VA Community Living Centers: Actions Needed to Better Manage Risks to Veterans' Quality of Life and Care
Released: 2011-11-17T00:00:00

Letter

Background

VA provides nursing home care for some veterans, as required, and makes these services available to other veterans on a discretionary basis, as resources permit. Specifically, VA is required by law to provide nursing home care to any veteran who needs it for a service-connected disability and to any veteran who needs it and has a service-connected disability rated at 70 percent or greater. However, VA provides most of its nursing home care to veterans on a discretionary basis, as resources permit. VA’s policy on nursing home eligibility requires that VA networks provide nursing home care to veterans with 60 percent service-connected disability ratings who are either unemployable or who have been determined by VA to be permanently and totally disabled. For all other veterans, VA’s policy is to provide nursing home care on a discretionary basis, with certain veterans having higher priority, including veterans who require care following a hospitalization.

CLCs provide both short-stay (90 days or less) and long-stay (more than 90 days) services. According to VA data, almost 94 percent of the residents admitted to CLCs in fiscal year 2010 were short-stay. Short-stay care in CLCs includes skilled nursing care, rehabilitation, restorative care, maintenance care for those awaiting alternative placement, hospice, and respite care. The remaining admissions, about 6 percent, were long-stay. Long-stay care includes dementia care, maintenance care, and care for those with spinal cord injury and disorders.

Responsibility for VA’s medical facilities, including CLCs, rests with both VA’s networks and VA headquarters. Almost all of VA’s 132 CLCs, located throughout VA’s 21 networks, are colocated with or in close proximity to a VA medical center (VAMC). While networks are charged with the day-to-day management of the VAMCs within their network, VA headquarters maintains responsibility for establishing national policy and overseeing both networks and VAMC operations. Within VA headquarters, Geriatrics and Extended Care is responsible for developing VA’s policies and other national actions related to the quality of care and quality of life in VA’s CLCs. The Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Operations and Management, through each network, ensures that VAMCs, including CLCs, comply with VA’s policies and implement other national actions.

The LTCI contract, which began in September 2010, is for 1 year, and provides for LTCI to conduct reviews between September 2010 and August 2011. VA may exercise an option to renew for each of 4 additional years through August 2015. Officials from both Geriatrics and Extended Care and the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Operations and Management share responsibility for administering VA’s contract with LTCI.

LTCI uses the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ scope and severity scale for classifying nursing home deficiencies. There are four severity classifications, with the least serious deficiencies rated as having the potential for minimal harm and the most serious deficiencies rated as immediate jeopardy situations—in which residents are potentially or actually at risk of dying or being seriously injured. The remaining two severity classifications are actual harm and potential for more than minimal harm. The scope of deficiencies—or the number of residents potentially or actually affected by the deficient care—may be rated as isolated, pattern, or widespread.

VA policy requires that all VAMCs be accredited by The Joint Commission. As part of the accreditation process for a VAMC, which occurs on average every 3 years, The Joint Commission surveys and accredits any CLC associated with the VAMC. VA requires CLCs to meet The Joint Commission long-term care standards. CLCs are also subject to periodic reviews by VA’s OIG.

VA Headquarters Established a Process for Responding to LTCI-Identified Deficiencies, but Cannot Provide Reasonable Assurance That Deficiencies Have Been Resolved

VA headquarters established a process for responding to deficiencies identified at CLCs during the 2007 and 2008 reviews. This process, which requires CLCs to submit corrective action plans addressing LTCI- identified deficiencies—such as how CLCs will address a lack of competent nursing staff and a failure to provide a sanitary and safe living environment—is also being used during the 2010 and 2011 LTCI reviews. However, because of weaknesses in the process, VA headquarters cannot provide reasonable assurance that deficiencies that could potentially affect the quality of care and quality of life of residents are resolved.

VA Headquarters’ Process Requires Corrective Action Plans and, for 2007 and 2008, National Training and Education

VA headquarters established a process for responding to LTCI-identified deficiencies that requires each CLC to develop a corrective action plan addressing all deficiencies identified and submit it to VA headquarters within 30 days of receiving an LTCI report. The plans may include actions such as training CLC staff on clinical policies and procedures or implementing nursing and interdisciplinary rounds to monitor the clinical issues related to the deficiencies. VA headquarters officials review each corrective action plan to determine whether the actions can be expected to correct all identified deficiencies and whether the time frames for completing the actions are reasonable. The officials then provide each CLC feedback by telephone, discussing any revisions to the corrective action plans that may be necessary. The officials document these discussions using hand-written notes on hard copies of CLCs’ corrective action plans, which are not shared with VA networks and CLCs. VA headquarters officials told us they may schedule additional telephone calls with CLCs when significant revision of a corrective action plan is necessary or if the officials want an update on the implementation of the plan. For deficiencies identified in the 2007 and 2008 LTCI reviews, the documentation showed that officials had at least two telephone calls with 29 of the 116 CLCs reviewed. Three of these 29 CLCs received more than two follow-up calls. When additional calls were made, VA headquarters required the CLCs to submit an updated corrective action plan.

While VA’s process requires that all deficiencies identified be addressed, it gives priority to deficiencies at the immediate jeopardy or actual harm levels. When LTCI review teams identify such deficiencies during a survey, they are required to notify VA headquarters and the relevant VAMC. LTCI identified immediate jeopardy or actual harm deficiencies at 25 of the 116 CLCs (about 22 percent) reviewed in 2007 and 2008, and at 10 of the 67 CLCs (about 15 percent of the CLCs) reviewed in 2010 and 2011 as of March 31, 2011.

After the 2007 and 2008 LTCI reviews, VA headquarters officials analyzed the deficiencies from the 116 reviews and from the analysis developed eight clinical high-risk categories. According to these officials, the eight categories, which included medication management, infection control, and peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) lines, posed the greatest risk to residents’ health and safety. (See table 1.) The officials then implemented a national training and education initiative to address the eight categories.

VA headquarters convened a workgroup that developed national training guidelines and checklists for evaluating CLC staff competencies in each of the eight categories. The workgroup included representatives from Geriatrics and Extended Care, the Office of Nursing Services, Nutrition and Food Services, and the Infectious Diseases Program Office. A VA headquarters official told us that the workgroup included the last three offices because the majority of LTCI-identified deficiencies were related to nursing, nutrition, and infection control issues. VA headquarters provided the VA networks and CLCs with the national guidelines and checklists and required CLCs to incorporate them into their training and education policies. VA headquarters required CLCs to report whether they had met the following four requirements for each of the eight clinical high-risk categories: (1) establish CLC policies, (2) adopt procedures for implementing the policies, (3) design an assessment to observe staff proficiency in providing care matching the established procedure, and (4) establish a plan for ongoing training and assessment of staff, including new staff. In addition, CLCs were required to directly observe staff providing care to CLC residents and report the percentage of staff that had been observed as being proficient in the procedures necessary to comply with CLCs’ policies for each of the eight clinical high-risk categories. If CLCs did not meet all four requirements for each category or had observed less than 90 percent of their staff as proficient in providing care in any one of the clinical high-risk categories, they were to develop and submit corrective action plans to VA headquarters. According to the documentation we reviewed, in most categories, the majority of CLCs indicated that they had met the requirements of the national training and education initiative. However, in every category there were CLCs that did not meet these requirements and had to submit a corrective action plan. For example, for the medication management clinical high-risk category, 14 of the 132 CLCs submitted a corrective action plan because they either were not in compliance with the four requirements or had not observed at least 90 percent of their staff as being proficient in providing care.

After LTCI’s 2010 and 2011 reviews of VA’s CLCs are complete, VA headquarters plans to analyze the deficiencies identified by LTCI. To facilitate the analysis, VA headquarters is working with LTCI to track and note trends with regard to deficiencies on a quarterly basis. LTCI provides quarterly reports to VA headquarters, which include data on which deficiencies are the most frequently identified nationally. For each CLC, these reports include data on the total number of deficiencies identified and the categories in which the identified deficiencies fall. VA headquarters officials expect that these quarterly reports will facilitate the identification of national areas for improvement as well as help them review CLCs’ performance on the LTCI reviews over time.

VA Headquarters Cannot Provide Reasonable Assurance That All Deficiencies Are Resolved Because of Weaknesses in Its Process for Responding to Deficiencies

When responding to LTCI-identified deficiencies, VA headquarters does not always maintain clear and complete documentation of the feedback it provides to CLCs regarding their corrective action plans. In addition, VA headquarters does not require VA networks to report on the status of CLCs’ implementation of their corrective action plans or to verify CLCs’ self-reported compliance with the requirements of the national training and education initiative. Without the ability to determine whether CLCs appropriately responded to feedback, fully implemented their corrective action plans from the 2007 and 2008 LTCI reviews, or fully complied with requirements of the national training and education initiative, and without the ability to determine the status of corrective action plans that CLCs are implementing during LTCI’s 2010 and 2011 reviews, VA headquarters does not have reasonable assurance that LTCI-identified deficiencies are resolved.

Lack of clear and complete documentation of feedback. VA headquarters does not always maintain clear and complete documentation of the feedback it provides CLCs about their corrective action plans, which is not consistent with good management practices as outlined in federal internal control standards. According to these standards, internal control activities, such as VA headquarters’ feedback, should be clearly and completely documented in a manner that is accurate, timely, and helps provide reasonable assurance that program objectives are being achieved. VA headquarters uses an unsystematic approach for documenting the feedback it provides to CLCs regarding their corrective action plans. The approach relies solely on hard copies of CLCs’ action plans that have hand-written notes on them, which are not shared with the VA networks and CLCs, to document the feedback provided during VA headquarters’ telephone calls with CLCs. We found that this approach did not always result in clear—that is, understandable to anyone not involved in the telephone feedback calls—and complete documentation. In particular, the documentation we reviewed did not always clearly and completely indicate the specific feedback provided to CLCs, including actions VA headquarters advised CLCs to take to address weaknesses with their corrective action plans. For example, for one CLC we obtained two corrective action plans from VA headquarters. One was an older action plan and the other was a revised action plan. The older action plan contained no notes or any indication of the content of VA headquarters’ feedback that resulted in the revised action plan, so we were unable to independently determine whether the revised action plan addressed VA headquarters’ feedback. In addition, we found that the plans for 19 of the 50 2007 and 2008 CLC corrective action plans that we reviewed—or about 38 percent of the plans—lacked any notes documenting the feedback that VA headquarters gave CLCs on the telephone calls.

Lack of reporting requirement for VA networks. VA headquarters does not require its networks to report on the status of CLCs’ implementation of their corrective action plans, and VA headquarters does not routinely schedule additional telephone calls with CLCs following the submission of initial corrective action plans and VA’s initial telephone calls. For example, VA headquarters held additional telephone calls with only 25 percent of CLCs following the 2007 and 2008 LTCI reviews, and 15 percent of the CLCs following the 2010 and 2011 LTCI reviews, as of March 31, 2011. Therefore, VA headquarters does not know whether CLCs fully implemented their plans and corrected all LTCI-identified deficiencies.

Federal standards for internal control state that the findings of reviews should be promptly resolved and that information on the status of the findings should be communicated to management so that management can provide reasonable assurance that a program is achieving its objectives—in this case, that CLCs are providing quality care and maintaining veterans’ quality of life. VA headquarters officials told us that beyond the initial telephone calls with CLCs, VA headquarters does not receive any additional information from CLCs regarding the implementation status of their corrective action plans. Rather, VA headquarters officials expect the findings of the 2010 and 2011 LTCI reviews will help them determine whether CLCs resolved all deficiencies identified by LTCI in 2007 and 2008—2 or 3 years after the deficiencies were first identified.

Lack of verification requirement for national initiative. We found that VA headquarters relied on self-reported information from CLCs regarding (1) compliance with all four requirements for each of the eight clinical high-risk categories and (2) the percentage of staff that were observed to be proficient in treatments and procedures associated with the categories. VA headquarters did not specify to its networks that they should verify the accuracy of CLCs’ self-reported information. Reliance on self-reported information is inconsistent with federal standards for internal control specifying that management should be able to provide reasonable assurance about the accuracy of data—in this case, that VA networks verify the accuracy of CLCs’ self-reported information. Although we cannot generalize to all networks, neither of the two VA networks we visited requested documentation to verify CLCs’ self-reported information for the national training and education initiative. Further, the 2010 and 2011 LTCI reviews indicate that some CLCs are not in compliance with the requirements for the eight clinical high-risk categories stemming from the 2007 and 2008 reviews. For example, a CLC reported to VA headquarters that by June 2009 it would have a policy in place for training and educating its staff on PICC lines—one of the eight clinical high-risk categories. However, when LTCI reviewed this CLC in 2010, it found that this CLC had failed to provide proper care and treatment when administering medication to a resident through a PICC line. When LTCI asked to see the CLC’s policy related to PICC lines, the CLC’s staff stated that the CLC did not have one.

VA Headquarters Receives Information about CLCs from Multiple Sources, but Does Not Analyze It to Assess and Manage Risks

In addition to LTCI reviews, VA headquarters obtains information about CLCs from a variety of other sources that could be used to more comprehensively identify risks associated with the care and quality of life of CLC residents. VA headquarters does not analyze all of these sources, and for those sources it does analyze, VA evaluates each source in isolation without comparing the information it receives across all available sources to identify major or commonly cited risks and trends. As a result, VA headquarters’ current approach to identifying risks in CLCs may result in missed opportunities to detect patterns and trends in information about the quality of care and quality of life within a CLC or across many CLCs. Without considering information from all available sources and comparing it across different sources, VA headquarters cannot adequately identify and manage risks in CLCs.

VA Headquarters Receives Useful Information about CLCs from Multiple Sources

We found that VA headquarters receives information about the quality of care and quality of life in CLCs from at least nine different sources. The type of information VA headquarters receives from each of these sources, and how often the agency receives it, varies. The nine sources of information about CLCs are the following:  LTCI. Conducts annual unannounced reviews that assess the extent to which CLCs follow 176 federal long-term care standards. LTCI review teams observe the delivery of care for a sample of residents in order to examine such areas as medication management, infection control practices, and respect for residents’ rights and dignity. LTCI provides VA headquarters a report of all deficiencies identified. VA headquarters then shares the report with the network and the reviewed CLC. The CLC is expected to correct identified deficiencies.  The Joint Commission. Performs accreditation surveys every 3 years, on average, assessing CLCs’ compliance with 227 long-term care standards, such as infection control practices and resident assessments. When The Joint Commission surveyors find noncompliance, they determine whether a systemic problem exists by assessing the CLC’s established policies and processes. This determination is the basis for whether CLCs are found deficient in a long-term care standard. VA networks and CLCs receive survey reports from The Joint Commission, which identify specific deficiencies. CLCs are required to resolve the deficiencies within certain time frames in order to maintain accreditation.  OIG. Performs its Combined Assessment Program reviews at VAMCs, including CLCs, about every 3 years. Under this program, OIG reviews selected VAMC activities, including CLC activities, to assess the effectiveness of patient care administration (the process of planning and delivering patient care) and quality management (the process of monitoring quality of care to identify and correct harmful and potentially harmful practices and conditions). CLCs typically are part of each Combined Assessment Program review. Upon completion of each review, OIG issues a report to VA headquarters, the network, and the VAMC, which identifies the VAMC’s deficiencies, including any deficiencies identified in the CLC. VA requires VAMCs, including CLCs, to fully resolve deficiencies within a year of the completion of a Combined Assessment Program review.  VA Office of the Medical Inspector (OMI). Conducts investigations to determine the validity of allegations made by complainants regarding the care provided to veterans, including residents of CLCs. If an allegation is validated, the VAMC, including the CLC, is required to address any recommendations made by OMI.  System-wide Ongoing Assessment and Review Strategy (SOARS).

Performs reviews of VAMCs, including CLCs, every 3 years to evaluate readiness for some external and internal reviews, such as those by The Joint Commission and OIG. It is a consultative program within VA designed to identify programmatic weaknesses in VAMCs, including CLCs. SOARS teams issue reports to VA networks and VAMCs, including CLCs, with recommendations based on identified deficiencies, and VAMCs and CLCs are expected to implement the recommendations.  Quality Measures and Quality Indicators. Report the percentage of residents in a CLC who have certain conditions, such as a pressure ulcer, or residents who are at risk for developing certain conditions, such as CLC residents who have limited mobility and are at risk of developing a pressure ulcer. CLCs periodically assess residents and enter information about their conditions into a database, which automatically calculates percentage scores for 24 categories of quality measures and quality indicators. Data are available on an ongoing basis.  Artifacts of Culture Change Tool. Reports the extent to which CLCs provided resident-centered care. Using a standard self-assessment tool, CLCs score their own performance in certain areas, such as allowing residents to choose when they eat meals, bathe, and sleep. CLCs report their scores to VA headquarters every 6 months.

Issue Briefs. Provide specific information to VA headquarters officials regarding unusual incidents, such as deaths, disasters, or anything else that happens at a VAMC, including a CLC, that might generate media interest or affect care.  Complaints. Provide information from veterans or their representatives about the quality of care or the quality of life in VAMCs, including CLCs.

VA Headquarters Does Not Consider the Potential Usefulness of All Available Information to Assess and Manage Risks in CLCs

VA headquarters’ approach for identifying risks associated with the quality of care and quality of life of CLC residents is deficient in two respects—it does not comprehensively analyze information from all available sources, and it does not compare findings across these sources. Without analyzing information from all available sources and comparing the results, VA headquarters’ assessments of risks in CLCs are incomplete. According to federal internal control standards, management should assess the risks the agency may face from both external and internal sources. The standards state that a risk management process includes (1) comprehensively identifying risks associated with achieving an agency’s goals (for example, providing quality of care and quality of life in CLCs); (2) estimating the significance of the risks; and (3) determining actions to mitigate the risks, such as developing or clarifying policies or targeting reviews of noncompliant CLCs.

VA headquarters’ current approach relies significantly on the analysis of findings from LTCI reviews of CLCs. VA headquarters also relies on analysis of the findings from The Joint Commission accreditation surveys and the Artifacts of Culture Change tool. (See app. I for a detailed description of these analyses.) While these three separate analyses enable VA headquarters to identify trends in each source of information, such as the most frequently cited deficiencies across all CLCs or the average number of deficiencies per CLC, they do not provide a complete assessment of the risks that would be identified by evaluating all nine sources. Information VA headquarters receives about the quality of care and the quality of life in CLCs from the remaining six sources—OIG, OMI, SOARS, quality measures and quality indicators, issue briefs, and complaints—could also be valuable in identifying patterns in CLC-related findings. VA headquarters officials we interviewed said they do not typically analyze information they receive about CLCs from these six sources because they do not always believe that doing so would be valuable for identifying trends and patterns regarding the quality of care and quality of life in CLCs. For example, VA headquarters officials said that they do not extract CLC-related findings from OIG Combined Assessment Program reviews because the reviews typically do not include enough CLC-related findings to warrant analysis. However, when we analyzed findings from the 77 OIG Combined Assessment Program reviews that were completed at VAMCs that have CLCs between October 1, 2009, and June 20, 2011, we found that 49 of the reviews—or about 64 percent—included at least one finding related to the quality of care or quality of life in a CLC. Without analyzing information from all available sources about the quality of care and quality of life in CLCs, VA headquarters’ assessments of risks in CLCs are incomplete.

VA headquarters does not compare information across all sources to identify patterns of findings for an individual CLC, CLCs within a network, or all CLCs nationwide. Rather, VA headquarters analyzes the findings from three sources separately to identify trends in the findings. However, it does not compare the findings from one source to the findings from the other sources. One source’s findings, in isolation, may not present the significance of certain risks, especially those that may suggest immediate risks for residents within a given CLC or across all CLCs. However, if related information that VA headquarters receives was compared across different sources concurrently, VA headquarters officials would be better positioned to recognize the risks to CLC residents.

One example we identified of the benefit from considering the usefulness of multiple information sources is in the area of pain management. In this regard, we found that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, VA headquarters’ quality indicator and quality measure data showed that about 25 percent of all long-stay CLC residents and 40 percent of all short-stay CLC residents experienced moderate to severe pain. In June 2007, OMI investigated allegations about the quality of care for a resident at one CLC and found, among other things, that the CLC had failed to adequately manage the resident’s pain. Three months later, in September 2007, LTCI conducted a review of the same CLC and found that staff were not performing assessments after administering pain medications to determine whether the medication had been effective. In November 2009, the OIG visited the same CLC as part of a Combined Assessment Program review and found that staff had not documented pain medication effectiveness within the required time frames nearly two-thirds of the time that pain medications were administered. If VA had comprehensively analyzed OMI information—which it does not analyze—along with LTCI information that was available in 2007 and compared this information with the information from the 2009 OIG review and quality indicator and quality measure data, VA headquarters would have been better informed about the significance of the risks and what actions might have helped to mitigate the risks of pain medication management problems at this CLC.

Conclusions

The 46,000 elderly and disabled veterans annually who are residents in VA’s CLCs depend on VA to provide them with quality care and maintain their quality of life. The weaknesses in VA headquarters’ process for resolving LTCI-identified deficiencies put veterans at risk of persistent deficiencies that could become more serious over time. VA headquarters officials told us that they intend to use the findings of the 2010 and 2011 LTCI reviews to determine whether deficiencies that were first identified by LTCI 2 to 3 years earlier have been resolved. However, VA headquarters cannot provide reasonable assurance of resolution of deficiencies because it does not (1) clearly document the feedback that it provides to CLCs about corrective action plans for LTCI-identified deficiencies, (2) require VA networks to report on the status of CLCs’ implementation of action plans, and (3) verify CLCs’ self-reported information about their implementation of the requirements of the national training and education initiative. Unaddressed, these weaknesses in VA headquarters’ process for responding to LTCI-identified deficiencies may compromise the quality of care and quality of life of veterans in CLCs.

Even though VA headquarters receives information about the quality of care and quality of life in CLCs from LTCI and a variety of other sources, the agency does not comprehensively analyze all available information to identify and manage risks in CLCs. Because VA headquarters does not analyze information from all available sources, it may be missing opportunities to detect trends and patterns in findings from different information sources for a CLC, CLCs within a network, or all CLCs. Without comprehensively analyzing information from all available sources, VA headquarters cannot fully identify risks in CLCs, estimate the significance of the risks, or take actions to mitigate them.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To provide reasonable assurance that LTCI-identified deficiencies are resolved and that veterans receive quality care and maintain their quality of life in VA CLCs, we recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the Under Secretary for Health to take the following two actions:  For reviews conducted by LTCI under the current contract and any similar future contracts, (1) clearly and completely document the feedback provided to CLCs about their corrective action plans, (2) require VA networks to provide periodic reports on the status of CLCs’ implementation of their corrective action plans, and (3) develop and implement a process for verifying any information reported directly to VA headquarters by CLCs.  Develop and implement a process to comprehensively identify, estimate, and mitigate risks in CLCs by analyzing and comparing all available information regarding the quality of care and quality of life in CLCs.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In its comments on a draft of this report, VA concurred with our recommendations and described the department’s planned actions to implement them. VA did not provide technical comments on the draft report. VA’s comments are included in appendix II.

To address our recommendation that, for reviews conducted by LTCI, VA headquarters should document the feedback provided to CLCs about their corrective action plans, require VA networks to report periodically on the status of CLCs’ implementation of corrective action plans, and implement a process for verifying information CLCs report directly to VA headquarters, VA stated that it plans to develop and implement a national feedback process by the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2012 as part of its response to results from the LTCI reviews. VA stated that the process will include having VA networks work with VAMC leadership to develop a comprehensive action plan to address areas of concern highlighted in the LTCI reviews, using a standardized template for CLCs’ corrective action plans, and requiring VAMCs to post corrective action plans on a secure database and provide updated corrective action plans at least monthly. VA indicated that the process will provide access to the status of action plans at any time and that officials from VA headquarters will provide oversight to ensure completion of action plans, including requiring VA networks to validate completion of all action items. VA, however, did not specify in its comments whether its process would include a step to document the feedback provided to CLCs about their corrective actions plans. We believe it is important for VA to document feedback provided to CLCs as part of its process To address our recommendation that VA headquarters develop and implement a process to comprehensively identify, estimate, and mitigate risks in CLCs by analyzing and comparing all available information regarding quality of care and quality of life, VA stated that it plans to design a process that will use all available information about the quality of care and quality of life in CLCs. VA indicated that this process would allow officials to analyze and compare information for individual CLCs, for CLCs within a VA network, and across all CLCs nationwide. VA intends to design this process during the first quarter of fiscal year 2012 and plans to use the process to analyze and compare CLC information and begin reporting it during the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. We commend this effort and encourage VA to proceed with these plans.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7114 or williamsonr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs are on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: VA Headquarters’ Analysis of Information about the Quality of Life and Care in Community Living Centers

Frequency of analysis

Description of VA headquarters analysis Identify the most frequently cited deficiencies nationally. Identify the total number of deficiencies per community living center (CLC).  Classify deficiencies identified in each CLC into 1 of 17 different groups (e.g., activities, environment, infection control, medication, etc.). Use these groups to track trends in deficiencies by VA network and by CLC.  Determine whether each CLC was substantially compliant with federal long-term care standards. Identify most frequently cited findings for two areas: 1. Direct impact: includes findings that are likely to present an 2. immediate risk to residents’ safety or quality of care; for example, resident assessment and pain management. Indirect impact: includes findings that pose less immediate risk to residents’ safety or quality of life, but could become more serious over time; for example, care planning and ensuring that corridors, hallways, and doors remain free from obstructions that would prevent exit in the event of a fire.  Calculate average number of findings per CLC.  Calculate average performance on 30 measures and indicators, by VA network and nationally; for example, percentage of long-stay residents who have experienced moderate to severe pain.  Calculate average scores, by VA network and nationally, for areas such as care practices (e.g., allowing residents to choose when they eat, bathe, and sleep) and leadership (e.g., holding regular community meetings that encourage the participation of staff, residents, and families).

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Mary Ann Curran, Assistant Director; Stella Chiang; Julie Flowers; Alison Goetsch; Aaron Holling; Alexis MacDonald; Elizabeth Morrison; and Lisa Motley were major contributors to this report.

Related GAO Products

VA Long-Term Care: Trends and Planning Challenges in Providing Nursing Home Care to Veterans. GAO-06-333T. Washington, D.C.: January 9, 2006.

VA Long-Term Care: Oversight of Nursing Home Program Impeded by Data Gaps. GAO-05-65. Washington, D.C.: November 10, 2004.