi
Lower
86.2
Lower
80.7
OF CARE AND G
nt
obalOverallCthelowerqua
mension of C
obalOverallCesinthelowe
ion of Care b
Lower
91
Lower
86
GLOBAL OVERA
CareratingssartileontheF
are by Globa
Careratingssrquartileon
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
quartileofGlonfacilitiesint
ension of Ca
e Respons
quartileofGlothanfacilitie
Responsiven
ower
88.2
Lower
81.2
OF CARE AND G
obalOverallCthelowerqua
are by Global
siveness
obalOverallCesinthelowe
ness Dimens
Lower m
90.8
Lower
87
GLOBAL OVERA
CareratingssartileontheC
Overall Care
Careratingssrquartileon
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
quartileofGlothanfacilitie
Services Dim
quartileofGlonfacilitiesint
imension of C
Lower
75.5
Lower
90.1
OF CARE AND G
obalOverallCesinthelowe
mension of Ca
obalOverallCthelowerqua
Care by Glob
Lower
80
Lower m
91.5
GLOBAL OVERA
Careratingssrquartileon
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
FACILITY-LEVEL EFFECTS: FACILITY SIZE AND OWNERSHIP TYPE
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
Upper (20 facilities) 30 25 35
Upper middle (20 facilities) 73 51 94
Lower middle (20 facilities) 75 54 95
Lower (20 facilities) 74 41 107
99
FACILITY-LEVEL EFFECTS: FACILITY SIZE AND OWNERSHIP TYPE
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
Upper (20 facilities) 33 26 41
Upper middle (20 facilities) 74 44 104
Lower middle (20 facilities) 58 39 77
Lower (20 facilities) 86 61 112
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
Upper (20 facilities) 37 29 45
Upper middle (20 facilities) 70 48 92
Lower middle (20 facilities) 79 49 109
Lower (20 facilities) 66 40 91
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
Upper (20 facilities) 38 28 50
Upper middle (20 facilities) 53 35 72
Lower middle (20 facilities) 77 51 104
Lower (20 facilities) 83 54 112
100
FACILITY-LEVEL EFFECTS: FACILITY SIZE AND OWNERSHIP TYPE
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
Upper (20 facilities) 34 26 43
Upper middle (20 facilities) 61 41 81
Lower middle (20 facilities) 72 48 97
Lower (20 facilities) 84 83 115
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
Upper (20 facilities) 37 29 45
Upper middle (20 facilities) 59 36 82
Lower middle (20 facilities) 81 53 110
Lower (20 facilities) 75 49 100
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
Upper (20 facilities) 33 21 45
Upper middle (20 facilities) 53 39 68
Lower middle (20 facilities) 90 59 122
Lower (20 facilities) 75 51 98
101
FACILITY-LEVEL EFFECTS: FACILITY SIZE AND OWNERSHIP TYPE
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
Upper (20 facilities) 45 26 64
Upper middle (20 facilities) 53 33 74
Lower middle (20 facilities) 65 51 80
Lower (20 facilities) 89 56 122
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
Upper (20 facilities) 32 25 40
Upper middle (20 facilities) 43 29 58
Lower middle (20 facilities) 87 56 118
Lower (20 facilities) 89 66 112
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
Upper (20 facilities) 28 22 34
Upper middle (20 facilities) 76 52 100
Lower middle (20 facilities) 63 37 89
Lower (20 facilities) 84 60 109
102
FACILITY-LEVEL EFFECTS: FACILITY SIZE AND OWNERSHIP TYPE
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
Upper (20 facilities) 31 22 39
Upper middle (20 facilities) 57 39 75
Lower middle (20 facilities) 96 62 129
Lower (20 facilities) 68 49 87
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
FACILITY-LEVEL EFFECTS: FACILITY SIZE AND OWNERSHIP TYPE
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
PROPENSITY TO RECOMMEND FACILITY
Thefollowingtable(Table42)summarizesresidents’propensitytorecommend(YES/NO)foreachfacility.Facilitiesarepresentedbypercentageofrespondentswillingtorecommendthefacilityandaregroupedbyzonetofacilitatecomparisonsatthezoneandprovinciallevel.
Tomaximizethereliabilityoffacility‐levelresultsandtomaintainrespondentanonymity,afacility’sdatawasincludedinfacility‐levelanalysesonlyif:
Thefacilityyieldedfiveormorerespondents,AND
Thefacilityresponsemarginoferrorwasequaltoorlessthan10percentand/orthefacilityhadaresponserateofover50percentamongeligiblerespondents.FormoredetailsonthedeterminationoffacilitysamplereliabilityandforalistoffacilityresponseratesandsamplemarginoferrorsseeAppendixE.
Thetablebelowincludesonlyfacilitieswhichmettheinclusioncriteria(N=80facilities).
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
Wentworth Manor/The Residence and The Court
11 81.8 7.6
Scenic Acres Retirement Residence 11 72.7 6.8
Central Respondents
(N) Percentage willing to
recommend (%) Global Overall Care
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
PROPENSITY TO RECOMMEND FACILITY
Central Respondents
(N)
Percentage willing to recommend (%)
Global Overall Care rating
Sunrise Village Olds 12 100.0 8.7
Hillview Lodge 19 100.0 8.6
Good Samaritan Good Shepherd Lutheran Home
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
Edmonton Respondents
(N) Percentage willing to
recommend (%) Global Overall Care
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
PROPENSITY TO RECOMMEND FACILITY
Edmonton Respondents
(N)
Percentage willing to recommend (%)
Global Overall Care rating
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
(N) Percentage willing to
recommend (%) Global Overall Care
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
(N) Percentage willing to
recommend (%) Global Overall Care
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
St. Therese Villa - St. Michaels Health Centre
63 93.7 8.1
116
PROPENSITY TO RECOMMEND FACILITY
South Respondents
(N) Percentage willing to
recommend (%) Global Overall Care
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
PROPENSITY TO RECOMMEND FACILITY
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
QUALITATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
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
QUALITATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
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
QUALITATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
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
QUALITATIVE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
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
Global Overall Care rating
TheGlobalOverallCareratingreflectsresidents’overallevaluationofthesupportivelivingfacility.TheGlobalOverallCareratingfortheprovincewas7.8outof10.Therewasvariationamongthefacilitiesthroughouttheprovincewithindividualfacilityscoresrangingfrom6.2to9.5outof10.
Attheprovinciallevel,the11DimensionsofCarevaryintheirinfluenceonresidentexperienceandresidents’overallevaluationofthesupportivelivingfacility.ThegreatestgainsattheprovinciallevelmayberealizedbyfocusingonthestrongestinfluencersofGlobalOverallCarewhichwereidentifiedusingaregressionmodel.Thesearelistedinorderofdecreasinginfluenceandinclude:27,28
1. MealsandDining
2. ResidentEnvironment
3. Activities
4. RelationshipwithEmployees
5. FacilityEnvironment
6. Communication
7. Choice
8. EmployeeResponsiveness
9. CareandServices
10. Laundry
27TheGeneralSatisfactionDimensionofCarewasmoststronglyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCare;thisisexpectedgiventhequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCarereflectoverallopinionsaboutthefacility(correlationcoefficientr=0.643).However,withthegoalofidentifyingspecificareasforimprovement,GeneralSatisfaction,andthequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCare,isnotamenabletothistypeofevaluationorinterpretation,limitingitsutilitywhentargetingmeaningfulaspectsofcaretopotentiallychangeforthebenefitofresidents.28Choice,EmployeeResponsiveness,CareandServices,andLaundryDimensionsofCarewerenotsignificantlyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCareratingsintheprovincialanalyses.
127
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
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.
Relationship with Employees
TheRelationshipwithEmployeesDimensionofCarereflectsresidentexperienceswiththecourteousness,friendliness,anddependabilityofemployeesattheirfacility.Thescorefortheprovinceonthisdimensionwas92.2outof100.Individualfacilityscoresrangedfrom76.9to100outof100.TheRelationshipwithEmployeesDimensionofCareaccountedforapproximatelyninepercentofall
128
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
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
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
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
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
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
2. ResidentEnvironment
3. Activities
4. RelationshipwithEmployees
29Forfurtherdetailspleasereferto:http://hqca.ca/surveys/continuing‐care‐experience/30TheGeneralSatisfactionDimensionofCarewasmoststronglyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCare;thisisexpectedgiventhequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCarereflectoverallopinionsaboutthefacility(correlationcoefficientr=0.643).However,withthegoalofidentifyingspecificareasforimprovement,GeneralSatisfactionandthequestionsthatcomprisethisDimensionofCare,isnotamenabletothistypeofevaluationorinterpretation,limitingitsutilitywhentargetingmeaningfulaspectsofcaretopotentiallychangeforthebenefitofresidents.31Choice,EmployeeResponsiveness,CareandServices,andLaundryDimensionsofCarewerenotsignificantlyassociatedwithGlobalOverallCareratingsintheprovincialanalyses.
131
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
5. FacilityEnvironment
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)
‐Nolongerlivesinfacility(n=63)
‐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)
‐Nolongerlivesinfacility(n=32)
‐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
Zone Facility Response rate
(%)
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
Zone Facility Response rate
(%)
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
Relationship with Employees
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?
% Sometimes or Always 83.8 1,435 92.4 207 70.1 262 22.3*
Q48: Overall, do you like living here?
% Sometimes or Always 90.4 1,751 95.7 242 82.3 358 13.4*
Q49: Would you recommend this place to a family member or friend?
% Sometimes or Always 88.9 1,670 98.4 240 76.6 318 21.8*
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
Upper (20 facilities; 258 respondents) 85.8* 84.1 87.5
Upper middle (19 facilities; 464 respondents) 81.0 79.4 82.5
Lower middle (20 facilities; 439 respondents) 78.4 76.8 80.1
Lower (21 facilities; 441 respondents) 72.2 70.2 74.3
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?
% Sometimes or Always 97.5 1,927 99.6 257 94.3 416 5.3*
Q29: Is the food here tasty?
% Sometimes or Always 85.3 1,679 94.5 242 74.7 325 19.8*
Q30: Can you get the foods you like?
% Sometimes or Always 78.1 1,436 86.3 208 69.8 289 16.5*
Q31: Is your food served at the right temperature?
% Sometimes or Always 87.3 1,712 92.5 235 81.6 359 10.9*
Q32: Do you like the way your meals are served here?
% Sometimes or Always 92.0 1,782 97.2 243 85.0 367 12.2*
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)
95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Upper (20 facilities; 256 respondents) 94.2* 93.0 95.4
Upper middle (19 facilities; 456 respondents) 92.9 91.9 93.9
Lower middle (20 facilities; 437 respondents) 92.5 91.5 93.4
Lower (21 facilities; 441 respondents) 86.9 85.5 88.4
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?
% Sometimes or Always 95.8 1,897 98.4 252 94.4 420 4.0*
Q41: Are you satisfied with your room or apartment?
% Sometimes or Always 95.8 1,889 96.9 248 92.3 409 4.6*
Q42: Do you feel safe here?
% Sometimes or Always 97.4 1,930 99.2 254 95.9 425 3.3*
Q43: Are your belongings safe here?
% Sometimes or Always 93.5 1,800 96.8 245 92.7 395 4.1*
Q44: Do you think this is a pleasant place for people to visit?
% Sometimes or Always 96.0 1,828 97.6 246 89.8 377 7.8*
Q45: Is the room temperature comfortable for you?
% Sometimes or Always 91.5 1,804 95.7 245 86.2 380 9.5*
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
Upper (20 facilities; 254 respondents) 86.0* 84.0 88.0
Upper middle (19 facilities; 448 respondents) 82.1 80.4 83.8
Lower middle (20 facilities; 430 respondents) 79.1 77.1 81.0
Lower (21 facilities; 433 respondents) 75.1 73.0 77.2
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?
% Sometimes or Always 81.0 1,502 90.9 219 75.1 310 15.8*
Q2: Do you get enough information about the activities offered here?
% Sometimes or Always 89.4 1,709 93.2 232 87.3 377 5.9*
Q3: Are you satisfied with the activities offered here?
% Sometimes or Always 85.5 1,562 92.4 231 80.1 322 12.3*
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)
95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Upper (20 facilities; 259 respondents) 95.2* 94.1 96.3
Upper middle (19 facilities; 467 respondents) 93.6 92.6 94.6
Lower middle (20 facilities; 442 respondents) 91.1 89.9 92.3
Lower (21 facilities; 448 respondents) 86.1 84.5 87.8
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?
% Sometimes or Always 97.6 1,943 100.0 258 94.1 418 5.9*
Q16: Can you depend on the employees?
% Sometimes or Always 94.2 1,818 98.8 251 88.4 382 10.4*
Q17: Are the people who work here friendly?
% Sometimes or Always 98.6 1,967 99.6 256 96.6 429 3.0*
Q18: Do the employees treat you with respect?
% Sometimes or Always 97.8 1,940 99.6 257 94.8 416 4.8*
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)
95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Upper (20 facilities; 256 respondents) 95.6* 94.7 96.5
Upper middle (19 facilities; 456 respondents) 92.4 91.3 93.4
Lower middle (20 facilities; 436 respondents) 91.6 90.5 92.6
Lower (21 facilities; 442 respondents) 86.2 84.7 87.7
Table 133: Facility 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 %
Q35: Do you like the location of this place?
% Sometimes or Always 92.2 1,718 97.6 242 90.1 374 7.5*
Q36: Are the outside walkways and grounds well taken care of?
% Sometimes or Always 97.1 1,709 99.6 235 96.4 380 3.2*
Q37: Does this place look attractive to you?
% Sometimes or Always 94.7 1,794 97.2 242 89.0 374 8.2*
Q38: Is this place clean enough?
% Sometimes or Always 97.1 1,921 99.2 256 93.0 409 6.2*
Q39: Is this place quiet when it should be?
% Sometimes or Always 95.8 1,891 98.8 253 91.1 401 7.7*
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
Upper (20 facilities; 250 respondents) 92.6* 91.3 94.0
Upper middle (19 facilities; 446 respondents) 88.9 87.7 90.1
Lower middle (20 facilities; 425 respondents) 86.2 84.7 87.8
Lower (21 facilities; 427 respondents) 80.7 78.9 82.5
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?
% Sometimes or Always 89.7 1,590 96.2 229 81.2 320 15.0*
Q24: Do the people in charge treat you with respect?
% Sometimes or Always 97.5 1,850 99.6 247 95.0 398 4.6*
Q25: Would you feel comfortable speaking to the people in charge about a problem?
% Sometimes or Always 91.0 1,723 94.7 232 86.5 360 8.2*
Q26: Do you know who to go to here when you have a problem?
% Sometimes or Always 88.9 1,655 90.8 218 87.5 365 3.3
Q27: Do your problems get taken care of here?
% Sometimes or Always 90.3 1,520 99.5 217 83.6 320 15.9*
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
Upper (20 facilities; 257 respondents) 93.0* 91.9 94.2
Upper middle (19 facilities; 464 respondents) 92.3 91.4 93.2
Lower middle (20 facilities; 446 respondents) 90.8 89.8 91.9
Lower (21 facilities; 449 respondents) 88.2 87.0 89.4
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?
% Sometimes or Always 95.3 1,904 96.1 246 95.1 427 1.0
Q6: Do the employees leave you alone if you don’t want to do anything?
% Sometimes or Always 96.7 1,892 97.6 246 95.7 418 1.9
Q7: Do the people that work here encourage you to do the things you are able to do yourself?
% Sometimes or Always 89.6 1,645 93.5 231 85.5 347 8.0*
Q8: Are you free to come and go as you are able?
% Sometimes or Always 96.5 1,895 96.5 247 96.4 429 0.1
Q9: Are the rules here reasonable?
% Sometimes or Always 95.7 1,827 99.6 249 92.4 400 7.2*
Q10: Can you choose what clothes to wear?
% Sometimes or Always 97.7 1,948 98.1 254 97.8 438 0.3
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)
95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Upper (20 facilities; 251 respondents) 92.3* 90.9 93.7
Upper middle (19 facilities; 451 respondents) 89.0 87.6 90.3
Lower middle (20 facilities; 425 respondents) 87.8 86.4 89.3
Lower (21 facilities; 428 respondents) 81.2 79.3 83.1
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?
% Sometimes or Always 96.7 1,829 99.6 249 93.2 398 6.4*
Q20: During the weekend, are employees available to help you if you need it?
% Sometimes or Always 91.6 1,685 97.1 233 85.0 346 12.1*
Q21: During the evening and night, are employees available to help you if you need it?
% Sometimes or Always 94.2 1,676 98.3 232 90.2 360 8.1*
Q22: Do you feel confident that employees know how to do their jobs?
% Sometimes or Always 94.4 1,832 99.6 254 87.9 379 11.7*
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
Upper (20 facilities; 256 respondents) 87.6* 86.0 89.1
Upper middle (19 facilities; 455 respondents) 84.2 82.8 85.5
Lower middle (20 facilities; 440 respondents) 80.9 79.4 82.5
Lower (21 facilities; 440 respondents) 75.5 73.6 77.3
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?
% Sometimes or Always 83.8 1,464 93.3 210 74.8 300 18.5*
Q12: Do you get your medications on time?
% Sometimes or Always 97.7 1,812 99.2 243 95.2 393 4.0*
Q13: Do employees explain your care and services to you?
% Sometimes or Always 79.6 1,436 87.7 206 76.5 315 11.2*
Q14: Do the employees who take care of you know what you like and don’t like?
% Sometimes or Always 89.7 1,594 95.8 228 82.9 329 12.9*
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)
95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Upper (20 facilities; 143 respondents) 94.4* 92.4 96.4
Upper middle (19 facilities; 248 respondents) 90.9 89.1 92.7
Lower middle (20 facilities; 255 respondents) 91.5 89.6 93.3
Lower (21 facilities; 255 respondents) 90.1 88.3 91.9
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?
% Sometimes or Always 98.0 1,114 99.3 139 97.6 246 1.7
Q34: Does your clothing come back in good condition?
% Sometimes or Always 96.6 1,098 97.9 137 96.4 240 1.5
273
APPENDIX L
L.12 Additional Questions by Global Overall Care rating quartile
Table 144: Additional Questions - by Global Overall Care rating quartile
Questions Provincial Total
Upper quartile
20 facilities
Lower quartile
21 facilities
Upper minus Lower
% n % n % n %
Q51: Can you see a doctor if you need to?
% Sometimes or Always 92.5 1,674 96.2 228 91.1 368 5.1*
Q52: Are you able to get transportation to or from medical appointments?
% Sometimes or Always 89.7 1,471 90.2 194 89.0 323 1.3
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?
% Sometimes or Always
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?
% Sometimes or Always 95.7 1,864 97.6 249 94.7 408 3.0
Q57: If you are unhappy with something, or if you want to change something about your care, do you know who to contact?
% Sometimes or Always
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
Linear Prediction Facilities Site Level Facility Mean (85.2)
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
Linear Prediction Facilities Site Level Facility Mean (91.6)
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
Linear Prediction Facilities Site Level Facility Mean (81.1)
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
Linear Prediction Facilities Site Level Facility Mean (91.6)
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
Note:Facilitiesinyellowareidentifiedoutliers,identifiedviaboxplotandweregreaterthanthreestandarddeviationsfromthemeanor1.5timestheinterquartilerange.Facilitymeansofoutlierfacilitiesdidnotsignificantlydifferfromfacilitiesthatwerenotoutliers;however,thelinearprediction(red)excludesthesefacilities.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
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
Linear Prediction Facilities Site Level Facility Mean (91.4)
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
Linear Prediction Facilities Site Level Facility Mean (88.7)
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
Linear Prediction Facilities Site Level Facility Mean (82.9)
Adj‐R2 = 0.062
280
APPENDIX M
Figure 128: Laundry as a function of facility size
Note:Facilitiesinyellowareidentifiedoutliers,identifiedviaboxplotandweregreaterthanthreestandarddeviationsfromthemeanor1.5timestheinterquartilerange.Facilitymeansofoutlierfacilitiesdidnotsignificantlydifferfromfacilitiesthatwerenotoutliers;however,thelinearprediction(red)excludesthesefacilities.
Figure 129: Propensity to recommend as a function of facility size
Note:Facilitiesinyellowareidentifiedoutliers,identifiedviaboxplotandweregreaterthanthreestandarddeviationsfromthemeanor1.5timestheinterquartilerange.Facilitymeansofoutlierfacilitiesdidnotsignificantlydifferfromfacilitiesthatwerenotoutliers;however,thelinearprediction(red)excludesthesefacilities.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
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?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 94.5 85.2 80.8
%Vol < %AHS and %Priv
N 117 880 715
Q48: Overall, do you like living here?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 94.5 91.3 88.6
%Vol < %AHS
N 128 1,009 800
Q49: Would you recommend this place to a family member or friend?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 95.2 90.0 86.5
%Vol < %AHS and %Priv
N 126 981 771
Table 146: Facility ownership – Meals and Dining
Questions Measure AHS Private Voluntary Significant differences
Q28: Do you get enough to eat?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 97.7 97.9 97.1
N 129 1,033 814
Q29: Is the food here tasty?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 83.5 87.3 83.1
%Vol < %Priv
N 127 1,029 812
Q30: Can you get the foods you like?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 76.1 81.4 74.1
% Vol < % Priv
N 117 964 758
Q31: Is your food served at the right temperature?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 91.3 86.1 88.1
N 127 1,026 809
Q32: Do you like the way that your meals are served here?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 95.2 93.6 89.4
%Vol < %AHS and %Priv
N 125 1,011 802
282
APPENDIX N
Table 147: Facility ownership – Resident Environment
Questions Measure AHS Private Voluntary Significant differences
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?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 97.6 96.3 94.9
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?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 89.5 94.3 93.1
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?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 93.8 91.7 90.9
N 130 1,024 817
Table 148: Facility ownership – Activities
Questions Measure AHS Private Voluntary Significant differences
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?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 92.1 89.7 88.6
N 127 996 789
Q3: Are you satisfied with the activities offered here?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 86.0 85.5 85.5
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
Questions Measure AHS Private Voluntary Significant differences
Q15: Are the employees courteous to you?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 96.2 97.9 97.6
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?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 99.2 98.6 98.7
N 131 1,041 822
Q18: Do the employees treat you with respect?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 96.9 98.7 96.8 %Vol < %Priv
N 130 1,035 819
Table 150: Facility ownership – Facility Environment
Questions Measure AHS Private Voluntary Significant differences
Q35: Do you like the location of this place?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 95.9 91.8 92.0
N 121 964 779
Q36: Are the outside walkways and grounds well taken care of?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 98.3 96.9 97.2
N 115 888 757
Q37: Does this place look attractive to you?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 98.4 96.4 92.0 %Vol < %Priv
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?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 94.5 96.9 94.7 %Vol < %Priv
N 127 1,031 815
284
APPENDIX N
Table 151: Facility ownership – Communication
Questions Measure AHS Private Voluntary Significant differences
Q23: Are the people in charge available to talk with you?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 80.1 91.0 88.2
N 110 918 745
Q24: Do the people in charge treat you with respect?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 100.0 97.6 97.0
N 118 986 794
Q25: Would you feel comfortable speaking to the people in charge about a problem?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 88.8 91.9 90.1
N 125 981 788
Q26: Do you know who to go to here when you have a problem?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 91.9 89.1 88.3
N 123 960 778
Q27: Do your problems get taken care of here?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 90.1 90.4 90.1
N 111 856 717
Table 152: Facility ownership – Choice
Questions Measure AHS Private Voluntary Significant differences
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?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 96.0 97.2 96.2
N 126 1,020 811
Q7: Do the people who work here encourage you to do the things you are able to do yourself?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 90.0 89.9 89.2
N 120 959 757
Q8: Are you free to come and go as you are able?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 95.2 96.3 96.9
N 126 1,022 816
Q9: Are the rules here reasonable?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 96.2 96.3 94.9
N 130 995 784
Q10: Can you choose what clothes to wear?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 96.9 89.2 97.2
N 130 1,041 823
285
APPENDIX N
Table 153: Facility ownership – Employee Responsiveness
Questions Measure AHS Private Voluntary Significant differences
Q19: During the week, are employees available to help you if you need it?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 95.2 97.3 96.3
N 126 984 781
Q20: During the weekend, are employees available to help you if you need it?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 91.0 91.9 91.3
N 122 945 773
Q21: During the evening and night, are employees available to help you if you need it?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 94.2 94.3 94.0
N 120 907 753
Q22: Do you feel confident that employees know how to do their jobs?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 96.8 95.3 92.8 %Vol < %Priv
N 126 1,004 811
Table 154: Facility ownership – Care and Services
Questions Measure AHS Private Voluntary Significant differences
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?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 97.6 97.8 97.5
N 124 965 766
Q13: Do employees explain your care and services to you?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 86.6 79.1 79.0
N 119 933 753
Q14: Do the employees who take care of you know what you like and you don’t like?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 94.1 90.5 88.1
N 119 913 745
Table 155: Facility ownership – Laundry
Questions Measure AHS Private Voluntary Significant differences
Q33: Do you get your clothing back from the laundry?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 99.0 98.9 96.9
N 99 528 510
Q24: Does your laundry come back in good condition?
% Yes Always/Sometimes 98.0 95.9 97.0
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