By Mary Hopfner-Thomas / Posted on November 10th, 2015
The LeadingAge Conference last week in Boston was attended by over 8,000 participants! It is one of the largest conference for aging services professionals. The Green House Project team attends every year and also participates as an exhibitor. We enjoyed seeing many of our Green House adopters and friends in long term care.
Enjoy the story below from Dr. Eleanor Barbera of McKnight’s, she visited the Leonard Florence Center for Living Green House homes and has written about The Green House Project in the past.
Despite the diversity of the events I attended during my brief visit to the LeadingAge convention in Boston last week, a theme clearly emerged. The thread that ran through the varied offerings was well-being.
In researcher and consultant Joanne L. Smikle, PhD‘s talk on staff retention, rather than focusing on why employees are leaving, she looked instead at why they stay.
Based on her studies of long-term care organizations, she found that “if the leadership of the organization lacks passion, you will have trouble with retention and commitment.”
By Mary Hopfner-Thomas / Posted on July 29th, 2015
The once a decade White House Conference on Aging, held on July 13th, was truly a “virtual” event! All of the presentations and panels were live streamed—with over 700 “Watch Parties” taking place across the country. Perhaps YOU participated in one. 10,000 Twitter users contributed to the dialogue that day letting the world know their thoughts and reactions to the speakers by using the hashtag #WHCOA.
President Obama spoke during the event noting that one of the best measures of a country is how it treats its older citizens and noted that our country’s greatest triumphs are the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs.
LeadingAge was just one organization which hosted a watch party. They compiled their top 10 highlights from the event:
- A Call for Caregiver Support Systems
- CMS Proposed Rule: Reform of Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities
- HHS Secretary Announces Funding for Workforce
Click here to read their entire list of highlights and details about each one!
By Meaghan McMahon / Posted on May 26th, 2015
The Older Americans Act (OAA) authorization has been expired for the last four years. The services and programs that are receiving funding under the Act are in desperate need of increased resources to fund the nearly 12 million older adults in this country that wish to remain in their homes and local communities. To celebrate the 50th anniversary of the OAA, LeadingAge has asked its members and supporters of Older Americans Month to contact their elected officials and ask that they fund, renew and protect OAA services.
LeadingAge has provided the following message that can be delivered to lawmakers:
“The Older Americans Act is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. As a constituent, I urge Senator/Representative_____ to fund, renew, and protect the Older Americans Act by restoring appropriations to at least the fiscal year 2010 levels, passing a bipartisan reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, and removing the continued threat of across-the-board sequestration cuts. Thank you for your consideration.”
Looking for more ways to get involved? Visit the LeadingAge Advocacy website page.
By Lauren Cohen / Posted on October 31st, 2014
The Green House Project has partnered with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s THRIVE (The Research Initiative Valuing Eldercare) collaborative to learn more about the Green House model as well as other models of care. Supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the THRIVE team is conducting a series of interrelated research projects that together will comprise the largest research effort undertaken to date in Green House homes. Each quarter, a member of the THRIVE team will contribute a blog post to the Green House Project website.
Data collection for the THRIVE projects is now complete, and the research team is analyzing the results. The THRIVE team will share research findings in upcoming articles in a special issue of the journal Health Services Research, and through conference and webinar presentations and blog posts. In 2014, conference presentations will include those at annual meetings of LeadingAge (October), and the Gerontological Society of America, and the Green House (both in November). This blog post is part of our series devoted to explaining research terms so that non-researchers can better understand these articles, presentations, and posts. This post focuses on quantitative research – research based in numbers – and explains the important topic of “significance.”
Quantitative research findings are often discussed in terms of their statistical significance. What does it mean to say a finding is significant?
Let’s consider an example. A researcher thinks that there may be more female than male elders living in Green House homes. This hunch is called a hypothesis. The researcher visits all the Green House homes in the state, tallies the numbers of females (85) and males (15) and performs a statistical test to compare males and females. The statistical test will result in a p-value (probability value) expressing whether the difference is large enough to indicate that it isn’t just by chance.
To better understand what it means to have a “large enough” difference, think of it this way: if the number of females was 52, and the number of males was 48, the difference between these numbers is pretty small, and it’s not likely statistically significant. The question is, is the difference between 85 and 15 large enough to suggest that there are statistically more females than males living in Green House homes? A difference of 85 to 15 is probably large enough to not be by chance (i.e., it is statistically significant), whereas a difference of 52 to 48 is so small that it quite likely occurred by chance.
It’s also important to realize that findings that are statistically significant may not be clinically significant. Clinical significance means that the information is important for clinical care. In terms of care, does it matter that there are more females than males residing in Green House homes? It does matter, for example, if women tend to be more depressed than men, or to have more family members. However, if there are no clinical implications related to the difference, than they are statistically, but not clinically, significant.
The bottom line is that it’s important to carefully consider the meaning of all findings, and use your knowledge and judgment to interpret when differences matter and when they don’t.
Stay tuned for the next THRIVE blog post. In the meantime, if you have questions about this post, or suggestions for future ones, please let us know.
Questions about THRIVE can be directed to Lauren Cohen (firstname.lastname@example.org or 919-843-8874).
By Scott Brown / Posted on June 20th, 2014
Take any urban myth, such as the popular one about alligators living in the sewers; people talk about it, but nobody has seen it. The urban myth about Green House homes is that they are not financially viable because they are too expensive to build, and too expensive to run. But when you really look at it, the facts don’t support the myth, according to Scott Townsley, Principal, CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP, in a presentation at LeadingAge of Pennsylvania.
Public perception of nursing homes continues to be negative. Despite that, occupancy remains pretty high. Nursing homes have benefited from Certificates of Need, which peg nursing home bed supply to demand. Nursing homes have never had to worry about marketing a product that the public didn’t want – demand is guaranteed.
Over the next 10-15 years, utilization will decrease, according to Townsley, meaning that supply will outstrip demand. Consumers will have more choice and nursing homes will have to compete to keep rooms filled. To succeed, something will need to change. And Green House homes represent one of the biggest innovations – and opportunities – for operators. Research shows that consumers will drive farther and pay more for Green House homes compared to traditional nursing homes.
The Green House model is not just about doing good – you can do well. In addition to deep culture change, person-centered care, a unique residential environment, and better quality of life, Green House homes also generate better outcomes, improve payor mix and increase occupancy.
In most cases, the urban myth about Green House homes is based on nothing more than rumors or a cursory review.
For example, in a strategy review and financial analysis performed by CliftonLarsonAllen for a struggling provider, they looked at the impact of incremental strategy improvements vs. conversion to Green House homes. With the incremental approach, the organization was out of business by 2019. By building Green House homes and improving occupancy and payor mix, and getting a higher private pay rate – typical results with the Green House model – the organization will turn around and ultimately thrive.
St. Johns Homes near Rochester, New York demonstrates the financial impact of Green House homes. Susan Frazier presented a case study comparing St. Johns traditional nursing home to their recently developed Green House homes. The Green House homes are generating improvements in occupancy and payor mix, with exemplary survey results, at operating costs that are 30% lower PPD than the legacy nursing home.
Don’t fall for the urban myth about Green House homes. With 152 Green House homes in operation, and another 150 under development, the facts tell a different story.
By Rachel Scher McLean / Posted on November 1st, 2013
Over the past 10 years, we’ve worked to change the way elders live in long term care. Currently, there are 153 open and operating Green House homes 25 states with many more in development. In fact there are 24 more homes scheduled to open in 2014, and we are gaining momentum. Because of these innovations, over 1550 elders are able to live, grow and thrive in real home environments where they are able to give and receive the care that they need.
In honor of our 10th Anniversary, we reached out to 10 thought leaders in the field of aging, and asked them to share their perspective on the impact that The Green House model has made on aging and long term care. Below you will see the support that they voiced for this model, and the work that has been done to move the field forward.
Thank you to everyone who contributed to this strong statement that Aging and Long-Term Care can be different.
- Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, MD, MBA, President and CEO, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
- Audrey Weiner, DSW, MPH, President and CEO, Jewish Home Lifecare in New York
- Larry Minnix, President and CEO, LeadingAge
- Vivian Vasallo, Vice President Housing Impact Program, AARP Foundation
- Carol Shockley, Director of the Office of Long Term Care, Medical Services, Arkansas Department of Human Services
- Dr. David Gifford, MD, MPH, Senior Vice President of Quality and Regulatory Affairs, AHCA/NCAL
- Dr. Judah Ronch, PhD, Dean and Professor, Erickson School of Aging at University of Maryland Baltimore County
- Meg LaPorte, Managing Editor, Provider Magazine
- Patrick Sullivan, Director, James A. Lovell Federal Health Center
- Mary Jane Koren, MD, MPH, Vice President, Delivery System Reform, The Commonwealth Fund
By Rachel Scher McLean / Posted on October 22nd, 2012
The winners of the 2012 LeadingAge Awards embody the LeadingAge promise, to “Inspire. Serve. Advocate.” As a pioneer of culture change, and innovative care for elders, Steve McAlilly is an extremely deserving recipient. The Green House Project joins Leading Age in honoring this extraordinary leader, who has changed the landscape of skilled nursing care. Click here to read the full article.