NATIONAL CENTER Series 12 

For HEALTH STATISTICS I Number 1s 

VITAL andHEALTHSTATISTICS 

DATA FROM THE NATIONAL HEALTH SURVEY 

Marital Status and 

living Arrangements 

BeforeAdmissionto Nursingand 

PersonaCa l reHomes 

UnitedStates - May-June1964 

Statistics on marital status and living arrangements before admission 

to nursing and personal care homes by type of care received, primary 

type of service, number of chronic conditions and impairments, selected chronic conditions and impairments, length of stay, frequency 

of visitors, age, and sex. Based on data collected during May-June 

1964. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 

Public Health Service 

Health Services and Mental Health Administration 

Washington, D.C. May 1969 
Public Hcdth Service Publication No. 1OOO-Seriw I%No. 12 

For sale by the Superintendent. of Document_;, II.S. Goverwent Yrintin;! Irfl’icc 

Washingtan, D.C., Xt403 - Price 50 cent= 
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS 

THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, Director 

PHILIP S. LAWRENCE, Sc.D., Associate Director 

OSWALD K. SAGEN, PH.D.,, Assistant Director for Health Statistics Development 

WALT R. SIMMONS, M.A., Assistant Director for Research and Scienti/ic Development 

ALICE M. WATERHOUSE, M.D., Medical Consultant 

JAMES E. KELLY, D.D.S., Dental Advisor 

EDWARD E. MINTY, Executive Officer 

MARGERY R. CUNNINGHAM, information Officer 

DIVISION OF HEALTH RESOURCES STATISTICS 

SIEGFRIED A. HOERMANN, Director 

PETER L. HURLEY, Chief, Health Facilities Statistics Branch 

JACQUELINE GLEASON,M.A., Chief, Health Manpower Statistics Branch 

EDYTHE GRAY, M.A., Chief, Hospital Discharge Survey Branch 

COOPERATION OF THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 

Under the legislation establishing the Sational Health 

Survey, the PublicHealth Service is authorized to use, insofar 

as possible, the services or facilities of other Federal, State. 

or private agencies. 

In accordance with specifications established by the 

National Center for Health Statistics, the Bureau of the Ccnsus, under a contractual arrangement, participated in planning 

the survey and collecting the data. 

Public Health Service Publication No. lOOO-Series 12-No. 12 

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 78-600266 
----- ----- 

CONTENTS 

Introduction ______-------------_--------------------------------------

primary Type of Service-----------------------------------------------

Marital Status------------------------------------------------------

Living Arrangements Before Admission ----_-_---_-___________________ 

Care Received at Admission ______________-_________________________----

Marital Status------------------------------------------------------

Living Arrangements &for- Admission _______________________________ 

Number of Conditions--------------------------------------------------

Marital Status------------------------------------------------------

Living Arrangements Before Admission---- _ __--_-___ ____ ___ 

Selected Chronic Conditions andImpairments-----------------------------

Marital Status------------------------------------------------------

Living Arrangements Before Admission---- ---_------_-_______________ 

Frequency ofvisitors--------------------------------------------------

Marital Status and Living Arrangements Before Admission--------------

Age---------------------------------------------------------------

Length of Stay------------------------------------------------------

Detailed Tables-------------------------------------------------------

Appendix I. 

A. Technical Notes on Survey Design _________________________________ 

B. General Qualifications-------------------------------------------

Appendis II. 

A. Definitions of Certain Terms Used in This Report-------------------

B. Classification of Homes by Type of Service-------------------------

C. Rules for Coding Chronic Conditions and Impairments---------------

D. Basic List of Diagnostic Categories Reported for Residents in Nursing 

and personal CareHomes--------------------------------------

Appendix III. Forms and Questionnaires--------------------------------

Page 

1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

3 

4 

6 

6 

7 

9 

9 

10 

11 

11 

11 

14 

18 

19 

34 

36 

39 

39 

40 

40 

42 

ii! 
-------------- 

IN THIS REPORT Ye&dents of nuvsi?ig and personal cave homes are 

described by mavital status, living arrangements before admission, and 

frequency of visitors in tevms of their health and Yelated chavacteristics and certain health services they received. 

Data on which this yepoyt is based woe collected in 1964 in the Resident Places Survey (RPS-2) of the Nation’s nursing a?ul personal cave 

homes. At the time of the survey theve were an estimated 554,000 Yesidents in 17,000 nursing and p~so?uzl cave homes. 

In the sense that nursing cave homes provided more %ophisticated” 

types of health care than the other types of homes, married and widowed 

residents on a whole were receiving better cave than residents in the 

other mavitul groups. Seventy-three percent of the married Yesidents 

and 70 percent of the widowed weve in nursing caye homes compared 

with 64 percentof the divorced OY separated and 58 percent of the never 

mavvied. 

A larger percent of Yesidents who had lived with family OY relatives OY 

in hospitals pyiov to admission were in nursing cave homes than Yesidents of any other living avvangement group. 

Theve was some difference by ma&al stat&s in the Yates for certain 

chronic conditions and impairments. The Yank ovder of Yates fovmed 

two distinct groups-those fov the married and widowed and those for 

the divorced, separated, OYnever mavvied. FOY example, “other” mental 

disovdevs Yanked as the most prevalent condition fov the divorced, separated, o~nevevmavriedandsixthand ninth for the married and widowed. 

FOY certain conditions such as vascular lesions and diseases of heart, 

theve was little difference in the rank ovder of Yates by previous living 

avvangements, while fov advanced senility and “other” mental disovdevs 

theve weve large disparities. FOY example, rrothevf’ mental disovdevs 

Yanked very high among Yesidents who had come fYom a mental hospital 

OY a long-term hospital and somewhat lower for those who had lived 

with spouse OY childven. 

Mavvied and widowed ye&dents had move visitors than those Yesidents 

who were divorced, separated, OY never marvied. Those who had pyeviously lived with spouse and/or childven wwe visited more often than 

residentsfvom other living arrangement groups. Contvavy to what might 

have been suspected, the older residents wme visited more often. 

SYMBOLS 

Data not available ________________________________ ___ 

Category not applicable _________ ---__-_-_-________ , . . 

Quantity zero------------------------------------ _ 

Quantity more than 0 but lessthan0.5 0.0 

Figure does not meet standards of reliability 

or precision ___________________________________ * 
MARITAL STATUS AND LIVING ARRANGEMENTS 

BEFORE ADMISSION TO NURSING AND 

PERSONAL CARE HOMES 

Roy Morgan, Division of Health Resources Statistics 

INTRODUCTION The level of care was highest (intensive care) 

in nursing care homes and lowest in personal 

This report is one of a series of statistical care homes. In this section when marital status 

reports on the institutional population of the United and living arrangement before admission to a 

States. The reports present findings from anum- home are discussed, emphasis will be on nursber of institutional population surveys which are ing care homes since over two-thirds of all 

part of the National Health Survey. 1 residents were in this type of facility and since 

Data in this report are based on information these residents received more intensive care. 

collected in a nationwide sample survey of nurs- The survey data revealed these important difing and personal care homes. The survey-part ferences: 

of the Resident Places Survey-2 (RPS-2)-was A larger proportion of married and widowed 

conducted during May-June 1964. (For a general residents were in nursing cave homes than 

description of the survey, see appendix I.) Other were residents of any other marital status 

data from the survey-describing employees of !lvouP. 

nursing and personal care homes, chronic conditions and impairments of residents, charges for A largerproportionofresidents who had precare in the institutions, special aids, and levels viously lived with family OY relatives or who 

of nursing care-have been published. 2-s had come &om hospitals wezre in nursing cave 

For the first time in the series of reports homes than were residents from any of the 

on nursing and personal care homes, data are other living arvawements. 

presented on marital status, living arrangements before admission, and frequency of visitors Marital Status 

of residents. 

Seventy-three percent of the married resiPRIMARY TYPE OF SERVICE dents and 70 percent of the widowed were in 

nursing care homes as were 64 and 58 percent, 

Institutions in RPS-2 were classified into respectively, of the divorced or separated and 

three type-of-service classes-nursing care never married residents (fig. 1). The proporhomes, personal care homes with nursing, and tion of married women (77 percent) in nursing 

personal care homes (see section B of appendix II). care homes was higher than that of married men 
Total 

Married 

Widowed 

Divorced 

s&rated 

NWW 

married 

Male 

Total 

Married 

Widowed 

Divyed 

separated 

NWW 

married 

Nursing care 

homes 

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION 

Persona care l homes with nursing 

Figure I. Percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes, by primary type of 

service according to sex and marital status. 

(7L percent); the difference was even greater 

for the divorced or separated residents, with 

the proportion of women being 72 percent and of 

men 59 percent. There was little difference in 

the proportions of men and women in the widowed 

and the never married groups. 

Of all the residents in nursing and personal 

care homes, 63 percent were widowed. of these, 

45 percent were males and 73 percent were females. Table 1 shows, as might be expected, 

that a higher proportion of the widowed residents were in the older age groups. Only 23 percent of those under 65 were widowed; this increased with age to 78 percent of those aged 85 

and over. The range for males was from 12 percent of those under 65 to 67 percent of those 

85 and over. The range for females was from 36 

percent to 82 percent. 

living Arrangements Before Admission 

For the purpose of this report, living arrangements before admission to nursing or personal care homes were classified into 11 groups 

(table 2). Residence in a nursing care home instead of a personal care home is a fairly good 

indicator of a person’s need for intensive care 

or his ability to get into homes which provide 

better health care. Living arrangements prior 

to admission of residents by type of institution 

will point to any important differences in living 

arrangements which might determine the type of 

care a resident will receive. 

Greater proportions of residents from hospitals and other places (73 percent) and from 

residence with family or relatives (71 percent) 

were in nursing care homes (fig. 2). Smaller 

proportions had come from boarding or nursing 

homes (67 percent) or had lived alone (60 percent). The proportions of males and females in 

nursing care homes who had lived with family 

or relatives or alone did not differ much. There 

were significant differences, however, among 

those who came from boarding or nursing 

homes-61 percent of males compared with 71 

percent of females-and from hospitals andother 

places-67 percent of males compared with 77 

percent of females (fig. 2). 

Pr,oportions of residents in nursing care 

homes from the 11 living arrangements shown in 

table 2 ranged from 50 percent of those .from 

mental hospitals to 83 percent of those from 

short-stay hospitals. More residents in nursing 

care homes were from long-term hospitals (77 

percent), had lived with spouse only (72 percent), 

or had lived with children only (75 percent) than 

those who had lived with spouse and children 

(63 percent), with other relatives (63 percent), 

or who had lived alone (60 percent). 

2 
I PERCENT DISTRISUTION 

0 25 50 75 IO< 

Living I,,,, I ,,,, !I,,,!*,,, 

arrangement 

Both SBX~S 

Family or 

ralativrs 

Boarding or 

nursing home 

Hospital or 

other place 

Total 

Alone orwith nonrelatives 

Boarding or 

nursinQ home 

Hospital or Other PIOCB 

Figure 2. Percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes, by primary type of 

service according to sex and living arrangements 

before admission. 

For residents in nursing care homes the 

range by living arrangement was greater than 

that by marital status-50 to 83 percent compared with 58 to 73 percent. It would appear, 

therefore, that a resident’s living arrangement 

prior to admission, more so than marital status, 

influenced the type of home he entered. For example, it would be reasonable to assume that 

residents from mental hospitals (many needing 

only custodial supervision) would need less nursing care than those from long-term and shortstay hospitals. 

CARE RECEIVED AT ADMISSION 

The type of care given a resident at admission 

to a facility was determined from item 18 of the 

Resident Questionnaire (appendix III). This item 

asked whether the type of care a resident received was primarily nursing care, primarily 

personal care, or room and board only. The survey revealed that the type of care residents received differed by’ marital status and by living 

arrangement prior to admission. 

Mme intensive care was gz’ven to married 

OYwidowed residents than to divorced, separated, OY never married residents. 

Residents who had lived in boarding OY nursing homes or in hospitals prior to admission 

received move intensive care than those who 

had lived with family (w relatives OY alone. 

Marital Status 

The intensity of care which a resident received when admitted to a nursing or personal 

care home might have been determined by such 

factors as his state of health and his ability to 

pay for care. The type of care an older person 

received might have been influenced in part by 

his marital status-that is, married or widowed 

residents would probably have had someone to 

care for them in some kind of familial environment and would probably not have entered an 

institution until quite old and/or in very poor 

health. Divorced, separated, or never married 

residents probably would have been less likely 

to have had family or relatives to care for them 

as they grew older. Mean ages were greater 

for married (75 years) and widowed (80 years) 

residents than for divorced or separated (68 years) 

or never married (71 years) residents. Conse3 
quently, married or widowedresidents would very 

likely have needed somewhat more intensive 

care-not so much because of their marital status 

but because of a situation which their marital 

status engendered. 

Seventy percent of the married residents and 

60 percent of the widowed received primarily 

nursing care (fig. 3). Smaller proportions of the 

divorced or separated or never married residents received primarily nursing care (52 and 

49 percent, respectively). The percent of married 

residents who received only room and board 

(a type of care with no nursing or personal care 

services), was less than that of those who were 

not married. 

As would be expected, when distributed by 

type of home, care received at admission corresponded roughly to the predominant type of 

care in the home. In nursing care homes most 

residents received primarily nursing care at 

admission with the percent of married residents 

PERCENT DlSTRlEUTlON 

O:” 

Totol 

Married 

Widowed 

Primarily Primarily Room and 

nursing care personal care board only 

Figure 3. Percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes,by primary type of care 

received at admission according to marital status. 

being greater than that of residents who were not 

married (table 3). In personal care homes with 

nursing the percent of those receiving primarily 

nursing care was not as great, but again there 

was a greater percent of those married than of 

those in the other marital status groups. 

living Arrangements Before Admission 

Living arrangements before admission to 

nursing or personal care homes were classified 

into 11 groups in order to give some idea of the 

type of care residents had received prior to admission. Like marital status, type of living arrangement before admission may have influenced 

the type of care received when admitted. 

Table A combines these living arrangements 

into four major groups. The largest percent of 

residents receiving primarily nursing care was 

of those from hospitals or other places (74 percent). Sixty-three percent of those from boarding 

and nursing homes and 59 percent of those who 

had lived with family or relatives received primarily nursing care; the lowest percent (46) was 

of those who had lived alone, Again, as was the 

case with marital status, care received at admission corresponded to the predominant type of 

care given in the facility. In nursing care homes 

86 percent of those from hospitals and other 

places and 80 percent from boarding and nursing 

homes received primarily nursing care. Of those 

who had lived with family or relatives, 73 percent 

received this type of care at admission. The lowest 

percent (66) of residents who received primarily 

nursing care was of those who had lived alone. 

In personal care homes with nursing, a similar 

distribution prevailed although the percents of 

residents were not as great. 

The percent of women receiving primarily 

nursing care when admitted to nursing or personal care homes was greater than that of men 

for three of the four combined groups of living 

arrangements (fig. 4). Of the residents who came 

from boarding or nursing homes, 68 percent of 

the women and 54 percent of the men received 

primarily nursing care, while 78 percent of the 

women and 67 percent of the men from hospitals 

or other places received this type of care. There 
Table A. Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care 

homes, by type of care received at admission according to primary type of service 

and living arrangements before admission: United States, EIay-June 1964 

Type of care received at admission 

Primary type of service Number 

of II Room and living arrangement residents All II Pr imarily Primarily and 

types II nursing personal board 

only 

All homes Percent distribution 

811 residents----------------- 554,000 100.0 58.2 17.6 24.2 

Family or relatives-----------------

Alone or with nonrelatives----------

Boarding or nursing home------------

Hospital or other place-------------

100.0 58.7 

100.0 46.0 

100,. 0 62.5 

100.0 73.6 

18.1 

17.2 

18.1 

16.8 

23.2 

36.7 

'E . 

Nursing care 

All residents------------------ 373,300 100.0 74.5 14.4 11.1 

Fam-ily or relatives-----------------

Alone or with nonrelatiues----------

Boarding or nursing home------------

Hospital or other place-------------

152,200

97,900

48,300

74,900 

100.0 72.9 

lOQ,O 65.7 

100.0 79.5 

100.0 86.1 

16.7 

14.5 

14-l 

9.8 

10.4 

19.8 

::4 

Personal care with nursing 

All residents----------------- 145,400 100.0 28.6 22.6 48.9 

Family or relatives-----------------

Alone or with nonrelatives----------

Boarding or nursing home------------

Hospital or other place-------------

51,600

55,000

17,800

20,900 

100.0 

100.0 E 

100.0 33:3 

100.0 46.7 

20.4 

20.9 

22.2 

32.6 

50.6 

59.4 

44.5 

20.7 

Personal care 

All residents----------------- 35,300 100.0 7.7 31.4 60.9 

Family or relatives------------------ 11,700 100.0 26.5 67.9 

Alone or with nonrelatives---------- 11,400 100.0 E 23.1 73.1 

Boarding or nursing home------------ 5,700 100.0 39.9 50.8 

Hospital or other place------------- 6,500 100.0 1;:: 47.0 36.1 

were only small differences in the percents of combined living arrangement groups-from 46 to 

men and women that had lived with family or rela- 74 percent-than that for the marital status 

tives or that had Lived alone or withnonrelatives. groups-from 49 to 70 percent. However, the 

It should be noted that the range of percents range for the 11 living arrangement groups is 

of those who received primarily nursing care at even greater-ranging from 43 percent of those 

admission was only slightly greater for the four in the residti group and 46 percent of those who 

5 
Figure 8. Percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes, by primary type of 

care received at admission according to sex and 

living arrangements before admission. 

had lived alone to 79 percent of those who had 

come from long-term specialty hospitals and 

85 percent who had come from short-stay general 

hospitals (table 4). These ranges suggest that 

living arrangement prior to admission may be 

more closely related to type of care received 

at admission than marital status. This is to be 

expected since the type of health care an older 

person would have received before admission 

would be better indicated by living arrangements 

prior to admission than by marital status because half of the living arrangements are types 

of institutions (boarding and nursing homes and 

hospitals) which are directly involved in providing health care. About a third of all residents 

had been transferred from these types of institutions. 

NUMBER OF CONDITIONS 

The total number of chronic conditions and 

impairments was determined for each sample 

resident in the survey. A resident’s average number of conditions is useful as a general indicator 

of level of health and is not meant to be an exclusive measure. The next section will go into 

detail on selected conditions and will further 

illuminate this section. Data in this section will 

show that: 

Residents who were divorced, separated, OY 

never married had fewer conditions than 

married OY widowed residents. 

Residents who had lived alone OY in mental 

hospitals prior to admission had fewer conditions than residents from other types of 

living arrangements. 

Marital Status 

The percent distribution of married residents by number of conditions was fairly similar 

to that of widowed residents (table B); that of 

divorced or separated and of never married 

residents was similar to each other. About 

60 percent of the married or widowed residents 

had three conditions or more compared with 51 

percent of the divorced or separated and 48 percent of the never married. The median number of 

conditions for each marital status group also 

revealed this: the median number of conditions 

for married residents was 3.5 and for widowed, 

3.4. The median for divorced was 3.1, for separated, 3.0, and for never married, 2.9 (table 5). 

Median numbers of conditions were larger 

for nursing care homes than for personal care 

homes with nursing; the medians for the latter 

homes were in turn larger than those for personal care homes. The marital status groups in 

nursing care homes had somewhat close medians. 

In personal care homes with ,nursing the median 

numbers of conditions for the married and 

widowed were similar and larger than the medians 

for the other marital status groups. In personal 

6 
-------------------------- 

Table B. Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care 

homes, by number of chronic conditions and impairments according to marital status: 

United States, May-June 1964 

Marital status 

All statuses---------------------

Married -_--I-_-------------------------

Widowed--------------------------------

Divorced or separated------------------

Never married 

care homes separated residents had the highest 

median number of conditions. Medians for the 

other marital status groups were about thesame. 

living Arrangements Before Admission 

When distributed by number of conditions, 

there was no great disparity in the percents for 

three of the four combined living arrangement 

groups (table C). The exception was for those 

residents who had lived alone prior to admission. 

Median numbers of conditions reveal even more 

clearly this similarity in distribution. Except 

for those residents who had lived alone (with a 

median of 3.0 conditions), the median number of 

conditions for residents in the living arrangement 

groups was 3.4. 

It should be noted that generally within each 

type of home the greatest disparity, as for total 

residents, among the percent distributions by 

living arrangement was for those residents for 

whom no conditions or just one condition was 

reported. By type of home the proportion ofresidents reporting no conditions was greater for 

those who had lived alone prior to admission than 

for any other living arrangement group-3 percent for nursing care homes, 11 percent for 

Number of chronic conditions 

Number of and impairments 

residents ’ 

Total None l-2 3-4 5+ 

Percent distribution 

personal care homes with nursing, and 14 percent for personal care homes. 

As for total residents, the median number 

of conditions for residents from each of the 

living arrangement groups in nursing care homes 

and personal care homes with nursing was almost 

the same except for the smaller medians for those 

who had lived alone (table C). In personal care 

homes the medians were lowest for those who 

had lived alone and for those who had come from 

hospitals or other places. The difference between 

medians for males and females was small. 

The range of medians for total residents 

did not differ much by marital status (2.9 to 3.5, 

table 5) from the expanded 11 living arrangement groups (2.7 to 3.7, table 6).Therewas some 

difference by type of home, however, especially 

for personal care homes, where the ranges were 

from 2.0 to 2.8 for marital status and from 0.6 

to 2.6 for living arrangements (tables 5 and 6). 

It would appear, since the ranges of mediannumber of conditions by marital status and by living 

arrangements are almost the same for the other 

two types of homes, that the number ofconditions 

of these residents was related to intensity of 

care in these homes and not to marital status 

or living arrangements prior to admission. 

7 
----------------- 

Table C. Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes, by number of chronic conditions and impairments according to primary type of service and living 

arrangements before admission: United States, May-June 1964 

= - Primary type of Elumber of 

r Number of chronic conditions and impairments 

- service and living I Tesidents arrangement Total None 1 2 3 4 5-E 1

1. 

All homes Percent distribution Median 

All residents--- 554,000 I100.0 3.7 I 17.0 23.0 21.4 414.9 20.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 

Family or relatives--- 215,600 100.0 3.1 15.3 23.3 21.9 16.3 20.2 3.4 3.4 3.4 

Alone or with nonrelatives------------ 164,300 100.0 6.8 19.3 23.1 20.4 13.2 17.2 3.0 3.2 3.0

Boarding or nursing home----------------- 71,800 100.0 2.1. 16.1 21.8 22.7 14.4 22.9 3.4 3.3 3.5 

Hospital or other place---------------- 102,300 100.0 1.0 17.8 22.8 21.3 14.9 22.1 3.4 3.3 3.4 

Nursing care 

All residents--- 373,300 100.0 1.8 12.9 21.4 23.0 16.5 24.4 3.6 3.7 3.6 

Family or relatives--- 152,200 100.0 1.6 12.2 22.0 22.6 17.2 24.4 3.6 3.6 3.6 

Alone or with nonrelatives------------ 97,900 100.0 3.3 15.1 21.7 23.5 14.9 21.5 3.4 3'. 6 3.4 

Boarding or nursing home----------------- 48,300 100.0 1.3 10.5 20.3 24.3 16.2 27.4 3.7 3.8 3.7 

Hospital or other place---------------- 74,900 100.0 0.6 12.8 20.7 22.4 17.2 26.3 3.7 3.8 3.7 

Personal care 

with nursing 

All residents--- 145,400 100.0 7.1 23.1 26.1 19.2 12.6 11.9 2.8 2.7 2.8 

Family or relatives--- 51,600 100.0 5.8 20.6 26.1 21.0 15.6 10.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 

Alone or with non- relatives------------ 55,000 100.0 11.4 23.7 25.0 17.0 11.4 11.5 2.6 2.8 2.5 

Boarding or nursing home----------------- 17,800 100.0 3.4 27.3 24.4 19.5 10.0 15.4 2.8 2.5 3.1 

Hospital or other place---------------- 20,900 100.0 2.4 24.1 30.5 20.3 10.3 12.5 2.8 2.6 2.9 

Personal care 

All residents--- 35,300 100.0 9.4 36.1 26.8 14.2 7.1 6.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 

Family or relatives--- 11,700 100.0 11.2 31.6 28.5 16.3 6.3 6.1 2.3 2.3 2.2 

Alone or with nonrelatives------------ 11,400 100.0 14.0 34.0 26.9 10.6 7.3 7.2 2.1 2.2 2.0 

B;;cx&ing or nursing 

5,700 100.0 5.6 28.8 26.8 18.7 12.7 7.6 2.6 2.5 2.7 

Hospital or other place---------------- 6,500 100.0 1.7 54.5 23.4 13.1 3.4 4.1 1.9 1.8 2.0 

8 
SELECTED CHRONIC CONDITIONS Table D. Rank order of selected chronic 

conditions and impairments among resi- AND IMPAIRMENTS dentsof nursingand personal care homes, by primary type of service and marital 

The survey used a list of 58 basic chronic status: United States, May-June 1964 

conditions and impairments to determine which 

conditions each sample resident had. Tables 7 Chronic conditions and 8 present rates for a condensed list of 35 Primary type of and impairments1

conditions. The six most prevalent conditions service and 

are analyzed in this section. Data reveal two marital status 

highlights: 

For certain chronic conditions and impair- All homes Rank order 

ments Yates per 1,000 residents and Ya?zk All residents- =

2 =

3 =

4 X5 

order of conditions fell into two distinct 

poups-those for marvied and widowed and Married----------- 2 5 

those for divorced, separated, and never Widowed----------- 2 i 

Divorced---------- 32 z 10 married. Separated--------- 3 9" 

For certain conditions such as vusculaY Never married----- 3 :: 6 z 

lesions and diseases of heart there is little Nursing care 

difference by Yank order of Yates for living 

arrawement prior to admission, while for All residents- - 2 - 4 - 3 - 5 - 6 

other conditions such as advanced senility Married----------- 3 

a& rIother” mental disorders there aye large Widowed----------- ; z 3 5" 1: 

2 disparities. Divorced---------- 10 

Separated---------

Never married-----

i 

3 

i 

5 4

; 68 ; 

Marital Status 

Personal care 

An interesting characteristic of residents with nursing 

shown by marital status was the tendency toward All residents- 1 2 6 5 4 - - - - - two fairly distinct groups of rates for certain Married----------- 3 4 10 2 chronic conditions and impairments. This was Widor.~ed----------- 5 i 6 

true of “other” mental disorders and advanced Divorced---------- 5 2 17 

senility; married and widowed residents were Separated--------- !..3 ;37 i 

close to each other in rank order ofrates,and Never married----- 4 

4

2 11 z 1 

divorced, separated, and never married resi- Personal care 

dents formed a distinct group with close rank All residents- 3 4 7 2 1 orders. Table D illustrates this point, particu- - - - ­

larly for advanced senility and for “other” Married----------- I.0 4 1 

mental disorders and to a lesser extent for \~idowed----------- 2 

Divorced---------­ vascular lesions and diseases of hearc. Such Separated---------

2 1; 3 1 

1 distinct groupings into these two broad marital. Never married----- 2 10 14 1 

status groups were not evident for other condi- - - ­

tions by rank order or by rate per 1,000 resi- 1 Chronic conditions and impairments dents. are as follows: 

As shown in table 7, vascular lesions was A - Vascular lesions 

the most prevalent: condition for married and B - Diseases of heart 

widowed residents (with rates of 429 and 363) C - Arthritis and rheumatism 

D - Advanced senility and the second most prevalent for those resi- E - Hearing impairments dents who were divorced, separated, or never F- Other mental disorders 

9 
married (with rates of 303, 267, and 244). Diseases of heart had the second highest rates for 

married (263) and widowed (324) residents and 

the third highest for divorced (208), separated 

(202), or never married (190) residents. 

The most obvious change in rates was for 

“other” mental disorders, which ranked sixth 

and ninth for the married and widowed and first 

for the divorced, separated, or never married. 

Rates per 1,000 residents for the married and 

widowed were 176 and 134, and those for the 

divorced, separated, or never married were 

327, 300, and 288. 

The change in rank order was apparent for 

advanced senility-third highest for married 

residents (223) and fourth highest for widowed 

(246). The rank order was lower for the other 

marital groups-eighth for the divorced (129), 

ninth for the separated (116), and sixth for the 

never married (159). 

In ranking by type of facility, “other” mental 

disorders ranked fairly low for married and 

widowed residents, particularly in nursing care 

homes. For the divorced, separated, or never 

married this condition ranked highest or second 

highest in all of the facilities (table D). Vascular 

lesions ranked low for the divorced, separated, 

or never married in personal care homes, but 

higher for the married and widowed. For the 

married and widowed residents in personal care 

homes with nursing, vascular lesions ranked first 

and third; for the divorced, separated, or never 

married the rank was fifth, second, and third. In 

nursing care homes, however, vascular lesions 

ranked first for all marital status groups except 

the separated (second). It would seem therefore 

that residents with vascular lesions required the 

more intensive care provided by nursing care 

homes and that patients with “other” mental disorders required less intensive care. 

Living Arrangements Before Admission 

There was little difference in rank order by 

living arrangement groups for the two highest 

ranked conditions, vascular lesions and diseases 

of heart (table E). When living arrangements were 

combined into four groups, vascular lesions 

ranked highest for all four groups. Diseases of 

heart ranked second for all of the groups except 

hospitals or other places for which the rank was 

third. This situation was generally true for these 

two conditions when living arrangements were 

expanded to 11 groups. For the other four conTable E. Rank order of selected chronic 

conditions and impairments among residents in nursing and personal care

homes, by living arrangements before 

admission: United States, May-June 1964 

Living arrangement 

Total------------

Combined group 

Family or relatives-­

Alone or with 

nonrelatives--------

Boarding or nursing home-------w---a----

Hospital or other

place---------------

Expanded group 

Spouse only---------- Children only-------- Spouse and children-­

Other relatives------

Alone or with 

nonrelativei--------

Boarding home--------

Nursing horne---------

Mental hospital------ Long-term speciality hospital------------

General or short-stay hospital------------

Other place----------

Chronic conditions 

and impairments1 

Rank order 

1 4 5 6 = = = = 

1 3 5 6 

1 5 4 8 

1 3 5 6 

1 4 5 2 

6 

I’ z 119 

1 1; 

6 

6 

1 : 2 

4 

i i z 

4 $ 

; 8 i 9 

1 9 8 

1 4 

2 3 3 - - -

'Chronic conditionsand impairments are 

as follows : 

A - Vascular lesions 

B - Diseases of heart 

C - Arthritis and rheumatism 

D - Advanced senility E - Hearing impairments F - Other mental disorders 

10 
ditions shown in table E, there was great diversity 

in rank order bythe 11 living arrangement groups. 

This was especially true for “other” mental 

disorders. 

Table 8 shows that the rate for “other” 

mental disorders was high among residents who 

had come from a mental hospital (705), a longterm hospital (342), or who had lived with other 

relatives (263). However, this condition ranked 

ninth among those who had lived with a spouse 

and 11th among those who had lived with their 

children. 

Like the rate for “other” mental disorders 

the rate for advanced senility was high in rank 

order for those from mental hospitals. Mental 

hospitals probably released a high number of 

residents with mental disorders and advanced 

senility to nursing and personal care homes. 

Residents with advanced senility can probably 

be as well cared for in nursing and personal 

care homes as in mental hospitals, and presumably the movement of residents to these 

homes relieves some of the load on the services 

of the mental hospitals. It should be noted that 

the rate for advanced senility was fairly lOW 

(ninth in order) for those residents who had 

come from long-stay hospitals, but high (third 

in order) for those who had comefromshort-stay 

hospitals. 

FREQUENCY OF VISITORS 

Frequency of visitors is a variable which 

has not been presented in any of the previous 

reports describing data collected in RPS-2. As 

a measure of isolation, item 7 of the Resident 

Questionnaire (appendix III) was designed to determine how often a resident was visited by 

friends or relatives. It was recognized that this 

form of question was not the only measure of 

isolation which could have been-used. However, 

the simplicity of the question was dictated by the 

difficulty respondents would have had in answering a more involved question such as one concerned not only with visits but with calls and 

letters to residents. 

Marital Status and living Arrangements 

Before Admission 

The percent distributions of frequency of 

visitors by marital status and living arrangements indicated that neither had much influence 

on frequency of visitors, except for the living 

arrangement groups of mental hospitals and 

“other” places. There were notable differences, 

however. within each of the two variables. 

Married and widowed residents were visited 

moYe often than those residents who wme 

divorced, separated, OYnevm married. 

Those who ha&previously lived in a residence 

with spouse anti/or children wwe visited 

more ojkn than residents fPom other living 

arrangement groups. 

About 85 percent of those married or widowed 

were visited at least once amonth, and about 15 

percent were visited less than once a month or 

never. About 60 percent of those residents who 

were divorced, separated, or never married were 

visited at least once a month, and about 40 percent were visited less thanonce amonthor never. 

Over 80 percent of the residents who had 

lived with spouse and/or children or who had 

come from a general or short-stay hospital were 

visited at least once a month. Most of the percents of residents by living arrangements of 

those who were visited at least once a month 

ranged from 57 to 92 percent (table F). The two 

exceptions were residents who had come from 

mental hospitals (40 percent) and those who had 

come from “other” places (44 percent). Otherwise, the range of percents by marital status of 

those residents who were visited at least once a 

month (from 58 to 86 percent) did not differ much 

from the range of percents by living arrangements 

(from 57 to 92 percent). 

Age 

It might be thought that the relationship between age and frequency of visitors would be 

that as age increases, the frequency of visitors 

11 
73.5 12.5 

75.8 16.2 

Table F. Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care 

homes, by frequency of visitors according to marital status and living arrangements before admission: United States, May-June 1964 

Frequency of visitors 

I 

Marital 

living 

status and 

arrangement 

Number 

of 

residents Total 

At 

least 

once a 

Less than 

once a 

week but 

at least 

Less 

than 

once a 

Never 

visited 

week once a month 

month 

Marital status Percent distribution 

All statuses--------------- 554,000 100.0 58.1 19.4 13.0 9.5 

Widowed-------------------------- 348.100 100.0 64.1 19.6 12 E 

Divorced or separated------------ Never married-------------------- 28; 200 

122,700 

100.0 

100.0 

39.4 

38.5 

18.3 

22.0 

24:2 

20.3 

18:l 

19.2 

Living arrangement 

All arrangements----------- 554.000 100.0 58.1 19.4 13.0 9.5 

Family or relatives---------- 215.600 100.0 67.7 18.1 10.0 4.1 

Spouse only----------------------

Children only--------------------

42,400

108,600 

100.0 

100.0 

73.3 13.5 4.4 

Married ^------------------------- 54,900 100.0 

Spouse and children--------------

Other relatives------------------ 3,100

61,400 

100.0 

100.0 

68.2 

49.5 

13.5 

24.8 

Ei 

178:: 

91*$ 

8:2 

Alone or with nonrelatives--- 52.6 22.0 15.2 10.2 

Boarding or nursing home----- 54.9 17.4 14.9 12.8 

Boarding home--------------------

Nursing home--------------------- 11,200

60,600 

100.0 

100.0 

40.1 

57.7 

16.9 

17.5 

18.2 

14.3 

24.7 

10.5 

Hospital or other place------ 102.300 100.0 48.8 19.2 14.4 17.7 

Mental hospital------------------

Long-term speciality hospital---- yg 100.0 100.0 

General or short-stay hospital--- 65;500 100.0 

Other place---------------------- 4,000 100.0 

decreases. This situation might be based on the dents visited less than once a month or never 

assumption that the older a resident, the fewer decreased (fig. 5). The proportion of those visited 

friends or relatives he has and the more he is at least once a week increased from43 to 63 perneglected or forgotten. However, the opposite cent for the four age groups shown in figure 5. 

was true: The increase in frequency of visitors with 

The older residents were visited move often. increasing age occurred in each of the three 

types of facilities shown in table 9. It should be 

As age increased, the percents of those visited noted that the increase with age for those visited 

at least once a week increased, and thoseof resi- at least once a week was even greater in per12 
sonal care homes (from 20 to 61 percent) than 

in personal care homes with nursing (from 32 to 

59 percent) or in nursing care homes (from 53 

to 65 percent). Similarly, the decrease in percents of those who were never visited as age 

increased was greater in personal care homes 

than in the other two types of homes. The mean 

age of those visited at least once a week (78.4 

years) and of those visited less than once a week 

but at least once a month (77.5 years) was greater 

than that of those visited less than once a month 

(74.5 years) or of those never visited (71.9 years). 

The mean ages of those visited at least once a 

week and of those visited less than once a week 

but at least once a month did not change much by 

type of facility-about 78 and 77 years, respectively. The mean ages of those visited less frequently did vary, however, by type of home: the 

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION 

“CC 

-

Age

TOW 

Under 65 

years 

pl,S 

At least once o week Less than once o month 

la 

Never visited 

Figure 5. Percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes, by frequencyofvisitors 

according to age. 

more “sophisticated” the type of care in the home, 

the older the residents who were visitedlessthan 

once a month or never. Note that themedian ages 

shown in table 9 differed from the mean ages by 

only 2 or 3 years in almost all cases, and the 

same relationship between frequency of visitors 

and age holds for the medians. 

These unexpected higher percents of frequency of visitors for the older residents might 

be connected to other factors such as the number of conditions, which increases with age; to 

mobility, which decreases with age (see reference 4); or to intensity of level of nursing care, 

which increases with age (see reference 7). 

Frequency of visitors to the older residents 

might be expected to be related to living arrangements prior to admission. Eighty-six percent of the residents who had lived with friends 

or relatives were visited at least once-a month 

compared with 75 percent of those who had lived 

alone, 72 percent of those who had come from 

boarding or nursing homes, and 68 percent of 

those who had come from hospitals or “other” 

places (table F). Therefore, if there were larger 

proportions’ of residents who had lived with family 

or relatives in the older age groups, this would 

explain to a large extent the more frequent visits 

to the older residents. Actually, it is difficult 

to draw this conclusion from the data on living 

arrangements by age. The proportion of residents in each age group who had lived with family 

or relatives did not change much-it was around 

four out of every 10 residents (table G). To further confound such a conclusion, the percents of 

residents who had lived alone increased with 

age up to age 85 years. 

There appears to be a relationship between 

marital status and frequency of visitors to older 

residents. The frequency of visitors was high 

for married and widowed residents (probably 

because they had more family or relatives) and 

low for divorced, separated, or never married 

residents (table F). Married and widowed residents constituted a sizable proportion of residents in each age group, and this proportion 

increased impressively for the widowed in each 

succeedingly older age group (table G). The percent of the divorced, separated, or never mar13 

65-74 
--------------------------------- 

Table G. Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care 

homes, by living arrangements before a’dmission and marital status according to age: United States, May-June 1964 -

Living arrangement and All I

85 years 

marital status ages and 

over 

Number of residents 

All residents--------------------- 554,00011 66,200 1 104,500 1230,900 [ 152,400 

Living arrangement Percent distribution 

All arrangements------------------ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Family or 'relatives--------------------- 38.9 36.7 38.9 40.7 

Alone or with nonrelatives-------------- 29.7 17.7 ;z . 32.4 32.2 

Hospital or other place----------------- 18.5 30.9 22.0 16.4 13.9 

Marital status . 

All statuses---------------------- 100.0 100.0 100.0 ( 100.0 100.0 

Married 11.9 13.4 10.2 

Boarding or nursing home---------------- 13.0 14.8 12.9 12.3 13.2 

Widowed ---------------_----------------- 6;:: 22.9 53.7 68.7 7% 

Divorced or separated------------------- 16.3

Never married--------------------------- 2;:; 48.9 2::; 1;:; 12:: 

ried in each age group decreased dramatically from 72 to 38 percent. There was a concomitant 

(from 65 to 16 percent), and these residents increase in the percents of residents who were 

were visited less frequently than the married visited less than once a month or never-from 

or widowed. 14 percent of those who had been in a facility 

less than 1 year to 40 percent of those who had 

Length of Stay been there 5 years or more. 

This relationship occurred in each of the 

It could be expected that the longer a resi- three types of homes with one small exception: 

dent stays in a nursing or personal care home in personal care homes the decrease in the perthe more likely he would be to lose contact with cents of those visited at least once a week and 

friends or relatives and to have fewer visitors. the increase in the percents of those visited less 

Data show that: than once a month or never visited were not entirely consistent with each succeedingly longer 

Frequency of visitors decreased with length length of stay group (table 10). 

of stay. Perhaps an even more important aspect wi 

that residents in homes providing more “sophistiThe relationship between length of stay and cated” types of care were visited more frequently. 

frequency of visitors is shown in table 10. The By type of home the percents of those visited at 

percent of total residents visited at least once least once a week were 62 percent in nursing 

a week in each length of stay group decreased care homes, 52 percent in personal care homes 

14 
42.6 36.3 17.5 

40.2 37.0 22.7 

with nursing, 43 percent in personal care homes. As it is conceivable that the sicker residents 

This may be an indication of some difference in may be visited more often, a resident’s state of 

quality of service which made visits to one type health may have had something to do with the 

of institution more appealing than visits to other frequency of visitors. If residents with shorter 

types. Also, it could be related to the distribu- lengths of stay were sicker than those with 

tion by marital status since 24 percent of resi- longer lengths of stay, the relationship of dedents in nursing care homes were divorced, creasing frequency of visitors with length of 

separated, or never married compared with 33 stay could be explained in part. The number of 

percent of residents in personal care homes chronic conditions and impairments a resident 

with nursing and 40 percent in personal care has can be used as a general indicator of his 

homes (table 1). As shown earlier, divorced, state of health. However, this does not help exseparated, or never married residents were plain the relationship mentioned above because 

visited less frequently than the married or table H shows that residents with shorter lengths 

widowed residents. of stay did not have higher median numbers of 

The median and mean lengths of stay shown conditions. A previous reports on RPS-2 data dein table 10 further illustrate that frequency of scribed length of stay by selected chronic convisitors declined with length of stay. Lengths ditions and impairments. It was found that resiof stay were greater for those who were visited dents with certain serious conditions had short 

less than once a month or never than for those median lengths of stay in contrast with the 

who were visited more frequently. This relation- longer medians for residents with no reported 

ship holds for both medians and means. Note conditions or with certain minor conditions. 

that the mean lengths of stay were in some in- Therefore, the decrease in frequency of visitors 

stances as much as a year and a half longer than for those with longer lengths of stay may be exthe medians; this can be explained by the fact plained in part by the more serious conditions 

that many residents had long lengths of stay of residents with shorter lengths of stay. 

which made the means larger than the medians. 

Table H. Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care 

homes, by number of chronic conditions and impairments according to length of stay:

United States, May-June 1964 

Number l Number of chronic conditions 

and imDairments * 

Length of stay of 

residents 

Total None l-2 3-4 5+ Median 

I Percent distribution 

I 

All lengths of stay------ 3.7 1 40.0 ) 36.3 1 20.0 3.3 

I I I I

Under 6 months-----------------

6-11 months-------------------- 3.6 40.7 41.6 15.2 ?3’ 

1 to 2 years-------------------

2 to 3 years------------------- 4:o z 37.3 36.0 19.6 ::2

3 to 5 years-------------------

5 years or more----------------

15 
---------------------------- 

Table J. Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care 

homes, by marital status according to length of stay: United States, May-June 1964 

Marital status 

All residents------------;-----------

All statuses-------------------------

Married ---_--“-_----__----_--------------

Widowed -----------------_---------------- Divorced or separated--------------------

Never married 

Further, there may be some explanation 

of the relationship of frequency of visitors to 

length’ of stay. Table J shows that as length of 

stay increased the percents of those who were 

divorced, separated, or never married increased 

from 22 percent of those who had been in a facility less than 1 year to 38 percent of those who 

had been thgre 5 years or more. The decreasing 

proportions of married or widowed residents 

(who were visited more frequently) and the increasing proportions of divorced, separated, or 

never married residents (who were visited less 

frequently) provide some insight into the relationship between frequency of visitors and 

length of stay. 

As almost two-thirds of the nursing andpersonal care home population were female, most 

of the visits to these facilities were to females. 

In addition the survey revealed this fact: 

Females wwe visitsd at a highs VatQ than 

ma1 es. 

Sixty-four percent of the females in nursing and 

personal care homes were visited at least once 

Length of stay 

Total Under 1 to 3 3 to 5 5 years

1 year years years or more 

Number of residents 

554,00011 184,200 /189,100 182,400 1 98,200 

Percent distribution 

100.0 

6;:: 

2;:; 

a week compared with 48 percent of the males. 

Thirty-three percent of the males were visited 

less than once a month or never compared with 

17 percent of the females. The explanation for 

this is probably in marital status-40 percent 

of all males were divorced, separated, or never 

married (again, that least visited group) contrasted with 21 percent of all females (table 1). 

The case cannot be made in a similar fashion for 

living arrangements as percents of those residents who had lived with family or relatives (the 

group more frequently visited than other living 

arrangement groups) did not differ much bysex38 percent of the males and 40 percent of the 

females (table 11). It would appear that the females’ greater propensity for social acquaintances would have to be explained by the data 

on marital status. 

Not only were females visited more often 

than males, but the decrease in frequency of 

visitors with length of stay was not as great for 

females as for males-frequency of visitors by 

the four length of stay groups decreased for 

males from 64 to 23 percent contrasted with a 

16 
Len th of 0 

+&-

m 

Under I year 

Ito3yews 

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION 

25 50 75 100 

Table K. Number and percent distribution

of residents in nursing and personal 

care homes, by sex according to length of stay: United States, May-June 1964 

Number

Length of

of stay resi- Total 

dents 

1 

Percent I distribution 

Total----

Under 1 year- 61.1 1 to 3 years- 66.3 3 to 5 years- 68.0 5f years----- 67.4 

decrease for females from 76 to 46 percent 

(fig. 6). 

If the proportion of ma les in each type of 

facility had declined to more insignificant portions in the longer length of stay groups,there 

might be some explanation for thelargedeclinein 

frequency of visitors to ma les with increased 

length of stay. Actually, it is not easy to make 

a case for this reasoning as the proportionsof 

ma les did not decrease much by Iength of stay, 

especially after the first year (table K). 

At least once o week Less than once 0 

month 

Less than c~nce (1 week Never visited 

Figure 6. Percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes,by frequencyofvisitors 

according to sex and length of stay. 
REFERENCES 

1

National Center for Health Statistics: Origin, program, 

and operation of the U.S. National Health Survey. Vital and 

Health Statistics. ,PHS Pub. No. lOOO-Series l-No. 1. Public 

Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Aug. 1963. 

2 National Center for Health Statistics: Employees in nursing and personal care homes, United States, May-June 1964. 

Vital and HeaZthBtatistics. PHS Pub. No. lOOO-Series 12-No. 

5. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Sept. 1966. 

‘National Ce nter for Health Statistics: Employees in nursing and personal care homes: number, work experience, special training, and wages, ‘United States, May-June 1964. Vita2 

and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000Series 12-No. 6. 

Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Jan. 1967. 

4YI ational Center for Health Statistics: Chronic illness 

among residents of nursing and personal care homes, United 

States, May-June 1964. Vital andHeaZth,Statistzks. PHS Pub. 

No. lOOO-Series 12-No. 7. Public Health Service. Washington. 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Mar. 1967. 

5National Center for Health Statistics: Prevalence of 

chronic conditions and impairments among residents of nursing and per sonal care.homes, .United States, May-June 1964. 

Vita2 andHeaZth~Statistics. PHS Pub. No. IOOO-Series 12-No. 

8. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing OfFice, July 1967. 

000 

%N ational Center of Health Statistics: Charges for care in

institutions for the aged and chronically ill, United ‘States, 

May-June 1964. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. NO. 

lOOO-Series 12.No. 9. Public Health ‘Service. Washington. 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Aug. 1967. 

7

National Center for Health ‘Statistics: Nursing and personal care services received by residents of nursing and personal care homes, United ‘States, May-June 1964. Vital and 

Health Statistics. PHSPub. No. LrXO-Series 12.No. 10. Public 

HealthService. Wlashington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Sept. L968. 

8

National Center for HealthStatistics: Use of special aids 

in homes forthe aged and chronically ill, United ‘States, May 

June 2964. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. LOOOSeries I2-No. ll! Public Health ‘Service. Washington. U.3. 

Government Printing Office, Dec. 1968. 

‘National Center for Health Statistics. Development and 

maintenance-of a national inventory of hospitals and institutions. Vital and Health Statistics; PHS Pub. No. 1000Series 

l-No. 3. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Feb. 1965. 

loWorld Health Organization: Manual of $he. International 

Statistical Classification of ,Diseases, Injuties, and Cazlaes 

of Death, Based on the Recommendations of the Seventh Revision Conference, 1955. Geneva, Switzerland, 1957. 

IlNational Center for Health Statistics: Medical Coding 

Manual and the. Short Index. NHS-HIS-1000. Public Health 

Service. Washington, D.C., July 1964. 

18 

I 
Table 1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

DETAILED TABLES 

Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes 

and in the generalpopulation, by marital status according to age and sex: United

Stat-s, -y-June 1964-----------------------------------------------------------

Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes,

by primary type of service according to sex and living arrangements before admission: United States, May-June 1964-------------------------------------------

Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes,

by type of care received at admission according to primary type of service and 

marital Status: Unit-d States, May-J-e 1964------------------------------------

Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes,

by type of care received atadmission accordingto primary type of service, living 

arrangements before admission, and sex: United States, May-June 1964------------

Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes,

by number of chronic conditions and impairments according to primary type of 

service and marital status: United States, May-June 1964------------------------

Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes,

by number of chronic conditions and impairments according to primary type of 

service and living arrangements before admission: United States, May-June 1964--

Number of residents and rate per 1,000 residents in nursing and personal care 

homes with selected chronic conditions and impairments by marital status: United 

States, May-June 1964-----------------------------------------------------------

Number of residents and rate per 1,000 residents in nursing and personal care 

homes with selected conditions and impairments,by living arrangements before admission: United States, May-June 1964-------------------------------------------

Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes,

by frequency of visitors according to age and primary type of service: United 

States, May-June 1964-----------------------------------------------------------

Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes,

by frequency of visitors accordingtolength of stay and primary type of service: 

Unit-d St-t-s, -y-June 1964----------------------------------------------------

Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes,

by living arrangements before admission according to age and sex: United States,

May-June 1964-------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

29 

31 

32 

33 

a9 
554,000 360,200 36,20000 104,500 404117,200 266,200 230,900 156,800 152,400 109,300 

36.0 

4.8 3.6 

Table 1. Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes and in the general population, by marital status according to age and sex: United States, May-June 1964 

All umber 65-74 75 years 75-84 85 years Marital status and sex ages years years and over years and over ledian 

NURSING AND PERSONALCARE HOMES 

All marital statuses 

Both sexes--------------------------------

Male--------------------------------------------

Female------------------------------------------

Both sexes 

All Statuses------------------------------

Married-----------------------------------------

Widowed-----------------------------------------

Divorced or separated--------------------------- Never married-----------------------------------

Male 

All Statuses-----------------------------­

curried--------------------------------------

Widowed-----------------------------------------

Divorced or separated--------------------------- Never married-----------------------------------

All statuses--------------------------------

Married-----------------------------------------

Widowed-----------------------------------------

Divorced or separated--------------------------- Never married-----------------------------------

Marital status and sex 

GENERALPOPULATION 

All marital statuses 

Both sexes-------------------------------­

lale--------------------------------------------

Female------------------------------------------

Both sexes 

811 statuses------------------------------

Married------------------------------------------

Widowed-----------------------------------------

Divorced or separated--------------------------- Never married-----------------------------------

Ma1.e 

Married----------------------------,--------------

Widowed---------------------------------------

Divorced or separated--------------------------- Never married-----------------------------------

Female 

All statuses----------------------------

Married-----------------------------------------

Widowed-----------------------------------------

Divorced or separated------------------------- Never married---------------------------------

Number of residents 

==I 193,800 66,200 64,000 383,300 

Percent distribution 

79.8 

74,100 43,100 78.3 

80.5 

100.0 100.0 -

6;:: E-z! 

16:3 

2;:; 48.9 

100.0 100.0 

16.1 11.8 

44.5 12.2 

20.6 

3::: 55.5 

100.0 100.0 

12.1 

7::: 35.8 

11.1 

1% 40.9 

II 

Total, 14 

100.0 100.0 100.0 

13.4 

53.7 7;:: 

10.2 

68.7 

2.7 

2::; 1% 18.4 

=i= 

100.0 i 100.0 100.0 

18.2 16.7 18.2 

52.1 

12.6 5?G 

33.2 21:o 2::: 

zj-yg 517 

19.0 I 1::: 

100.0 

7% 

1::: 

100.0 79.8 - -

77.1 

7% 81.5 

68.8 

12:: 76.6 

100.0 78.3 

14.0 78.1 

66.6 81.1 

68.7 

135:: 74.1 

100.0 80.5 

75.2 

8::; 81.6 

69.0 

1% 78.4 

I 75 years

years and over and over II 

14-64 years 65-74 years 

Number of residents 

Percent distribution 

66.6 66.1 76.8 57.0 

12.1 32.4 

26:4 9; 2912 ;-:, 6.3 7.1 
Table 2. Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes, by primary type of service accordingto sex and living arrangements before admission: United States, 

May-June 1964 

Primary type of iervice 

Number 

Sex and Living arrangement of 

residents 

Both sexes Percent distribution 

Al1 arrangements------------------------ 554,000 100.0 - 67.4 26.2 6.4 

Spouse only----------------------------------- 42,400 100.0 72.0 24.2 3.9 

Children only--------------------------------- 108,600 100.0 74.7 20.6 4.6 

Spouse and children--------------------------- 3,100 100.0 63.1 31.7 5.3 

Other relatives------------------------------- 61,400 100.0 62.8 29.3 7.9 

Alone or with nonrelatives-------------------- 164,300 100.0 59.6 33.5 6.9 

Boarding home--------------------------------- 11,200 100.0 57.4 29.7 12.9 

Nursing home---------------------------------- 60,600 100.0 69.1 24.0 7.0 

Mental hospital------------------------------- 27,100 100.0 49.5 35.6 14.9 

Long-term specialty hospital------------------ 5,880 100.0 77.1 17.4 5.5 

General or short-stay hospital---------------- 65,500 100.0 83.4 13.6 3.0 

Other place----------------------------------- 4,000 100.0 60.7 34.0 5.3 

Male 

All arrangements------------------------ 193,800 100.0 65.9 26.6 7.5 

Spouse only----------------------------------- 21,300 100.0 71.3 24.9 3.8 

Children only--------------------------------- 28,700 100.0 72.5 22.6 4.9 

Spouse and children--------------------------- 1,500 100.0 59.7 33.3 7.0 I 

Other relatives------------------------------- 21,400 100.0 62.5 28.2 9.3 

Alone or with nonrelatives-------------------- 52,200 100.0 62.9 28.9 8.2 

Boarding home--------------------------------- 6,200 100.0 50.4 36.5 13.1 

Nursing home---------------------------------- 20,200 100.0 64.2 28.2 7.6 

Mental hospital------------------------------- 12,800 100.0 43.8 38.7 17.5 

Long-term specialty hospital------------------ 2,600 100.0 70.2 19.2 10.7 

General or short-stay hospital---------------- 25,100 100.0 79.4 16.6 4.1 

Other place _-----___---_-----_-_________c_____ 1,900 100.0 61.3 33.3 5.4 

Female 

All arrangements------------------------ 360,200 100.0 68.2 26.0 5.8 

Spouse only -r-----r-____---------------------- 21,200 100.0 72.6 23.5 3.9 

Children only--------------------------------- 80,000 100.0 75.5 19.9 4.6 

Spouse and children--------------------------- 1,600 100.0 66.3 30.1 3.6 

Other relatives -----------I------_------------ 40,000 100.0 63.0 29.9 7.2 

Alone or with nonrelatives-------------------- 112,100 100.0 58.1 35.6 6.3 

Boarding home--------------------------------- 5,000 100.0 66.2 21:1 12.7 

Nursing home---------------------------------- 40,400 100.0 71.5 21.8 6.6 

Mental hospital------------------------------- 14,300 100.0 54.6 32.8 12.7 

Long-term specialty hospital------------------ 3,200 100.0 82.7 15.9 1.4 

General or short-stay hospitaL---------------- 40,400 100.0 85.9 11.8 2.3 

Other place----------------------------------- 2,100 100.0 60.2 34.7 5.1 

22 
Table 3. Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes, by 

type of care received at admission according to primary type of service and marital status: 

United States, May-June 1964 

Type of care received 

Number 

Primary typeof service and marital status of 

residents All Primarily Primarily Room and 

txw nursing personal board 

II only 

All homes Percent distribution 

All statuses------------------------ 554,000 LOO.0 58.2 17.6 24.2 

Married ---L-I----------------------------- 54,900 100.0 13.4 16.8 

Divorced----------------------------------

Separated------------------------------~--

Never married-----------------------------

19,500

8,700

122,700 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

5213 

51.5 

49.1 

26.2 

E . 

21.5 

30.3 

30.7 

Nursing care 

All statuses------------------------ 373,300 100.0 74.5 14.4 11.1 

Married-----------------------------------

Widowed-----------------------------------

Divorced----------------------------------

Separated---------------------------------

Never married-----------------------------

40,300 

"i;,g; 

5'800 

71:100 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

EC%. 

81.9 

75.2 

70.7 

63.7 

69.3 

11.0 

14.6 

18.1 

17.3 

14.9 

d-8 

11:2 

19.0 

15.7 

Personal care with nursing 

All statuses------------------------ 145,400 100.0 28.6 22.6 48.9 

Married-----------------------------------

Widowed-----------------------------------

Divorced--------c-------------------------

Separated---------------------------------

Never married-----------------------------

12,500

85,200

5,100

2,200

$0,400 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

41.4 

28.5 

z: 

2417 

16.8 

20.7 

34.5 

18.3 

27.0 

%i 

3519 

52.7 

48.4 

Personal care 

Widowed----------------------------------- 348,100 100.0 %F 16.9 23.0 

All statuses------------------------ 35,300 100.0 7.7 31.4 60.9 

Married -----------_---_----_______________ 2,100 100.0 38.5 54.0 Widowed------------------------------------- 18,900 100.0 5.; 29.6 63.2 Divorced----------------------------------

Separated--------------------------------- 2,300 100.0 4:9 50.8 44.4 

600 100.0 17.6 26.2 56.2 Never married------------------------------ 11,300 100.0 8.8 29.2 62.0 

23 
-------- ---- ---- ------ ----------- 

Table 4. Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes, by type of 

care received at admission according to primary type of service, living arrangements before admission, and sex: United States, May-June 1964 

Both sexes 

Type of care received 

Primary type of service and living arrangement Number II I I of 

residents All 

types 

All homes Percent distribution 

All arrangements------------------------- 554,000 100.0 58.2 17.6 24.: 

spouse only------------------------------------ Children only---------------------------------- 42,400 100.0 63.2 13.3 

Spbuse and children---------------------------- 108,600 100.0 62.2 18.6 

3,100 100.0 58.4 23.3 Other relatives-------------------------------- 61,400 100.0 49.5 20.3 Alone or with nonrelatives--------------------- 164,300 100.0 46.0 Boarding home---------------------------------- 11,200 100.0 48.7 E Nursing home----------------------------------- 60,600 100.0 65.0 19:1 Mental hospital--------------------------------

General or short-stay hospital----------------- Of-her place------------------------------------ f?J:soo 

4,000 

100.0 

100.0 

85.0 

42.9 

10.5 

21.8 

Nursing care 

All arrangements------------------------- 373,300 100.0 74.5 14.4 

spouse only------------------------------------ Children only---------------------------------- Spouse and children----------------------------

30,300

81,200 

100.o 

100.0 

76.2 12.6 

17.5 

11. 

8, 

Long-term specialty hospital------------------- 27&g 100.0 49.5 32.1 

100.0 79.0 13.1 

2,000 100.0 6'2.2 17.7 13. Other relatives-------------------------------- 38,600 100.0 6712 14. 

Alone or with.nonrelatives--------------------- 97,900 100.0 65.7 E: Boarding home---------------------------------- 6,400 100.0 1510 21;: Nursing home----------------------------------- 41,800 100.0 E97 13.9 Mental hospital-------------------------------- 13,400 100.0 68:8 18.0 12 

Long-term specialty hospital------------------- 4,500 100.0 87.6 4.: 

General or short-stay hospital----------------- 54,600 100.0 91.0 9; Other place------------------------------------ 2,409 100.0 68.5 1017 201: 

Personal care with nursing 

All arrangements------------------------- U&400 100.0 28.6 22.,6 48. 

spouse only------------------------------------ Children only---------------------------------- 110,300 100.0 33.6 10.2 

Spouse and children---------------------------- 22,400 100.0 29.9 20.4 

1,000 100.0 52.2 26-S Other relatives------------------------------- 18,000 100.0 24.0 25.8 

Alone or with nonrelatives--------------------- 55,000 100 .o 19.7 20.9 Boarding home---------------------------------- 3,300 100.0 37.8 

Nursing home--------- ___-_____---______-------- T4t,500 100.0 32.3 2:*: Mental hospital-------------------------------- 9,600 39.0 38:2 

Long-term specialty hospital------------------ 1,000 Es 66.0 24.1 

General 

Other place--- 1,300 lOO*O 3.7 40.9 

Personal care 

All arrangements------------------------- 35,300 100.0 7.7 31.4 

spouse only------------------------------ 1,600 100.0 6.5 45.1 

or short-stay hospital----------------- 8,900 1oo:o 59.3 26.2 

Children only---- ____________________-------- 5,100 100.0 8.5 29.0

Spouse and children--------------------------- 200 100.0 69.9 Other relatives------------------------------- 4,900 100.0 2.*6 16.2 

Alone or with nonrelatives----------------- 11,400 100.0 3.8 23.1 Boarding home--------------------------------- 1,500 100.0 15-3 Nursing home----------------------------------- 4,200 100.0 lo'-; 48.4 Ment-1 hospital-------------------------------- 4D.J; 100.0 10:6 64.1 

Long-term specialty hospital-------------- 100.0 51-7 

General or short-stay hospital--------------- 2,000 100.0 34.6 13..0 

Other place------ ____________________--------- 200 100.0 26.4 

24 
-- 

Table 4. Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes, by type of 

care received at admission according to primary type of service, living arrangements before admission, and sex: United States, May-June 1964-Con, 

-

Male T 

Type of care received 

Number Number

of of

resident5 residents 

Percent distribution 

193,80( 100.0 56.3 19.9 23.8 I360.200 

2L,30C LOO.0 63.9 14.5 21-6 21,200 28,7OC 100.0 20.7 19.2 80,000 1,5oc 100.0 E 13.6 23.4 1,600 21,4OC 100.0 45:9 20.3 40,000

5;,;;; 100.0 19.4 E 112,LOO 100.0 %6’ 13.3 47:o 5,000 20:2oc 100.0 58:0 22.7 19.3 40,400 12,8OC 100.0 43.0 38.0 19.0 14,300 2,6OC 100.0 66.5 25.4 8.2 3,200 25,ioa 100.0 81.3 13.3 40,400

1,900 100.0 42.9 29.1 2% 2,100 

127,600 100.0 73.0 15.3 11.7 245.700 

15,200 100.0 78.6 13.0 15,400 20,800 100.0 71.4 21.1 60,400 900 100.0 72.0 1,000 13,400 100.0 1;s 25,200 32,800 100.0 14:1 65,100 3,100 100.0 14.9 3,300 12,900 100.0 16.8 28,900 5,600 7,800 1,800 %-fi 83.5 22 2,600

1;,;;; ioo: 0 90.1 8:4 34,700 , 100.0 70.0 13.1 1,200 

51,60( 100.0 28.6 27.2 93,800 

100.0 12.3 56.3 5,000 2% 100.0 E 17.8 48.1 15,900 'sot 100.0 60:0 19.6 20.4 500

6,00C 100.0 20.3 29.9 49.9 12,000 15,100 100.0 28.2 39,900

2,3oa 100.0 22 11.1 z-3" 1,100 100.0 24:0 27.0 48:9 8,800

3% 100.0 28.5 43.3 28.2 4,700 ‘500 100.0 40.9 IO"1 500

4,200 100.0 49.5 iE 14.1 4,800 600 100.0 - 63:2 36.8 700 

14,600 100.0 7.9 34.4 57.7 20.700 

800 100.0 56.1 43-9 800

1,400 100.0 29.4 59.2 3,600 100 100.0 53.8 46.2 100

2,000 100,o

4,300 100.0 2.5 28s.; E 27%

800 100.0 13:8 8612 '600

1,500 100.0 

2,200 100.0 2: 22 x:

300 100.0 60:0 4010 '100

1,000 100.0 

Female 

Type of 

II ALLIIPrimarily 

types nursing 

Percent 

LOO.0 59.2 

care received 

I I 

Primarily R;zzryd personal only 

distribution 

16.4 

100.0 62.5 12.1 25.4

100.0 17.9 19.2

100,o 2: 32.5 13.4

100.0 51:3 20.3 28.4

100.0 45.3 16.2 38.5

100.0 60.0 12.3

100.0 68.5 17.3 2:

100.0 55.3 26.8 17:9

100.0 89.2

LOO.0 87.3 E 3.2

1oa.o 42.8 15:2 42:0 

100.0 75.3 14.0 10.8 

100.0 73.8 12.2 14.0

100.0 75.5 16.3

100.0 28.2 1E 

100.0 2: 18.5 12:8

100.0 Cii:; 14.6 18.9 

15.2

GE 8314 12.7 %

1oo:o 70.0 14.1 15:9

100.0 90.4 4.0 5.6

100.0 91.5

100.0 67.2 2: 2::: 

100.0 28.6 20.0 51.4 

100.0 

LOO.0 

35.9

28.2 2:-z 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0

100.0 

44.0 

25.9 

E 

37:6 

33:9 

23.8 

18.2 

24.6 

10G.O 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

50.1 

90.4 

"E . 

32.7 

17.4 

21.3 

9.6 

14.8 

71.7 

100.0 7.6 29.2 63.2 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

12.7 

,7.4 

34.6 

28.8 

100.0 

fx. GE 

21.8 

19.8 

74.2 

75.6 

1oo:o 

100.0 

100.0 

17.3 

43.7 

65.8 

66.4 

46.3 

28.2

100.0 100.0 

100 100,o 

14-3 46.1 9QQ LOO.0 11.; 59.3

100.0 LOO 100.0 52.4 47.6 

25 

24.4 
Table 5. Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes by number of chronic conditions and impairments according to primary type of service and marital 

status: United States, May-June 1964 

Primary type of service Number Number of chronic conditions and impairments 

and marital status of 

residents Total None 1 2 3 4 5+ Mean Median 

All homes Percent distribution 

All statuses---------- 554,000 100.0 3.7 17.0 23.0 21.4 14.9 20.0 3.3 

Married--------------------- 54,900 100.0 14.5 23.6 20.7 17.3 22.1 3.5 Widowed--------------------- 348,100 100.0 f-i . 15.2 21.9 22.5 15.0 21.6 Divorced-------------------- 19,500 100.0 19.3 26.0 17.3 14.3 20.2 ?4 Separated------------------- 8,700 100.0 29 22.1 24.0 18.4 15.2 16.3 Never married--------------- 122,?00 100.0 4:3 22.6 25.2 19.6 13.4 14.8 4:X 

Nursing care 

All statuses---------- 373,300 100.0 12.9 21.4 23.0 16.5 24.4 3.6 -

Married--------------------- 40,300 100.0 12.1 Widowed---------------------

Divorced--------------------

Separated-------------------

Never married---------------

12,100

5,800

J;L,lOO 

%*i 

1oo:o 

100.0 

13.7 

17.3 

16.5 

I!?: 

19:7 

23.1 

19:8 

23.0 

22.5 

1613 

17.5 

15.5 

%f 

19:9 

20.3 

9;

3:4 

Personal care 

with nursing 

All statuses---------- 145,400 100.0 7.1 23.1 26.1 19.2 12.6 11.9 2.5 2.8 

Married---------------------

Widowed---------------------

Divorced--------------------

12,500

85,200

5,100 

100.0 

EiE 

4.8 

2; 

18.4 

21.3 

25.2 

24.7 

25.1 

31.8 

19.3 

21.0 

14.0 

16.9 

12.3 

11.9 4:; 

243,900 11.8 

22.7 1’3.:E 25.2 

Z 

Separated-------------------

Never married--------------- 2,200

,40,400 

100: 0 

100.0 89:: 

36.0 

27.3 

30.:0 

27.7 

7.0 

16.7 

8.9 

12.2 

2: 

2:5 

Personal care 

All statuses---------- 35,300 100.0 9.4 36.1 26.8 14.2 7.1 6.3 

Married---------------------

Widowed--------------------- 2,100

18,900 

100.0 

1X-Z 

37.9 

31.6 

35.6 

24.1 

12.2 

16.1 7.9 Divorced--------------------

Separated------------------- 2,300 Ex 913 35.7 27.2 11.4 

600 100: 0 17.4 41.7 16.2 5-E Never married--------------- 11,300 100.0 5.; 44.6 28.6 12.0 4:6 

26 

I 
Table 6. Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes, by number of 

chronic conditions and impairments accordingto primary type of service and living arrangements before 

admission: United States, May-June 1964 

Primary type of service Number Number of chronic conditions and impairments 

of and living arrangement residents Total None 1 2 3 4 5+ Mean Median 

All homes 

All arrangements------------

Spouse only-----------------------

Children only---------------------

Spouse and children--------------- Other relatives-------------------

Alone or with nonrelatives-------- Boarding home---------------------

Nursing home---------------------- Mental hospital-------------------

Long-term specialty hospital------ General or short-stay hospital---- Other place-----------------------

Nursing care 

All arrangements------------

Spouse only-----------------------

Children only---------------------

Spouse and children---------------

Other relatives-------------------

Alone or with nonrelatives--------

Boarding home---------------------

Nursing home----------------------

Mental hospital-------------------

Long-term specialty hospital------ General or short-stay hospital---- Other place-----------------------

Personal care with nursine 

All arrangements------------

Spouse only-----------------------

Children only---------------------

Spouse and children---------------

Other relatives-------------------

Alone or with nonrelatives-------- Boarding home---------------------

Nursing home----------------------

Mental hospital-------------------

Long-term specialty hospital------ General or short-stay hospital---- Other place-----------------------

Personal care 

All arrangements------------

Spouse only-----------------------

Children only---------------------

Spouse and children---------------

Other relatives-------------------

Alone or with nonrelatives-------- Boarding home---------------------

Nursing home----------------------

Mental hospital-------------------

Long-term specialty hospital------ General or short-stay hospital---- Other place-;---------------------

Percent distribution 

23.0 21.4 

42,4OC 100.0 i-3 14.7 

13.1 23.0 20.1 18.8 22.3 

108,600 23.1 15.6 21.5

3,100 Et: 4:9 13.3 x 21.1 15.0 21.1

61,400 1oo:o 17.9 26:l 16.4

164,300 100.0 2: 19.3 23.1 2~: E-i 17.2

11,200 100.0 3:6 16.1 21.8 22:1 14:3 22.2 

60,600 100.0 16.1 21.9 22.8 14.4 23.0

27,100 100.0 11:; 27.1 28.9 19.0 11.9 11.7

5,800 100.0 15.1 17.1 24.1 18.2 25.5

65,500 100.0 13.8 20.6 22.3 16.1 26.3 

4,000 100.0 22.9 26.5 17.9 11.0 17.9 

373,300 100.0 1.8 12.9 21.4 23.0 16.5 24.4 

30,500 100.0 11.2 21.3 20.7 19.0 26.5 

81,200 100.0 2'7 11.9 21.1 24.3 16.2 24.9

2,000 100.0 12.8 22.9 20.4 13.2 

100.0 1":; 13.7 24.4 20.6 18.3 z-z

;%: 100.0 15.1 21.7 23.5 14.9 21:5

6:400 100.0 1.2 12.5 16.6 21.8 19.3 28.3

41,800 100.0 1:2 10.2 20.9 24.7 15.7 27.3

13,400 100.0 1.2 15.6 27.4 20.1 18.2 17.6

4,500 100.0 7.8 16.6 26.8 21.4 27.3

54,600 100.0 12.6 18.9 22.9 16.8 28.5

2,400 100.0 $2 12.3 31.7 14.4 14.1 25.4 

100.0 26.1 12.6 

10,300 100.0 L5.7 24.7 20.4 20.4 

22,400 100.0 24.4 19.5 14.9

1,000 100.0 K 27.1 26.1 21.0

100.0 22:4 29.0 23.0 13.5

x% 100.0 23.7 25.0 17.0

3:300 100.0 30.4 20.9 '2:

14,500 100.0 :;-z 23.0 19.2 10:9

9,600 30:o 19.8

1,000 %-i 24.5 E 15.2 z-5

8,900 1oo:o L5.5 29:1 21.0 13:7

1,300 100.0 37.6 21.4 22.9 7.1 

100.0 36.1 26.8 14.2 6.3 

1,600 100.0 33.3 44.4

5,100 100.0 28.6 23.1 2::: 22 1:; 200 100.0 30.1 

4,900 100.0 E-1" 28.6 16.; 4.4 Zi 

11,400 100.0 34:o 26.9 10.6

1,500 100.0 26.6 25.1 25.9 17.: E

4,200 100.0 29.5 27.3 16.2 13:2 214

4,000 100.0 58.4 22.8 13.6 1.4 1.7

300 100.0 36.2 13.8 

2,000 100.0 il.7 30.9 10.6 8.4 E

200 100.0 19.5 26.4 1:3 

27 
Table 7. Number of residents and rate per 1,000 residents in nursing and personal care homes 

with selected chronic conditions and impairments,by marital status: United States,May-June 1964 

-

Chronic conditions and impairments 

All residents-------------------­

i 

No reported conditions-----------------

Malignant neoplasms--------------------

Benign and unspecified neoplasms-------

Asthma---------------------------------

Diabetes mellitus----------------------

Advanced senility----------------------

Senility not psychotic-----------------

Other mental disorders-----------------

Vascular lesions affecting central nervous system----------------

Parkinson's disease--------------------

Epilepsy-------------------------------

Chronic diseases of eye----------------

Diseases of heart----------------------

Hypertension without mention of heart-­

General arteriosclerosis---------------

Varicose veins--'-----------------------

Hemorrhoids --------"-__--_-_---________ 

Bronchitis and emphysema---------------

Sinus and other respiratory conditionsUlcer of stomach and duodenum----------

Hernia of abdominal cavity-------------

Other chronic conditions of digestive system----------------------

Diseases of urinary'system-------------

Diseases of prostate and 

other male genital organs-------------

Arthritis and rheumatism---------------

Fracture, femur (old)------------------

All other chronic conditions-----------

Visual impairments: inability to 

read newspaper with glasses-----------

Other visual impairments---------------

Hearing impairments--------------------

Speech impairments, all types----------

Paralysis, palsy due to stroke---------

Paralysis , palsy due to other causes---

Absence, major extremities-------------

Impairments, limbs, back, trunk--------

All other impairments------------------

Marital status 

II I I I I 

Total I/ Married 1 Widowed /Divorced 1 Separated / ~~~~~, 

Number of residents 

554,000 11 54,900 1348,100 1 19,500 1 8,700 1 122,700 

Pate per 1,000 residents 

36;8 18.2 37.8 29.1 40.5 43.4 

33.3 50.8 34.7 26.1 28.5 23.2 

12.3 21.7 11.3 7.6 22.5 11.1 

29.7 19.2 30.6 24.9 39.8 32.1 

80.0 84.6 89.0 77.0 45.9 55.1 

218.4 222.6 246.1 128.7 116.0 159.4 

49.5 44.7 56.6 30.4 61.1 33.8 

181.9 176.3 134.3 327.4 300.4 287.7 

339.5 429.4 362.8 303.2 267.0 244.2 

22.6 31.5 20.7 26.6 22.8 23.4 

21.2 27.6 11.3 56.8 23.5 40.3 

62.5 29.7 67.9 61.8 40.9 63.3 

282.6 263.2 324.4 207.8 202.1 190.2 

63.3 39.8 64.5 33.2 59.0 75.4 

78.5 72.4 85.6 43.6 57.4 68.3 

32.0 28.3 31.7 46.2 30.1 32.5 

38.2 41.3 38.8 41.6 46.2 33.8 

40.2 37.2 36.1 77.9 64.5 45.5 

19.4 18.2 17.8 30.9 35.3 21.6 

17.6 18.6 17.4 18.4 24.3 17.3 

35.5 38.6 33.5 51.4 51.8 36.0 

124.4 126.5 132.9 136.9 104.0 98.8 

58.2 75.4 60.7 80.2 75.9 38.8 

3o.c 55.4 24.6 44.0 50.8 30.6 

220.8 192.2 246.3 169.6 180.3 172.4 

31.1 30.0 35.8 18.4 11.7 21.6 

148.7 160.4 144.1 193.4 150.0 149.1 

120.5 90.8 138.4 65.7 58.6 96.4 

60.2 45.3 63.3 73.2 70.0 55.5 

187.6 161.0 205.6 113.3 150.6 162.7 " 

98.6 167.5 77.6 109.0 138.2 122.8 

120.3 207.0 122.4 137.0 107.9 73.7 

46.9 56.6 35.0 72.9 52.4 71.8 . 

20.9 21.0 18.7 44.2 29.7 22.6 

135.8 123.7 139.0 128.5 150.9 132.2 

13.7 16.4 12.2 18.6 23.0 15.2 

28 

1 
Table 8. Number of residents and rate per 1,000 residents in nursing and personal care homes 

with selected conditions and impairments,byliving arrangements before admission: United States,

May-June 1964 

Living arrangement 

Chronic conditions and impairments 

Total Spouse Children Spouse Other with nonAlone or 

and only only children relatives relatives 

Number of residents 

All residents---------------- 554,000 11 42,400 1 108,600 1 3,100 1 

Rate per .,OOO residents 

No reported conditions-------------

Malignant neoplasms---------------- Benign and unspecified neoplasms--- Asthma-----------------------------

Diabetes mellitus------------------

Advanced senility------------------

36.8 

33.3 

12.3 

29.7 

80.C 

26.6 

40.1 

28.2 

24.9 

79.8 

235.0 

33.1 49.4 

34.9 31.3 

2X 

14.9 

85:4 

18.4 

81.4 

282.1 

Senility, not psychotic------------ Other mental disorders-------------

22x 

181:9 

52.1 

146.0 

55.4 'E 

106.2 148:O 

Vascular lesions affecting central nervous system------------ Parkinson's disease---------------- 339.5 

22.6 

442.6 

29.5 

395.5 327.3 

26.0 17.1 

Epilepsy--------------------------- 12.9 11.1 32.0 

Chronic diseases of eye------------ Diseases of heart------------------

x 

28216 

32.5 

287.0 

66.3 50.4 

312.8 225.8 

Hypertension without mention of

heart----------------------------- 63.3 62.1 60.1 49.1 

General arteriosclerosis-----------

Varicose veins---------------------

Hemorrhoids------------------------

78.5 

32.0 

38.2 

66.0 

27.0 

96.0 102.4 

18.4 

E 32.0 

Bronchitis and emphysema----------- Sinus and other respiratory conditions------------------------

40.2 

19.4 

2:6. 

22.5 

32:6 

14.3 32.0 

Ulcer of stomach and duodenum------ 19.1 14.9 

Hernia of abdominal cavity--------- Other chronic conditions of ;:e . 49.0 39.7 65.3 

digestive system------------------ 124.4 114.8 137.0 145.4 

Diseases of urinary system--------- Diseases of prostate and 

other male genital organs--------- Arthritis and rheumatism-----------

Fracture, femur (old)--------------

All other chronic conditions-------

58.2 

30.0 

220.8 

31.1 

148.7 

66.0 

54.7 

211.9 

32.0 

152.1 

70.5 79.5 

25.3 81.4 

239.0 195.2 

32.0 17.8 

140.4 130.5 

Visual impairments: inability to 

read newspaper with glasses------- Other visual impairments-----------

Hearing impairments----------------

120.5 

60.2 

92.2 

58.7 

162.3 

146.7 129.9 

52.9 35.5 

200.6 116.6 

Speech impairments, all types------

Paralysis, palsy due to stroke-----

Paralysis, palsy due to other 

causes----------------------------

Absence, major extremities---------

Impairments, limbs, back, trunk----

All other impairments--------------

%*Z 

120:3 

4E 

135:a 

13.7 

153.9 

209.8 

42:: 

11712 

14.2 

80.1 80.1 

136.5 82.7 

41.1 80.1 

17.9 

138.2 212.6 

11.7 65.3 

61,400 1 164,300 

29.3 67.7 

29.6 29.0 

11.4 12.6 

26.2 31.0 

56.3 73.7 

196.1 

41.4 'E 

262.8 122:9 

281.1 

26.9 ':E 

42.0 12:4 

59.0 71.5 

233.3 268.5 

76.4 77.6 

62.4 89.6 

31.0 37.2 

37.0 37.5 

35.7 47.1 

29.0 20.6 

16.7 21.3 

32.1 33.4 

111.4 120.6 

40.1 49.0 

25.4 27.4 

211.0 249.6 

18.7 22.4 

135.1 137.9 

122.4 107.9 

58.1 71.6 

175.3 196.6 

126.9 57.0 

88.6 81.7 

E*Z :t*;

145:1 133:a 

9.0 14.2 

29 
Table 8. Number of residents and rate per 1,000 residents in nursing and personal care homes 

with selected conditions and impairments,byliving arrangements before admission: United States,

May-June 1964-Con. 

Living arrangement 

Chronic conditions and impairments I I I 

Boarding Nursing home home I 

Malignant 

Number of residents 

All residents------------------- 11,200 1 60,600 1 27,100 1 5,800 1 65,500 14,000 

Rate per ,000 residents 

No reported conditions---------------- 36.1 18.6 13.0 37.9

neoplasms------------------- 22.7 31.7 14.9 52.9 4X 36.4 

Benign and unspecified 21.9 25.6 16:7

Asthma-------------------------------- neoplasms------

45.3 3?Z 1E 35.5 39.0 38.; Diabetes mellitus--------------------- 67.4 99:3 46:6 93.9 106.0 73.7

Advanced senility--------------------- 156.5 151.6 226.1 152.8 

Senility, not psychotic--------------- 'E '2!?& 22.4 77.9 56.6 13.1 

Other mental disorders---------------- 17219 181:8 704. 342.4 177.3 152.8 

Vascular lesions affecting 

disease------------------- 13.7 24.2 8.3 18.5 37.1 

Epilepsy -___---__-_-_-_____-----------

Chronic diseases of eye--------------- Diseases of heart---------------------

35.6 

86.8 

270.5 

25.0 

58.2 

316.6 

5:';

54:8 

130.2 

70.4 

51.6 

219.6 

21.7 

61.1 

352.9 

26.0 

51.8 

284.1 

Hypertension without mention of heartGeneral arteriosclerosis--------------

Varicose veins------------------------

Hemorrhoids---------------------------

63.0 

76.6 

45.6 

45.0 

52.8 

81.3 

20.7 

40.5 

61.8 

18.7 

19.2 

34.6 

86.5 

18.3 

34.8 

32.3 

66.0 

28.4 

33.0 

100.0 

74.7 

66.7 

66.2 

Bronchitis and emphysema-------------- Sinus and other respiratory 

94.5 34.1 E . 36.0 39.0 62.9 

central

Parkinson's 

nervous system--------------- 242.9 350.6 289.6 399.8 433.6 263.1 

conditions--------------------------- 26.5 21.4 13.7 17.8 14.4 

Ulcer of stomach and duodenum--------- 31.6 16.9 17.8 18.8 

Hernia of abdominal cavity------------ 32.0 30.1 22:: 53.3 31.0 99.2 

Other chronic conditions of digestive 

system------------------------------- 131.7 146.4 65.4 121.5 135.1 90.7 

Diseases of urinary system------------ 31.3 58.7 43.4 86.7 80.1 48.2 

Diseases of prostate and other male 

genital organs----------------------- 48.6 24.5 15.5 62.6 32.6 77.0 

Arthritis and rheumatism-------------- 219.4 217.7 86.8 228.9 191.9 227.5 

Fracture, femur (old)----------------- 26.6 30.0 9.4 25.8 73.8 39.4 

All other chronic conditjons---------- 167.5 166.9 116.9 140.0 193.2 168.4 

Visual impairments: inability to 

read newspaper with glasses---------- 136.5 132.4 -05.7 102.1 118.6 126.5 

Other visual impainnents-------------- 54.7 65.5 32.4 17.6 60.7 38.1 

Hearing impairments------------------- 248.0 192.8 82.9 166.3 201.3 241.4 

Speech impairments, all types--------- 81.6 114.3 152.9 207.3 129.0 89.1 

Paralysis, palsy due to stroke-------- 71.6 143.2 40.9 182.2 181.1 72.0 

Paralysis, palsy due to other causes-- 39.9 56.8 46.9 88.6 50.3 52.8 

Absence, major extremities------------ 40.6 29.4 15.2 16.6 39.1 12.6 

Impairments, limbs, back, trunk------- 150.8 151.0 77.1 183.4 138.2 165.7 

All other impairments----------------- 18.9 11.6 13.0 7.8 19.0 12.9 

L 

30 
Table 9. Number and percent distribution of residentsinnursing and personal care homes, by frequency of visitors according to age and primary type of service: United States, May-June 1964 

Primary type of service 

and frequency of visitors 

Median Mean 

Total Number of residents 

All homes-------- ----_____--___ 79.6 77.1 

Nursing care homes------------------- 79.8 77.5 

Personal care with nursing homes----- 79.5 76.7 

Personal care homes------------------

All homes 

Total--------------------------

At least once a week-----------------

Less than once a week but 

at least once a month---------------

Less than once a month---------------

Never visited------------------------

Nursing care 

Total--------------------------

At least once a month----------------

Less than once a week but 

at least once a month---------------

Less than once a month---------------

Never visited------------------------

Personal care with nursing 

Total--------------------------

At least once a month----------------

Less than once a week but 

at least once a month---------------

Less than once a month---------------

Never visited------------------------

Personal care 

Total--------------------------

At least once a week-----------------

Less than once a week but 

at least once a month---------------

Less than once a month---------------

Never visited------------------------

77.7 74.0 

Percent distribution 

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 79.6 77.1 

58.1 43.1 53.7 60.9 63.3 80.4 78.4 

19.4 16.7 20.0 19.7 19.5 79.8 77.5 

13.0 20.2 13.7 11.8 11.2 78.0 74.5 

9.5 20.0 12.5 7.6 6.0 75.1 71.9 

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 79.8 77.5 

61.8 52.5 58.3 63.5 65.1 80.3 78.3 

18.5 16.8 19.5 18.5 18.6 79.8 77.8 

11.1 14.4 11.5 10.4 10.5 79.1 76.1 

8.6 16.3 10.7 7.6 5.7 76.5 73.3 

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 79.5 76.7 

52.3 31.7 44.9 57.5 58.7 80.7 78.6 

21.0 17.4 21.3 21.2 22.0 79.9 77.4 

16.9 30.2 19.0 14.4 13.2 77,. 0 73.4 

9.8 20.8 14.8 6.8 6.1 73.6 71.0 

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 77.7 74.0 

42.9 19.5 38.8 47.3 60.8 80.4 78.3 

21.5 14.0 20.5 26.7 19.7 78.8 76.1 

17.6 27.7 17.4 15.9 11.0 74.6 68.4 

18.1 38.7 23.2 10.1 8.5 67.6 67.0 

31 
Table 10. Number and .percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes, by frequency of visitors according to length of stay and primary type of service: United States,

May-June 1964 -

T Length of stay 

Primary type of service 

and frequency of visitors Under 1 1 to 3 3 to 5 5+ years Median Mean 

year years years 

Total Number of residents 

All homes--------------------- 554,000 184,200 1 189,lOOl 82,400 98,200 1.8 3.0 

I I 

Nursing care homes------------------ 373,300 135,700 133,200 53,400 51,100 1.6 2.6 

Personal care with nursing homes---- 145,400 38,300 44,900 23,000 39,200 2.4 3.9 

Personal care homes----------------- 35,300 10,300 11,000 6,000 7,900 2.3 3.6 

All homes Percent distribution 

Total -_----_------------------ 100.0 100.0 1oo.c 100.0 100.0 1.8 3.0 E 

At least once a week---------------- 58.1 71.5 58.E 50.1 38.3 1.4 2.3 

Less than once a week but 

at least once a month-------------- 19.4 14.6 21.6 22.4 21.7 2.2 3.3 

Less than once a month-------------- 13.0 6.2 12.5 16.1 24.1 3.3 4.7 

Never visited----------------------- 9.5 7.7 7.2 11.4 15.9 2.8 4.4 

Nursing care 

Total------------------------- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.6 2.6 

At least once a week---------------- 61.8 74.8 61.3 51.4 39.2 1.3 1.9 

Less than once a week but 

at least once a month-------------- 18.5 13.5 21.1 22.5 21.3 2.0 2.9 

Less than once a month-------------- 11.1 5.4 10.8 15.1 22.5 2.8 4.2 

Never visited----------------------- 8.6 6.3 6.8 11.0 17.0 2.8 4.1 

Personal care with nursing 

Total------------------------- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2.4 3.9 

At least once a week---------------- 52.3 66.4 53.5 49.3 38.9 1.9 3.0 

Less than once a week but 

at least once a month-------------- 21.0 16.6 22.5 22.4 22.7 2.7 3.2 

Less than once a month-------------- 16.9 7.3 17.1 19.1 24.7 3.8 5.6 

Never visited------------------------ 9.8 9.7 6.9 9.3 13.7 3.4 5.3 

Personal care 

Total------------------------- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2.3 3.6 

At least once a week---------------- 42.9 46.7 49.6 41.5 29.7 1.9 2.8 

Less than once a week but 

at least once a month-------------- 21.5 21.7 23.5 20.7 19.2 2.0 3.5 

Less than once a month-------------- 17.6 12.1 14.7 13;9 31.4 3.6 5.1 

Never visited----------------------- 18.1 19.6 12.2 23.9 19.8 2.7 4.0 

32 
Table 11. Number and percent distribution of residents in nursing and personal care homes, by living arrangements before admission according to age and sex: United States, May-June 1964 

Living arrangement and sex ages years years and over years 

All living arrangements Number of residents 

Both sexes------------------------ 554,000 56,200 104,500 383,300 230,900 152,400 

Male------------------------------------

Female---------------------------------- 193,800 

360,200 

16,200 

30,000 

40,400 117,200 

64,000 266,200 

74,100

156,800 

43,100

109,300 

Both sexes 

All arrangements------------------ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Family or relatives--------------------- 38.9 36.7 37.6 39.7 38.9 40.7 

Alone or with nonrelatives-------------- 29.7 32.3 32.4 32.2 

Boarding or nursing home---------------- 13.0 z*; z-z 12.7 12.3 

All Under 65-74 75 years 75-84 65 

Hospital or other place----------------- 18.5 30:9 22:o 15.4 16.4 % . 

Male 

All arrangements------------------ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -

Family or relatives-------------------:-

Alone or with nonrelatives--------------

Boarding or nursing home----------------

Hospital or other place-----------------

/E

13:6

21.9 

33.6 

18.9 

15.5 

32.0 

33.5 

28.5 

13.7 

24.3 

38.9 %92 28.3 

13:o 13.0

17.9 19.8 

42.4 

29.9 

13.1 

14.5 

Female 

All arrangements------------------ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Family or relatives---------------------. 

Alone or with nonrelatives--------------

Boarding or nursing home----------------

Hospital or other place-----------------

39.6 

2.6 

16:6 

40.4 

16.2 

13.9 

29.5 

4z 

12:4 

20.5 

38.9

Ei 34.4 

12:5 12.0 

14.2 14.7 

40.1 

33.1 

13.3 

13.6 

33 
APPENDIX I 

A. TECHNICAL NOTES ON SURVEY DESIGN 

General. - lhe Resident Places Survey-2 (RPS-2) 

was conducted during May and June 1964 by the Division of Health Records Statistics in cooperation with 

the U.S. Bureau of the Census. It was a survey of resident institutions in the United States which provide nursing or personal care to the aged andchronically ill, of 

their patients or residents, and of their employees. The 

institutions within the scope of the survey included such 

places as nursing homes, convalescent homes, rest 

homes, homes for the aged, other related facilities, and 

geriatric hospitals. To be eligible for the survey an 

establishment must have maintained three beds or more 

and must have provided some level of nursing or personal care. The procedure for classifying establishments for the RPS-2 universe is described in appendix 

II-B. 

This appendix presents a brief description of the 

survey design, general qualifications of the data, and 

the reliability of estimates presented in this report. 

Succeeding appendixes are concerned with classification 

procedures, definitions, and questionnaires used in the 

survey for collecting information about residents, 

chronic conditions,.employees, and services. 

Sampling frame. -A “multiframe” technique was 

used in establishing the sampling universe for RPS-2. 

The principal frame was the Master Facility Inventory 

(MFI), which contained the names, addresses, and 

descriptive information for about 90-95 percent of the 

nursing and personal care homes in the United States. 

Establishments not listed in the MFI were, theoretically, on another list referred to as the Complement 

Survey list. A description of the MFI and the Complement Survey has been published. g 

The Complement Survey is based on an area probability design, using the sample design of the Health 

Interview Survey.1 In the Health Interview Survey, 

interviewers make visits each week to households 

located in probability samples of small segments of the 

United States. In addition to collecting information 

about the health of the household members, the interviewers are instructed to record the names and addresses of hospitals and institutions located wholly or 

partially within the specified areas. The Complement 

Survey list is composed of the establishments identified 

in these sample areas between January 1959 and July 

1963 which were not listed in the MFI and which were 

in business as of July 1, 1962. The Complement Survey 

sample for RPS-2 included four establishments representing an estimated total of about 800 such facilities in 

the United States. 

34 

Sample design. -The sample design was a stratified, two-stage probability design. The first stage was 

a selection of establishments from the MFI and the 

Complement Survey; the second stage, a selection of 

employees’ and residents from registers of the sample 

establishments. In preparation for the first-stage 

sample selection, the MFI was divided into two groups 

on the basis of whether current information was available about the establishment. Group I was composed of 

establishments which had returned a questionnaire in 

a previous MFI survey. Group II contained places which 

were possibly within the scope of RPS-2 but were not 

confirmed in the MFI survey, e.g., nonresponses and 

questionnaires not delivered by the post office because 

of insufficient address, Group I was then sorted into 

three type-of-service strata: nursing care homes, including geriatric hospitals; personal care homes with 

nursing; and personal care homes. Group II was treated 

as a fourth type-of-service stratum. Each of these 

four strata was further sortedintofour bed-sizegroups, 

producing 16 primary strata, as shown in table I. Within 

each primary stratum, the listing of establishmentswas 

ordered by type of ownership, State, and county. The 

sample of establishments was then selected systematically after a random start within each of the primary 

strata. 

Table I shows the distribution by primary strata 

of establishments in the MFI and in the sample and 

shows the final disposition of the sample places with 

regard to their response and in-scope status. Of the 

1,201 homes originally selected, 1,085 were found to 

be in business and within the scope of the survey. 

The second-stage sample selection of residents 

was carried out by Bureau of the Census interviewers 

in accordance with specific instructions given for each 

sample establishment as contained in the Resident 

Questionnaire (HRS-3c, appendix III), All the residents 

on the register of the establishment on the day of the 

survey were listed on the Establishment Questionnaire 

(HRS-3a). The interviewers were furnished with the 

numbers of predetermined sample lines for each home 

(e.g., every seventh line). The first three sample designations were entered on the questionnaire worksheet, 

and the interviewer entered the remaining predetermined numbers until the last selected number exceeded 

the total number now on the register. The name of the 

sample resident (patient) was entered opposite the 

sample designation number. For each sample resident 

a questionnaire was completed by the interviewer from 

information furnished by the respondent. The total 
Table I. Distribution of institutions for the aged and chronically ill in the Master Facilit 

Inventory and in the RPS-2 sample, by primary strata (type of service and size of institution 3 and by response status to the RPS-2: United States -

r Number of homes in sample 

Number rIn scope and 

Type of service and size of institution bf homes out of in business 

in 

MFI 

t P e Yotal cope or 

lomesl out of Nonre- Re­ usiness iponding ponding

homes homes 

All types--------------------------------- 19,520 1,201 116 12 1,073 

Nursing care2----------------------------- 8,155 634 37 8 589 

Under 30 beds----------------------------------- 4,400 179 21 5 153 

30-99 beds-------------------------------------- 3,247 260 11 3 246 

100-299 beds------------------------------------ 448 135 3 132 

300 beds and over------------------------------- 60 60 2 58 

Personal care with nursing---------------- 4,972 381 12 2 367 

under 30 beds----------------------------------- 3,168 128 10 1 117 

30-99 beds-------------------------------------- 1,423 114 1 1 112 

100-299 beds------------------------------------ 345 103 1 102 

300 beds and over------------------------------- 36 36 36 

persona1 care----------------------------- 3,621 113 13 2 98 

Under 30 beds----------------------------------- 3,187 64 11 53 

30-99 beds-------------------------------------- 402 32 1 31 

100-299 beds------------------------------------ 29 14 2 1 11 

300 beds and over------------------------------- 3 3 3 

Group 113------ ________---_--______------- 2,772 73 54 19 

under 25 beds----------------------------------- 2,578 52 37 15 

25-99 beds-------------------------------------- 185 15 12 3 

100-299 beds------------------------------------ 6 3 

300 beds and over------------------------------- ? 2 1 

'The universe for the RPS-2 sample consisted of the MFI and the Complement Survey. Included in 

the RPS-2 sample were 4 homes from the Complement Survey. 

21ncludes geriatric hospitals. 

3Group II consists of those institutions assumed to be in scope of the RPS-2 survey but for 

which current data were not available. 

35 
sample selected from establishments cooperating in the 

survey consisted of 10,560 residents. 

Survey procedwe.- The Bureau of the Census 

employed about 140 of their regular interviewers for 

the survey, All were experienced in the continuing 

surveys conducted by the Bureau of the Census; about 

half were employed in the Health Interview Survey, 

one of the major programs of the National Center for 

Health Statistics, and about half in other surveys. Since 

the interviewers were well trained in general survey 

methodology, it was relatively easy to train them in the 

specific methods used in RPS-2. Briefly, their training 

consisted of home study materials and observation by 

the Census Regional Supervisor on the first interview 

assignment. 

The initial contact with an establishment was a 

letter signed by the Director of the Bureau of the Census. 

The letter (HRS-3f, appendix III) notified each administrator about the survey, requested his cooperation, and 

stated that a representative would contact him for an 

appointment. The interviewer’s telephone call usually 

followed within 3 or 4 days. 

During the course of the interview, the interviewer 

collected data on the establishment, the resident, and 

the employees. The establishment and resident information was obtained by personal interview, and the staff 

information was collected by personal interview and by 

means of a self-enumeration questionnaire. The respondent for the Resident (patient) Questionnaire (HRS3c) was a member of the staff who had close contact 

with the resident, thus having firsthand knowledge of 

the resident’s health condition. This was usually a nurse 

who was responsible for the individual sample resident. 

One nurse might have completed questionnaires for all 

residents in a small home, or shared the responsibility 

in a large home. The interviewer was instructed to 

encourage maximum use of records by the respondent. 

For data on chronic conditions and impairments, medical records, if available, were routinely used to supplement the information provided by the respondent. 

The Census regional offices also performed certain 

checks during the course of the survey to insure that 

the interviewers were conducting the survey according 

to specified procedures. They reviewed all questionnaires for completeness prior to transmittal to the 

Washington office and made inquiries as necessary to 

obtain the missing information. 

The completed questionnaires were edited and 

coded by the National Center for Health Statistics, and 

the data were processed on an electronic computer. 

This processing included assignment of weights, ratio 

adjustments, and other related procedures necessary 

to produce national estimates from the sample data. 

It also included matching with basic identifying information contained in the Master Facility Inventory, as 

well as carrying out internal edits and consistency 

checks to eliminate “impossibie” response and errors 

in editing, coding, or processing. 

B. GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS 

Nonvesponse and imputation of missi?g data.-ne 

survey was conducted in 1,073 homes, or about 89 percent of the original sample. About 7 percent of the 

sample places were found to be out of business, and an 

additional 3 percent were found to beoutof scope of the 

survey, that is, they either did not provide nursing or 

personal care to their residents or maintained fewer 

than three beds, Only 12 homes, or about 1 percent of 

the sample, refused to cooperate in the survey (table I). 

The response rate for the in-scope sample was 98.9 

percent. 

Statistics in this report were adjusted for the failure of a home to respond by use of a separate nonresponse adjustment factor for each service-size stratum 

further stratified by three major ownership groups. This 

factor was the ratio of all in-scope sample homes in a 

stratum to the responding in-scope sample homes in 

the stratum. 

Data were also adjusted for nonresponse of sample 

residents within an establishment by a procedure which 

imputed to residents for whom data were not obtained 

the characteristics of residents of the same age and in 

the same type of home. For nonresponse on the age item, 

the adjustment was restricted to characteristics of 

residents in the same type of home. Adjustment for 

nonresponse in resident data for responding homes 

36 

ranged from 0.7 percent for age to 4.6 percent for 

24-hour nursing service. The adjustment for the three 

major variables in this report was 1.6 percent for 

marital status, 3.0 percent for residence prior to admission, and 2.1 percent for frequency of visitors. 

Rounding of numbevs.- Estimates relating to residents have been rounded to the nearest hundred and 

homes, to the nearest ten. For this reason detailed 

figures within the tables do not always add to totals. 

Percents were calculated using the original unrounded 

figures and will not necessarily agree with percents 

which might be calculated from rounded data. 

Estimation procedure.- Statistics reported in this 

publication are the result of two stages of ratio adjustments, one at each stage of selection. The purpose of 

ratio estimation is to take into account all relevant 

information in the estimation process, thereby reducing the variability of the estimate. The first-stage 

ratio adjustment was included in the estimation of 

establishment and resident data for allprimary servicesize strata from which a sample of homes was drawn. 

This factor was a ratio, calculated for each stratum. 

The numerator was the total beds according to the 

Master Facility Inventory for all homes in the stratum. 

The denominator was the estimate of the total beds 

obtained through a simple inflation of the Master Facility 
Inventory data for the sample homes in the stratum. 

The effect of the first-stage ratio adjustment was to 

bring the sample in closer agreement with the known 

universe of beds. The second-stage ratio adjustment 

was included in the estimation of resident data for all 

primary strata. For resident data, the second-stage 

ratio adjustment is the product of nvo fractions: the 

first is the ratio of the total number of residents in 

the establishment to the number of residents for whom 

questionnaires were completed within the home; the 

second is the sampling fraction for residents on which 

the selection is based. 

Reliability of estimates.-Since statistics presented in this report are based on a sample, they will 

differ somewhat from figures that would have been 

obtained if a complete census had been taken using the 

same schedules, instructions, and procedures. 

As in any survey, the results are also subject to 

reporting and processing errors and errors due to 

nonresponse. To the extent possible, these types of 

errors were kept to a minimum by methods built into 

survey procedures. 

The sampling error (or standard error) of a statistic is inversely proportional to the square root of the 

number of observations in the sample. Thus, as the 

sample size increases, the standard error decreases. 

The standard error is primarily a measure of the variability that occurs by chance because only a sample, 

rather than the entire universe, is surveyed. As calculated for this report, the standard error also reflects 

part of the measurement error, but it does not measure 

any systematic biases in the data. The chances are 

about two out of three that an estimate from the sample 

differs from the value which would be obtained from a 

complete census by less than the standard error. The 

chances are about 95 out of 100 that the difference is 

less than twice the standard error and about 99 out of 

100 that it is less than 2% times as large. 

Relative standard errors of aggregates shown in 

this report can be determined from figure I. The relative standard error of an estimate is obtained by dividing the standard error of the estimate by the estimate 

itself and is expressed as a percent of the estimate. An 

example of how to convert the relative error into a 

Figure I. Approximate relative standard errors of estimated numbers of residents, conditions, or establishments shown in 

this report. 

Size of Estimate 

Example of use of figure I. An estimate of 100,000 total residents has a relative standard error of 3.3 percent 

(read from scale at left side of figure). The estimate has a standard error of 3,300 (3.3 percent of lOO,~O). 

37 
Table II. Approximate standard errors of per- proximate confidence intervals for these estimated 

centages shown in this report for residents medians can be computed as follows: (patients) and conditions 

(a) Determine the standard error of a SO-percent 

Estimated percent characteristic whose denominator is equal to 

Base of perthe estimated number of persons in the frecent (number quency distribution on which the median is 

of residents) B;/k;188 based. For example, the median age of males 

is 77.7 years. The estimated number of males 

Standard 

is 193,800 (table 1). The standard error of a 

in percentage points 193,800 is shown in table II, by interpolation, 

to be 1.13 percentage points. 

412 2: frequency distribution to obtain a confidence 

3.0 4:3 ::o’ interval around the median. The steps are as 

follows: For the above example, using the 95-

4.; z-9’ percent level of confidence, determine the 

error expressed SO-percent characteristic whose base is 

13.6 15.8 6”G (b) Apply this standard error to the cumulative 10.0 

2:1 2:5 points on the cumulative frequency distribution 

1.6 2.2 corresponding to the 47.74 percent (50 percent 

0.8 L.8 minus two standard errors) and 52.26 percent 

::o’ 1.6 (50 percent, plus two standard errors). The 

iz 1.1 points are 92,500 (47.74 x 193,800) and 101,300 -.z- 0’3 ::“5 0.7 (52.26 x 193,800). From table 1, determine the 

ages that correspond to these points. They are 

77.1 and 78.3 years, respectively. Therefore, 

standard error is given with figure I. Standard errors the confidence limit for the estimated median 

of estimated percentages are shown in table II. age of 77.7 years is 77.1-78.3 years at the 

To determine the standard error of a mean value, 95-percent level of confidence. 

of a median value, or of the difference between two 

statistics, the following rules may be used. It is possible to investigate whether the observed

Standard ewo~ of mean number of conditions pev differences between two estimated medians can be atperson. - From figure I, obtain the relative standard tributed to sampling error alone by obtaining the upper error of the estimated number of conditions and of the 68-percent confidence limit, Vi , of the smaller median, estimated number of persons. The square root of the MI, and the lower 68-percent confidence limit, Lh, of the 

sum of the squares of these two relative standard errors larger median, Mi . These limits may be found by using provides an approximation for the relative standard the method outlined above, but using one standard error 

error of the desired mean. The standard error of the instead of two. The square root of the sum of the squared mean may be obtained by multiplying the relative stand- differences between Mi and Vi and Mi and L; is the ard error by the mean value. standard error of the difference between Mi and Mi ; that 

Example: For a mean of three conditions per person is, 

based on a denominator of 50,000 residents, the standard 

error may be obtained as follows: s CM;- M;) M; - U;12 + CM; - L;)* 

1. The relative standard error of 150,000 conditions is about 2.7 percent, or .027 (curve A). For the purpose of this report, any difference between 2. The relative standard error of 50,000 residents Mi and Mi greater than 2 SC,, _ M, ) has been consid­ is about 4.6 percent, or .046 (curve A). 

3. The relative standard error of the mean three ered a significant difference. ’ 2 

Standard ~YYOY of a difference between two estimates.-The standard error of a difference isapproxi­ conditions per person is 7 (.027) + (.046) mately the square root of the sum of the squares of = .169. each standard error considered separately. This for- 4. The standard error is .169 x 3 =.507 conditions mula will represent the actual standard error quite per person. accurately for the difference between separate and unStandard ~YYOY of a median.-The medians shown correlated characteristics, although it is only a rough 

in this report were calculated from grouped data. Ap- approximation in most other cases. 

000 

38 
APPENDIX II 

A. DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN (TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT 

Resident: 

A resident is defined as a person who has been 

formally admitted to an establishment but not 

discharged. All such persons were included in the 

survey even though they were not physically present. 

Chronic conditions and impairments: 

These are defined as the conditions and impairments contained in Cards D and E of appendis III. 

This list was espanded, based on the further query 

“Does he have any other chronic conditions listed 

in his record you have not told me about?” and 

additional questions about specified conditions. 

The esqznded list is contained in appendix II-D as 

a basic list of diagnostic categories used for coding purposes. 

Conditiorz 

This term is used synonomously with the term 

“chronic conditions and impairments” since no 

distinction has been made between the two groups 

in this report. 

Length of stay: 

Length of stay refers to the current period of stay 

in the institution. The period of stay starts with 

the date of last admission to the institution and 

ends with the date of the survey. 

Type of c(L’ye received when admitted: 

B. CLASSIFICATION OF HOMES 

For purposes of stratification of the universe prior 

to the selection of the sample, the homes in the MFI 

were classified as either nursing care; personal care 

with nursing, personal care, or domiciliary care homes. 

The latter two classes were combined and designated 

as personal care homes. Details of the classification 

procedure in the MFI have been published.g 

Due to the time interval between the MFI survey 

and the RPS-2 survey it was felt that for producing 

statistics by type of service for the RPS-2 survey, the 

homes should be reclassified on the basis of the current 

data collected in the survey. This classification procedure is essentially the same as the MFI scheme. 

The three types of service classes delineated byRPS-2 

are defined as follows: 

1. A nwsiw caYe home is defined as one in which 

50 percent or more of the residents received 

The three types of care a resident received when 

admitted to the home were determined by questions 

17 and 18 of the Resident Questionnaireinappendix 

III. 

Primarily nursing care. If a resident received 

mainly the nursing care items 7-19 in question 

17, he was classified as receiving “primarily 

nursing care” in question 18. 

Primarily personal care. If a resident received 

mainly the personal care items l-5 in question 17, 

he was classified as having “primarily personal 

care” in question IS. 

Room and board only. This refers to a resident who 

received food and lodging only, with no provision of 

personal or nursing care. 

BY TYPE OF SERVICE 

nursing care in the home during the week 

prior to the survey, with an RN or LPN employed 15 hours or more per week. In this 

report, geriatric hospitals are included with 

nursing care homes. 

2. A personal cave home witIz nwsing is defined 

as one in which either (a) over 50 percent of 

the residents received nursing care during the 

week prior to the survey, but there were no RN’s 

or LPN’s on the staff; or(b) some, but less than 

50 percent, of the residents received nursing 

care during the week prior to the survey, regardless of the presence of RN’s or LPN’s on the 

staff. 

3. A personaI care home is defined as one in 

which residents routinely received personal 

care, but no nursing care during the weekprior 

to the survey. 

39 
-- - - 

--- -- -- 

-- 

C. RULES FOR CODING CHRONIC 

The list of diagnostic categories which was used 

for coding chronic conditions and impairments is shown 

below. This list represents an expansion of the two 

lists (Cards D and E) furnished to the interviewers. 

The classification scheme was basedon the International 

Classification of Diseases with some modifications.tO 

Certain medical coding principles developed by the 

Health Interview Survey (HIS), from which statistics 

on the institutional population of the United States are 

derived,tl were used in coding the data for RPS-2. The 

medical coding consisted of assigning a code to each 

codable chronic condition and impairment reported for 

a resident, All codable conditions which were not specified as chronic but which could beacute or chronic (i.e., 

sinusitis, bronchitis, gastritis, or a hearing or visual 

disturbance) were assumed to be chronic. 

The medical coding principles developed by HIS 

were adapted to the coding of chronic diseases and 

impairments as follows: Impairments were coded in 

the same general manner as for HIS, but in less detail. 

CONDITIONS AND IMPAIRMENTS 

Symptoms and conditions said to be due to other conditions were coded for the most part as for HIS. Heart, 

hypertensive, andarteriosclerotic conditions were combined as far HIS. 

The coding ruIes allow for the assignment- of one 

or more chronic conditions and impairments far each 

resident, with some loss of detail due to the restr-lcted 

number of diagnostic categories. Some restriction 

exists for the assignment of impairments which are a 

result of the chronic condition. Same chronic conditions 

are not reported separately but are combined with 

other categories under coding rules. 

Special coding procedures were followed in coding 

categories reIated to senility and mental conditions. 

Injuries and traumatic origin of chronic conditions were 

not identified as such except in cases of fracture of 

the hip. Also, specific coding procedures for other 

individual chronic conditions and impairments were 

followed. 

D. BASIC LIST OF DIAGNOSTIC CATEGORIES REPORTED FOR RESIDENTS 

IN NURSING AND PERSONAL CARE HOMES 

Condition Group 

Malignant neoplasms , without mention of surgeryMalignant neaplasms , with mention of surgeryBenign and unspecified neoplasms-------------------

Asthma ________________________________________--

D&eases of thyroid gland--------------------------

Diabetes mellims ______ - _______________________ -_ 

Avitaminoses and other nutritional weight prablems--

Mental retardation without mention of senility1 

Mental retardation with mentian of senile psychosis1 

Mental retardation with senility not specified as psychotic t 

Senile psychosis with or without other mental conditionSenility without mention of psychosis----------------

Specified mentaldisorders-------------------------

Vascular lesions affecting central nervous system----

Multiple sclerosis--------------------------------

Parkinson’s disease (paralysis agitans)-------------

Epilepsy _______________-________________________-

Other nervous system disorders--------------------

Cataract __-__-____-_______-_---------------------

Glaucoma _-________________-_____________________ 

Other diseases of&e eye--------------------------

Diseases of the ____ - _________________________ 

Diseases of the heart _____________________________ 

Hypertension without mention of heart--------------

General aflefiosderosis _____ __________ --__- ____ -_ 

liLtemationa1 Classification 0flXseases 

Code Numbers, 1955 Revision 

140-205 

140-205 

210-239 

241 

250-254 

260 

280-283, 285,286t 

304 

794 

300-303,305-324 

330-334 

345 

350 

353 

340-343, 354-357, 361- 369 

385. 

387 

370-379,380-384, 386, 388 

390-396 

410-443, 782.1, 782.2, 782.4 

444-447 

450 
Varicose veins-----------------------------------

Hemorrhoids _____________________________________ 

Other conditions of circulatory system--------------

Chronic sinusitis __________________________________ 

Bronchitis, w&h emphysema------------------------

Bronchitis, without emphysema---------------------

Emphysema without mention of bronchitis------------

Other chronic respiratory conditions----------------

Ulcer of stomach and duodenum--------------------

Hernia of ab&mkal cavity ________________________ 

Diseases of gallbladder and bile ducts--------------

Other chronic conditions of the digestive system-----

Incontinence (urine or feces)-----------------------

Diseases of urinary system _______________________ 

Diseases of male genital organs-------------------

Diseases of breast and female genital organs-------

Diseases of skin and other subcutaneous tissue-----

Arthritis _____________ - ___________________________ 

Rheumatism ______ ___ _______ ___ ___ ____ _________ -__ 

Other specified diseases of bones and organs of movement ________________________________________---

Fracture, femur (old) _____________________________ _ 

All other chronic conditions, excludingimpairments---

Visual impairment: inability to read newspaper with 

glasses1 

Other visual impairments l 

Hearing impairments* 

Speech impairments due to stroke1 

Speech impairments due to other or unspecified 

causes1 

Paralysis, palsy due to stroke 1 

Paralysis, palsy due to other unspecified causesI 

Absence, fingers and/or toes1 

Absence, major estremities * 

Impairment, limbs, back, trunk’ 

All other impairments’ 

460,462 

461 

400-403,451-456,463-468,782.0,782.3,782.5-782.9 

513 

502.0 

502.1 

527.1 

510.0,512,514-526,527.0,527.2,783 

540-542 

560,561 

584-586 

530-539, 543-545, 552, 553, 570, 572-574, 577,578, 

580-583,587,784 

785.7,786.2 

591-594, 600-609, 786.0, 786.1, 786.3-786.5, 789 

610-617, 786.6 

620, 621, 623, 625, 626, 630~637,786.7 

700-716 

720-725 

726.0, 726.1, 726.3, 727 

730.1,730.3,731-733,735,738,740-744 

N820.9, N821.9 

Residual 

1Selected conditions and all impairments nre classified by means of a special supplementaT code developed for the Household Interview Survey. The details of this classification are contained in the zMirdicaZ Co&q ,IfanwZ and tl’rc SLort In&z, KEGHISIOOO, 1965. 

-ooo41 
APPENDIX III 

FORMS AND QUESTIONNAIRES 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

BUREAU OFTHECENS”S 

WASHINGTON. DC. 20235 

r 1 

L -J 

Dear Administrator: 

The Bureau of the Census, acting as the collecting agent for the 

United States Public Health Service, is conducting a nationwide survey

of nursing homes, homes for the aged, and other establishments providing 

nursing, personal, and domiciliary care to the aged and infirm. The 

purpose of this survey is to collect much needed statistical information 

on the health of residents and on the types of employees in these homes. 

This survey is part of the National Health Survey program authorized by

Congress because of the urgent need for up-to-date statistics on the 

health of.our people. 

The purpose of this letter is to request your cooperation and to inform 

you that a representative of the Bureau of the Census will visit your 

establishment within the next week or so, to conduct the survey. Prior 

to his visit, the Census representative will call you

convenient appointment time. 

All the information given to the Census representative

strictly confidential by the Public Health Service and 

the Census, and will be used for statistical purposes 

Your cooperation in this important survey will be very 

Sincerely yours, 

6%=-J 

to arrange for a 

will be.kept

the Bureau of 

only. 

much appreciated. 

Richard M. Scammon 

Director 

Bureau of the Census r 

42 
ESTABLISHMENT QUESTIONNAIRE 

U.S. NATIONAL HEALTH SURVEY 

ESTABLISHMENT QUESTIONNAIRE 

5. Does she work full-time or part-time? I 0 Full-rime 2 0 Pan-time 

By full-time we mean 40 or more hours a week. 

10 Yes PO No 

6. IJ there a nurse or nur&s aid. ON DUTY 24 hours a day? 

43 
RESIDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 

Budget Bureau No. G8-p.GZO.RZ; Approval Expires l&ember 31, 1964 

Establishment number Resident’s (patient’s) line No. 1 Monrh ; Year 

1. What is the month and yeor of this resident’s (patient’s) birth? I 

2 sex t !J Male (Ask question 3) z 0 Female (Go to queafion 4) 

30. Has ho served in 3~.20-m ~~WI-E~WIEWER: 

the Armed Forces of ‘Source of vetemIl statue 

the United States? I 0 Yes (Ask Q. 36) 2ONd(GotoQ..4) 3 0 Unknown informetion 

b. Did ho serve in 10 Record 2 0 Syple person 

World War I? t I-J Yes 2uNo 3 0 Unknown 3 IIJ Respondent 

4. Is this resident (patient) married, I 0 Married 3 0 Divorced 6 0 Never married widowed, divorced, separated, or 2 0 Widowed 4 0 Separated nsvor married? 

Month ; Year 

5. In what month and yoor was ho (lost) odmitred te this home? 

6. With whom did he live at , ig spouse only 7 0 In another nursing home or 

ths’time of his admission? 2 0 Children only related faciliry 

(Check

that 

the FIRST 3 0 Spouse and children B 0 In mental hospital box applies) 

4 0 Relatives other rhan spouse or 9 0 In a long-term specialty hospital 

children (ercepr menral) 

3 0 Lived in apartment or own home - 10 0 In a general or short-stay hospital 

alone or wuh unrelated persons t I 0 Other place (Specjfy) 

6 n In boarding home 

7. How often do friends or t 0 Ar Icask once B week J 0 Less than once B month relatives visit him? 

(Check lbs FIRST z 0 Less often than once a week but at 4 0 Never box thef app2ies) 

I

8a. 

b. Does 

Does 

he 

he stay 

stay in 

in 

his 

bed 

own 

all or 

room 

most 

all 

of 

or 

the 

most 

doy? 

of 

least 

the 

once 

day? 

a 

I 

t 

month 

0 

0 Yes 

Yes 

(Go to question v, 

i( 

2 

0 

0 

No 

No’(Aek 

@Ask questfon 

question 

SC) 

86) 

---I 

4 c. Does he go off tha promises just to walk, shop, or 

visit with friends or relatives and so forth? ,a Yes 2i-JN.a 

9. Which of these special aids (Check al2 that apply) does this resident (patient) 

use? (Show card C) I 0 Hearing aid 4 0 Braces 7 0 Eye glasses 

2 i-J Walker E.I-J Wheel chair OR 

3 0 Crutches 6 0 Artificial limb(s) 8 0 None of these aids used 

1 

10. During his stay here when did he last see a Month 1 Ye= 0 Never saw doctor doctor for treatment, msdisarion, or ,for on I while here examination by the doctor? 

lla. During his stay here, 

has he seen a dentist? I 0 Yes (Ask question 116) 2 0 No [Go to question 22) 

I Month I

!Yea: 

b. When was the lost time he sow o dentist? i I 

120. Has ho lost ALL of his teeth? I 0 Yes (Ask quest+~ 126) 2 0 No (Go to question 13) 

b. Does he wear full upper and lower dentures? 3OYes 4C]NO 

13. Does this resident (patient) hove any of these conditions? 

(Show card D. Rscard in Table 1 each condition which the petient has) I n Yes 2c7No 

14. Does he have any of these conditions? 

(show card E. Record i_n Tebre .-1 each condition which the patie+ has) I O,Yes 20No 

150. Does he have any other CHRONIC conditions listed in his record that you hove not told me about? 10 Yes 

If “Yes,!’ ask: 

b. What ore they? 

(Reconi in Table 1 each chronic ccadition mentioned) 

FORM H R.5.3C w-2344, 

44 
Enter ionditions from questions 13, 14 oc 15 For the folIowind conditions ask these questions 

ILL EFFECTS OF STROKE. . . . . whoi Q. rho pnsan? ill affects? 

SPEECH DEFECT. . . . . . . . . . _ %a? coos*d tba sp*acb defect? Do 

Enter the words wed by the respondent to 

P&FN;;? PERMANENT 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whot port of the body is afhctod? 

not 

writ. 

describe the condition. TUMOR. CYST, OR GROWTH.. . . What port of the body is affectad? 

Is It malIgnant or benign? 

in 

this 

DEAFNESS, HEARING TROUBLE, column 

OR ANY EYE CONDITION. . . . . . tf;;;s;both .ws (.~a)

(Include #aucana md cataracta) 

(8) (b) fcl 

L. 

I. 

I. 

i. 

i. 

‘. 

I. 

I. If any eye conditions have been recorded in Table 1, ask: 0 No eye condition reported (Go to qoeatfm 17) 

You told m. about 411s raddant’s ( ot~nrt’s) .y. condition. 

Can ho .” w.ll wvoud) to read o, B inary n.w.papw print with gl.ss.s? 10 Yes 2ONO 

: During Ill. post ( 0 Help with dressins, sharily, 7 days which of or catc of hair lbrs* I*rvicm* 

did this nsldmt 2 a He1 with tub bath 

or * % OHel (patlent) recBlv.7 3 0 Help with earing 

(Show cud F and (feedinS the tcsldent(patieot)) 

check each one 4 0 Rub and massage 

mentioned) I ~,Adminisuation of 

medications or treatment 

a 0 Special diet 

7 0 Applicuion of sterile 

dressiogs ot bandages 

8. At thr tlmw Bls rmsldmt (pdlmt was ndmltted to 

this home, wbot kind of C(II. did I 9 nc++e-prlmorlly 

nursing core, prlmorlly pwsonol core, or room and 

board only? (Check ens box only) 

8 0 Temperarote-pulse- 17 0 Iotravenous injection

respiration 1830 Intramuscular injection g 0 Full-bed bath 19 0 Nasal feeding to TJ Enema 

11 0 Catheterization OR 

12 0 Bowel and bladder 

retraining 20 0 None of the above 1 J I-J Blood pressure services received 14 0 Itri~ation 

I I 0 Oxypn therapy 

16 0 Hypodermic injection 

1 0 Primarily 2 [7 Primarily B /-J Room and nursing perSOd board only CBn? care 

Amomc 

. What was the TOTAL charge for this rwidmt’s (patiant’s) car. last mo,,tbl t 

a. What Is the PRIMARY SOUIC. of payment for his con? , illb. Are thaw my addlrional sources of payment? 

(Chock ONE 60x only) I (Check ALL boxes thaf apply) 

1 0 Ovm income or family support (Include private plme, I I 0 Own income or family support (Include private plans, rslfmnat fmda, aocfal eecudly, etc.) I mfiranmt ftmds, socfol sccurify, etc.) 

2 0 Church support 2 I-J Church support I I I-J Vetcrw~s benefits s 0 Veterans benefits 

Public assistance or welfare i 4 0 Public iissisrance or welfare 

$0 Initial payment - life cate I s 0 Initial payment - life care I 6 0 Other (Please dsecrfbe) I 6 0 Other (Pleaas describe) 

I 

I 

I OR 

I 7 0 No additional sources I 

“,COMWDC 2..99.~C. 

45 

10 
Card D 

LISTOF CHRONIC CONDITIONS 

Does this reside&have any of these conditions? 

1. Asthma 

2. CHRONIC bronchitis 

3. REPEATED attacks of sinus trouble 

4. Hardening of the arteries 

5. High blood pressure 

6. Heart trouble 

7. Ill effects of a stroke 

8. TROUBLE with varicose veins 

9. Hemorrhoids or piles 

10. Tumor, cyst or growth 

11. CHRONIC gall bladder or liver trouble 

12. Stomach ulcer 

13. Any other CHRONIC stomach trouble 

14. Bowel or lower intestinal disorders 

15. Kidney stones or CHRONIC kidney trouble 

16. Mental illness 

17. CHRONIC nervous trouble 

18. Mental retardation 

19. Arthritis or rheumatism 

20. Diabetes 

21. Thyroid trouble or goiter 

22. Epilepsy 

23. Hernia or rupture 

24. Prostate trouble 

25. ADVANCED senility 

Card E 

LIST OF SELECTED CONDITIONS 

Does this resident have any of these conditions? 

1. Deafness or SERIOUS trouble hearing with one or both ears 

2. SERIOUS trouble seeing with one or 

both eyes even when wearing glasses 3. Any speech defect 

4. Missing fingers, hand, or arm--toes,

foot, or leg

5. Palsy 6. Paralysis of any kind 

7. Any CHRONIC trouble with back or spine

8. PERMANENT stiffness or any deformity of the foot,leg, fingers, arm, or back L 

Card F 

LIST OF SERVICES 

1. ,"Ji$ with dressing, shaving, or care of 

2. Help with tub bath or shower 

3. Help with eating (feeding the patient) 

4. Rub and massage 

5. Administration of medications or treatment 

6. Special diet 

7..Application of sterile dressings or 

bandages 

8. 

9. 

LO. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

Temperature-pulse-respiration 

Full bed bath 

Enema 

Catheterization 

Bowel and bladder retraining 

Blood pressure 

Irrigation 

Oxygen therapy 

Hypodermic injection 

Intravenous injection 

Intramuscular injection 

Nasal feeding 

ooo-
Series 1. 

Series 2. 

Series 3. 

Series 4. 

Series 10. 

Series 11. 

Series 12. 

Series 13. 

Series 14. 

Series 20. 

Series 21. 

Series 22. 

OUTLINE OF REPORT SERIES FOR VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS 

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000 

Programs and collection procedures.- Reports which describe the general programs of the National 

Center for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions, data collection methods used, definitions, 

and other material necessary for understanding the data. 

Data evaluation and methods research. - Studies of new statistical methodology including: experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical 

techniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, contributions to statistical theory. 

Analytical studies.-Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and health 

statistics, carrying the analysis further than the expository types of reports in the other series. 

Documents and committee reports.-Final reports of major committees concerned with vital and 

health statistics, and documents such as recommended model vital registration laws and revised birth 

and death certificates. 

Data from the Health Interview Survey.- Statistics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use of 

hospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other health-related topics, based on data collected 

in a continuing national household interview survey. 

Data ,f)*om the Health Examination Suvveg.-- Data from direct examination, testing, and measurement of national samples of the population provide the hasis for two types of reports: (1) estimates 

of the medically defined prevalence of specific diseases in the United States and the distributions of 

the population with respect to physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics; and (2) 

analysis of relationships among the various measurements without reference to an explicit finite 

universe of persons. 

Data from the Institutional Population Surveys.- Statistics relating to the health characteristics of 

persons in institutions. and on medical, nursing, and personal care received, based on national 

samples of establishments providing these services and samples of the residents or patients. 

Data from the Hospital Discharge Survey.- Statistics relating to discharged patients in short-stay 

hospitals, based on a sample of patient records in a national sample of hospitals. 

Data on health yesouyces: manpower and facilities.- Statistics on the numbers, geographic distribution, and characteristics of health resources including physicians, dentists, nurses, other health 

manpower occupations, hospitals, nursing: homes, and outpatient and other inpatient facilities. 

Data on mortality .-Various statistics on mortality other than as included in annual or monthly 

reports- Special analyses by cause of death, age, andother demographic variables, also geographic 

and time series analyses. 

Data on natality, mauviage, a&divorce. -Various statistics onnatality, marriage, and divorce other 

than as included in annual or monthly reports -special analyses by demographic variables, also 

geographic and time series analyses? studies of fertility. 

Data from the National Natal@ and Molrtatity Surveys. -Statistics on characteristics of births and 

deaths not available from the vital records, basedon sample surveys stemming from these records, 

including such topics as mortality by socioeconomic class, medical experience in the last year of 

life, characteristics of pregnancy, etc. 

For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to: Office of Information 

National Center for Health Statistics 

U.S. Public Health Service 

Washington, D.C. 20201