Skip to main content
. 2013 Jan 15;3(2):189–199. doi: 10.1007/s13142-013-0194-3

Table 4.

Mealtime care process measures: percent pass rates overall by study phase (n = 130)

Care process measures Baseline (NM = 1,510) Intervention (NM = 1,504) Follow-up (NM = 1,498)
% Pass (n/d) OR (95 % CI) % Pass (n/d) OR (95 % CI) % Pass (n/d) OR (95 % CI)
Missed observations 3.2 % (50 of 1,560) 3.6 % (56 of 1,560) 4.0 % (62 of 1,560)
Ate <50 % 33.3 % (503/1,510) 33.3 % (502/1,504) 35.6 % (533/1,498)
Ate <50 % and chart ≤60 %a 56.7 % (285/503) 66.7 % (335/502) 0.71 (0.55, 0.89) 61.9 % (330/533) 0.85 (0.64, 1.13)
Ate <50 % and alternativea 3.2 % (16/503) 7.6 % (38/502) 0.42 (0.24, 0.74) 7.5 % (40/533) 0.40 (0.24, 0.68)
Assistance required 34.7 % (524/1,510) 33.6 % (505/1,504) 34.7 % (519/1,498)
Assistance required and >5 min receiveda 54.2 % (284/524) 61.4 % (310/505) 0.76 (0.59, 0.96) 61.5 % (319/519) 0.81 (0.51, 1.32)
If physical, then also verbal 94.6 % (300/317) 97.4 % (341/350) 0.42 (0.13, 1.16) 96.3 % (341/354) 0.63 (0.24, 1.42)
Social interaction presenta 42.7 % (645/1,510) 47.2 % (710/1,504) 0.83 (0.73, 0.95) 45.4 % (680/1,498) 0.92 (0.79, 1.05)

Missed observations: Research staff attempted to observe each participant for a total of 12 meals per person per phase. The most common reason for a missed meal observation was due to the resident being “out of the facility” (e.g., medical appointment, hospital, family visit) for the entirety of the meal period.

NM total number of resident-meal observations completed across all study participants; n/d numerator/denominator for total number of resident meals scored for each measure; OR (95 % CI) odds ratio and 95 % confidence intervals (upper, lower)

aSignificant difference from baseline to intervention/follow-up