Clinical Care Access to Care Quality of Care Search Policies & Programs

hints
Display All Policies & Programs

Green House homes

Health Factors: Quality of Care
Decision Makers: Healthcare Professionals & Advocates
Evidence Rating: Some Evidence
Population Reach: 1-9% of WI's population
Impact on Disparities: No impact on disparities likely

Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.

Description

Green House homes (GH homes) are self-contained, homelike dwellings for 10-12 elderly adults who require nursing home care. Oriented around a central living area, GH homes include private bedrooms and bathrooms, a residential-style kitchen, a communal dining area, and accessible outdoor space. GH homes provide various types of care such as skilled nursing, memory care, and short-term rehabilitation. Certified nursing assistants (CNAs), known as Shahbazim, serve as universal caregivers, conducting clinical, personal, and home care tasks such as preparing food, cleaning, and scheduling. Visiting clinical teams including nurses, doctors, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and social workers also provide services to residents. GH homes can be part of large, traditional nursing home campuses or standalone facilities incorporated into the broader community (GH Project).

Expected Beneficial Outcomes

Improved quality of life
Increased direct care time
Reduced hospital readmissions
Reduced preventable hospitalizations

Evidence of Effectiveness

There is some evidence that Green House homes (GH homes) improve residents’ quality of life (Afendulis 2016, Kane 2007) and increase the amount of direct care time caregivers spend with residents (Brown 2016, Sharkey 2011) compared to traditional nursing homes. Additional evidence is needed to confirm effects.

GH homes may decrease rates of hospital readmission (Bowers 2016, Afendulis 2016) and preventable hospitalization (Bowers 2016), perhaps due to the amount of time Shahbazim spend with residents and early identification of potential health concerns (Brown 2016, Sharkey 2011). GH homes appear to provide quality of care equal to and, in some cases better than, traditional nursing homes (Afendulis 2016, Kane 2007). GH homes also appear to have greater staff retention than traditional nursing homes (Brown 2016).

The cost to operate GH homes appears to be comparable to traditional nursing homes and may be less in some circumstances (Jenkens 2011). Some practices core to Green House homes, such as universal caregiving staff and self-managed work teams, can be implemented in traditional nursing homes with little capital investment (Elliot 2014). 

Implementation

United States

As of Summer 2016, there are 205 Green House homes across 33 states (GH Project).

Wisconsin

As of Summer 2016, there are three Green House homes in Wisconsin: Eden Meadows Rehabilitation Suites & Green House Homes in Oshkosh, Tomah VA Medical Center, and Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee (GH Project).

Implementation Resources

GH Project - The Green House (GH) Project. Caring homes for meaningful lives. Accessed on July 19, 2016

Citations - Description

GH Project - The Green House (GH) Project. Caring homes for meaningful lives. Accessed on July 19, 2016

Citations - Evidence

Afendulis 2016* - Afendulis CC, Caudry DJ, O’Malley AJ, Kemper P, Grabowski DC. Green House adoption and nursing home quality. Health Services Research. 2016;51(S1):454–474. Accessed on July 19, 2016
Bowers 2016* - Bowers B, Roberts T, Nolet K, Ryther B. Inside the Green House “black box”: Opportunities for high-quality clinical decision making. Health Services Research. 2016;51(S1):378–397. Accessed on July 19, 2016
Brown 2016* - Brown PB, Hudak SL, Horn SD, et al. Workforce characteristics, perceptions, stress, and satisfaction among staff in Green House and other nursing homes. Health Services Research. 2016;51(S1):418–432. Accessed on July 19, 2016
Elliot 2014 - Elliot A, Cohen LW, Reed D, Nolet K, Zimmerman S. A “recipe” for culture change? Findings from the THRIVE survey of culture change adopters. The Gerontologist. 2014;54(Suppl 1):S17–S24. Accessed on July 19, 2016
Jenkens 2011 - Jenkens R, Sult T, Lessell N, Hammer D, Ortigara A. Financial implications of the Green House model. Seniors Housing and Care Journal. 2011;19(1):3–22. Accessed on July 27, 2016
Kane 2007* - Kane RA, Lum TY, Cutler LJ, Degenholtz HB, Yu TC. Resident outcomes in small-house nursing homes: A longitudinal evaluation of the initial Green House program. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2007;55(6):832-9. Accessed on July 27, 2016
Sharkey 2011* - Sharkey SS, Hudak S, Horn SD, James B, Howes J. Frontline caregiver daily practices: A comparison study of traditional nursing homes and the Green House Project sites. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2011;59(1):126–131. Accessed on July 19, 2016

Citations - Implementation

GH Project - The Green House (GH) Project. Caring homes for meaningful lives. Accessed on July 19, 2016

Page Last Updated

July 19, 2016

* Journal subscription may be required for access.