Joint Commission Accreditation and Quality Measures in U.S. Nursing Homes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the association between accreditation and select measures of quality in U.S. nursing homes, both cross-sectionally and over time. Data analyzed in this research originated from a web-based search of The Joint Commission (TJC) accredited facilities and the Nursing Home Compare set of Quality Measures relating to physical restraint use, pain management, urinary catheter use, and pressure sores. Five-Star Nursing Home Quality Rating System information was also used to calculate overall quality measure and health inspection scores. Data were analyzed using negative binomial regression. Comparing quality in the year before accreditation with the 1st year after accreditation, all five Quality Measures and both Five-Star categories demonstrated improvement. In comparing quality after 8 years of accreditation, three of the Quality Measures examined continued to improve. There were no cases where accreditation was associated with decreased quality. These results indicate that TJC accredited nursing homes improve their quality immediately after accreditation but do not continue to improve in all areas over time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it