Residents Improved in Ability to Communicate
Higher is better; it means that a higher percentage of long-term care residents improved in their ability to communicate.
Percentage of residents whose ability to communicate improved on their target assessment compared with their prior assessment
Unit of Analysis: Resident
Residents with valid assessments whose communication could improve (did not have minimum score on prior assessment), excluding comatose and end-of-life residents
Residents with a lower combined score for ability to understand others and making self understood on their target assessment compared with their prior assessment
Data
The CCRS eReports provide authorized users with secure and timely access to key clinical administrative information from the Continuing Care Reporting System (CCRS). The reports are available to organizations submitting data to CCRS, their health authorities and ministries of health, and are updated on a quarterly basis. The Integrated interRAI Reporting System Long-Term Care (IRRS LTC) Secure Reporting tool aggregates pan-Canadian long-term care data from LTC homes. Authorized users can explore organization-level data, compare results with peers within and across jurisdictions and see trends over time.
Methodology
Name
Residents Improved in Ability to Communicate
Short/Other Names
Percentage of Residents Whose Ability to Communicate Improved (COM1A)
Description
This indicator looks at how many long-term care residents improved in their ability to communicate compared with their prior assessment. An improvement in ability to communicate may indicate an improvement in overall health status.
Rationale
Long-term care quality indicators were developed by , an international research network, to provide organizations with measures of quality across key domains, including physical and cognitive function, safety and quality of life. Each indicator is adjusted for resident characteristics that are related to the outcome and that are independent of quality of care. The indicators can be used by quality leaders to drive continuous improvement efforts. They are also used to communicate with key stakeholders through report cards and accountability agreements.
Interpretation
Higher is better; it means that a higher percentage of long-term care residents improved in their ability to communicate.
HSP Framework Dimension
ºìÁì½í¹Ï±¨ system outputs: Appropriate and effective
Areas of Need
Living With Illness, Disability or Reduced Function
Targets/Benchmarks
CIHI: None
Available Data Years
Geographic Coverage
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- New Brunswick
- Nova Scotia
- Ontario
- Manitoba
- Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Yukon
Reporting Level/Disaggregation
- Province/Territory
- Region
- Facility
- Corporation
- Sector (residential and hospital-based continuing care)
Indicator Results
Web Tool:
CCRS eReports (RAI-MDS 2.0)
Web Tool:
IRRS LTC Secure Reporting tool
Update Frequency
Monthly (IRRS LTC Secure Reporting tool)
Quarterly (CCRS eReports)
Updates
Not applicable
Description
Percentage of residents whose ability to communicate improved on their target assessment compared with their prior assessment
Unit of Analysis: Resident
Type of Measurement
Percentage or proportion
Denominator
Description:
Residents with valid assessments whose communication could improve (did not have minimum score on prior assessment), excluding comatose and end-of-life residents
Inclusions:
Residents with valid assessments. To be considered valid, the target assessment must
- Be the latest assessment in the quarter
- Be carried out more than 92 days after the Admission Date
- Not be an Admission Full Assessment (RAI-MDS 2.0) or First Assessment (interRAI LTCF)
As this is an incidence indicator, the resident must also have had an assessment in the previous quarter, with 45 to 165 days between the target and prior assessments. If multiple assessments in the previous quarter meet the time period criteria, the latest assessment is selected as the prior assessment.
Exclusions:
- Residents who are comatose (RAI-MDS 2.0: B1 = 1; interRAI LTCF: C1 = 5), end-stage (RAI-MDS 2.0: J5c = 1; interRAI LTCF: J6c = 1) or receiving hospice/palliative care (RAI-MDS 2.0: P1ao = 1; interRAI LTCF: O2m = 2, 3)
Numerator
Description:
Residents with a lower combined score for ability to understand others and making self understood on their target assessment compared with their prior assessment
Inclusions:
Residents with valid assessments. To be considered valid, the target assessment must
- Be the latest assessment in the quarter
- Be carried out more than 92 days after the Admission Date
- Not be an Admission Full Assessment (RAI-MDS 2.0) or First Assessment (interRAI LTCF)
As this is an incidence indicator, the resident must also have had an assessment in the previous quarter, with 45 to 165 days between the target and prior assessments. If multiple assessments in the previous quarter meet the time period criteria, the latest assessment is selected as the prior assessment.
Exclusions:
- Residents who are comatose (RAI-MDS 2.0: B1 = 1; interRAI LTCF: C1 = 5), end-stage (RAI-MDS 2.0: J5c = 1; interRAI LTCF: J6c = 1) or receiving hospice/palliative care (RAI-MDS 2.0: P1ao = 1; interRAI LTCF: O2m = 2, 3)
Method of Adjustment
Direct standardization
Stratification, indirect standardization
Standard population
3,000 facilities in 6 U.S. states and 92 residential care facilities and continuing care hospitals in Nova Scotia and Ontario
Adjustment Applied
Covariates used in risk adjustment:
Individual covariates:
- Personal Severity Index (PSI): Subset 1 — Diagnoses
- Age younger than 65
Facility-level stratification: Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS)
Geographic Assignment
Place of service
Data Sources
Caveats and Limitations
This measure uses data collected by long-term care facilities using the Resident Assessment Instrument–Minimum Data Set 2.0 (RAI-MDS 2.0) and submitted to the Continuing Care Reporting System (CCRS), or using the interRAI Long-Term Care Facilities (interRAI LTCF) assessment and submitted to the Integrated interRAI Reporting System (IRRS).
Certain provinces and territories have transitioned to or are in the process of transitioning to the newer interRAI LTCF assessment instrument (see Trending Issues for more information). For a number of years, the national average (where available) will be based on both assessment instruments. To support inclusion of interRAI LTCF assessment data in public reporting, ºìÁì½í¹Ï±¨has completed an analysis to understand similarities and differences between the 2 assessment instruments. Overall, indicator results are comparable and appropriate to be trended over time and across instruments.
Trending Issues
The number of long-term care homes and jurisdictions submitting data to ºìÁì½í¹Ï±¨varies over time and has been generally increasing. Furthermore, as long-term care homes transition from the RAI-MDS 2.0 to the interRAI LTCF, there may be changes in data coverage that can impact the results (see more details below). Time series changes must be interpreted carefully, particularly when comparing the national average over time and when comparing provincial/territorial averages over the transition to the new assessment instrument. Please note that indicator results are risk-adjusted to control for population differences (factors that are beyond the facility’s control but that can affect resident outcomes) to enable more appropriate and fair comparisons of the actual quality of care. Please refer to CCRS Quality Indicators Risk Adjustment Methodology in the References section for more information.
Use of interRAI LTCF: As jurisdictions transition to/adopt the interRAI LTCF, there may be disruptions or delays in data submission to CIHI, which can impact the coverage of data and therefore indicator results. A summary of interRAI LTCF transition/adoption by jurisdiction is provided below for reference:
- Nova Scotia started the transition in 2022; the transition is ongoing.
- New Brunswick completed adoption between 2016 and 2017 and started submitting data to IRRS in 2019.
- Saskatchewan completed the transition in 2019 and 2020 and started submitting data to IRRS in 2020.
- Alberta started the transition in 2021; the transition is ongoing. Currently, only data from the RAI-MDS 2.0 is submitted to ºìÁì½í¹Ï±¨(CCRS) and included in reporting.
ºìÁì½í¹Ï±¨recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected many long-term care homes across Canada, including their ability to complete assessments and/or submit data to CIHI. Available data may vary by jurisdiction and facility. Results should be interpreted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
References
Canadian Institute for ºìÁì½í¹Ï±¨ Information. CCRS Quality Indicators Risk Adjustment Methodology (PDF). 2013.
ºìÁì½í¹Ï±¨ Quality Ontario.. Accessed October 4, 2017.
ºìÁì½í¹Ï±¨ Quality Ontario.. 2013.
ºìÁì½í¹Ï±¨ Quality Ontario. 2017.
Hirdes JP, Mitchell L, Maxwell CJ, White N. . Canadian Journal on Aging. 2011.
Hirdes JP, Poss JW, Caldarelli H, et al. . BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2013.
Jones RN, Hirdes JP, Poss JW, et al. . BMC ºìÁì½í¹Ï±¨ Services Research. 2010.
How to cite:
Canadian Institute for ºìÁì½í¹Ï±¨ Information. Residents Improved in Ability to Communicate. Accessed April 19, 2025.
If you would like ºìÁì½í¹Ï±¨information in a different format, visit our Accessibility page.
Comments
The long-term care quality indicators use 4 rolling quarters of data for calculations in order to have a sufficient number of assessments for risk adjustment. Since residents are assessed on a quarterly basis, each resident can contribute to the indicator up to 4 times.