Design and Operation of the 2010 National Survey of Residential Care Facilities. APPENDIX XXVI: Chain Approval Report

11/01/2011

Preload
1 Number of facilities linked to chains a   1,455  
2 Number of chainsa 1,062
Chain Approval Needed/Requested
3 Number of chains where approval neededb 74
4 Number of chains in line 3 who contacted NCHS to refusec 1
  Request rate (rows 3+4/row 2) 7.0%
Current Status of Scientific Staff Efforts
  Pending cases
3a Chain is new; has not been worked yet by scientific staff 8
3b Chain approval unnecessary; scientific staff stopped workd 23
3c Scientific staff not yet contacted chain 0
3d Scientific staff contact to chain is in process 12
3d_1 Scientific staff contact to chain is not being pursued due to risk of a chain-wide refusal that would impact multiple other facilities in the chain   4
3e Chain is consulting corporate counsel 0
  Final cases
3f Final: Chain refused to participate 8
4f Among line 4 chains 0
3g Final: Chain agreed to participate 16
4g Among line 4 chains 0
3h Final: Chain was never reached by scientific staff 3
4h Among line 4 chains 0
  Agreement rate (row 3g/(row 3-row 3b)) 31.4%
Facilities Linked to Chains
    Total Facilities in
  Sample Linked to Chainse  		   Actual Number of  
Impacted Facilitiesf
3a.1 Facilities linked to 3a 18 11
3c.1 Facilities linked to 3c 0 0
3d.1 Facilities linked to 3d 31 21
3d.1_1   Facilities linked to 3d_1 64 16
3e.1 Facilities linked to 3e 0 0
3f.1 Facilities linked to 3f 53 53
3g.1 Facilities linked to 3g 80 49
3h.1 Facilities linked to 3h 7 6
4.1 Facilities linked to 4 9 9
4f.1 Facilities linked to 4f 0 0
4g.1 Facilities linked to 4g 0 0
4h.1 Facilities linked to 4h 0 0
5 Sum 3a.1, 3c.1, 3d.1, 3e.1, 3f.1, 3g.1, 3h.1   262 165
NOTES:
  1. Based on information from preload frame.
  2. Requested by recruiter, interviewer, NCHS, or chain.
  3. This reflects a national chain that, immediately after recruiters began making phone calls, contacted NCHS to refuse participation for all their facilities. They provide a list of all facilities in their chain that we cross-referenced to 24 facilities in the sample. These 24 facilities were put on hold. Although the project director contacted this chain to explain the study, the chain never took his calls. The 24 facilities were not pursued or completed.
  4. Scientific staff did not pursue these chains because (a) the approval required was for an offsite administrator rather than a chain, so the recruiter was able to follow up, or (b) the facility decided to participate before scientific staff contacted the chain office.
  5. Based on manual examination, not based on preload.
  6. Impacted facilities are fewer for some categories compared to total facilities in the sample linked to chains because some affiliated facilities did not report needing chain approval.

 

View full report

Preview
Download

"NSRCFdo.pdf" (pdf, 8.47Mb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®

Tags: 
Disability, Aging and Long-Term Care ResearchPublicationsWhat's NewHealth Services, FormalAssisted Living/Congregate CareHighlighted IssuesAssisted Living/Residential CareLong-Term Care