In long-term care, maintaining a resident’s functional independence is both a clinical and regulatory priority. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Quality Measure (QM), “Percent of Residents Whose Need for Help with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) Has Increased” reflects one of the most essential goals in skilled nursing: to help each resident attain or maintain his or her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
This long-stay measure tracks the percentage of residents whose level of dependence in late-loss ADLs—Sit to lying, Sit to stand, Eating, and Toilet transfer—has worsened between two assessment points. These are known as late-loss ADLs because they are typically the last abilities to decline as a resident’s condition progresses. Functional decline not only reduces a resident’s autonomy and quality of life, it also correlates with an increased risk for falls, infections, pressure injuries, and rehospitalization.
From a systems perspective, this measure, which indicates care quality and is reported publicly on CMS Care Compare, influences a facility’s overall Five-Star Quality Rating. This article explains how to interpret the ADL QM, identify contributing factors and root causes, and apply strategies to improve functional outcomes.
Interpreting the numbers
Although the measure for increased help with ADLs is quantitative, it tells a qualitative story about daily care, documentation, and interdisciplinary teamwork. This measure compares the target assessment with a prior assessment (latest assessment completed 46 to 165 days before the target assessment). The measure then identifies the target assessment functional score and subtracts the functional score from the prior assessment for each late-loss ADL.
A negative difference between the two scores shows decreased independence, sometimes for unavoidable reasons but often because staff has missed an opportunity for intervention. Consider a resident who scored Substantial/maximal assistance (02) on the target assessment and Partial/maximal assistance (03) on the prior assessment. The result is a negative difference (i.e., 02 − 03 = −1), considered a 1-point decrease in coding points in the measure specifications.
A resident triggers for this measure if he or she experiences a decrease in 2 or more coding points in one late-loss ADL item or a 1-point decrease in coding points in two or more late-loss ADL items, as shown in this chart, adapted from the MDS 3.0 Quality Measures User’s Manual, v17.0, (CMS, 2025, page 34):
| Descriptor | Specifications | Example |
| Decrease in 2 or more coding points in one late-loss ADL item | At least one of the following is true: * 1.1 Sit to lying: [Level at target assessment (GG0170B) – Level at prior assessment (GG0170B)] < [−1], or * 1.2 Sit to stand: [Level at target assessment (GG0170D) – Level at prior assessment (GG0170D)] < [−1], or * 1.3 Eating: [Level at target assessment (GG0130A) – Level at prior assessment (GG0130A)] < [−1], or * 1.4 Toilet transfer: [Level at target assessment (GG0170F) – Level at prior assessment (GG0170F)] < [−1]. | Mrs. Duece’s target assessment has an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/01/25. She recently fell during an independent transfer and usually required a contact guard during transfers on this assessment. Sit to stand was coded 04, Supervision or touching assistance. On her prior assessment, on 08/08/25, Sit to stand was coded 06, Independent. Sit to stand: 04 − 06 = −2: less than −1 Summary: A decrease of 2 coding points for this one ADL when comparing the current assessment with the prior assessment. |
| Decrease in 1 coding point in two or more late-loss ADL items | At least two of the following are true: * 2.1 Sit to lying: [Level at target assessment (GG0170B) – Level at prior assessment GG0170B)] < [0], or * 2.2 Sit to stand: [Level at target assessment (GG0170D) – Level at prior assessment (GG0170D)] < [0], or * 2.3 Eating: [Level at target assessment (GG0130A) – Level at prior assessment (GG0130A)] < [0], or * 2.4 Toilet transfer: [Level at target assessment (GG0170F) – Level at prior assessment (GG0170F)] < [0]. | Mr. Sole’s target assessment has an ARD of 10/20/25. During this assessment, his Parkinson’s disease has exacerbated. His usual performance for Eating was 03, Partial/moderate assistance, and Toilet transfer was 02, Substantial/maximal assistance. On his prior assessment, on 08/01/25, Eating was 04, Supervision or touching assistance, and Toilet transfer was 03, Partial/moderate assistance. Eating: 03 − 02 = −1: less than 0 Toilet transfer: 04 − 03 = −1: less than 0 Summary: A decrease of 1 coding point each for two ADLs when comparing the current assessment with the prior assessment. |
Verifying accuracy of the data
Turning QM data into action requires a structured, proactive approach, grounded in interdisciplinary teamwork and continuous performance improvement. Start by confirming whether declines are clinically accurate. Conduct internal audits comparing MDS ADL coding with nursing, nurse aide, and therapy documentation. If any errors are noted for MDS coding, complete a modification to correct the mistake. Once MDS accuracy is validated, the team must identify why a decline occurred.
Investigate contributing factors and root causes of the functional decline
Investigating the contributing factors and root causes is a twofold effort. First, if the section GG data is found to be inaccurate, the team must identify any possible gaps that could have resulted in or contributed to the inaccuracies. Here are some examples: using an incomplete observation window for section GG, staff having an inconsistent interpretation of each ADL task, or documentation not used from all sources to identify the usual performance.
Second, the team must identify the contributing factors and root causes of the clinical decline in the resident’s performance. It could be recognizing a reversible cause, such as a functional decline related to pain, infection, medication side effects, or environmental barriers. Or it could also reveal a decline that could have been slowed or prevented with appropriate interventions if identified early enough. The change may also reflect expected fluctuations related to the resident’s condition. Although these types of cyclical changes can be addressed in the care plan, so a significant change in status may not be indicated, the changes may still trigger the ADL QM.
Implement person-centered interventions
Understanding the reason for a functional decline can help the team identify what interventions may be appropriate to implement, such as rehabilitation or restorative nursing programs, and how to identify early warning signs of a decline. As already noted, the late-lossADLs are typically the final abilities to decline as a resident’s condition progresses. Thus, the resident will likely have declines in other areas before these ADLs are impacted. Monitoring all ADLs and subtle declines or changes can help alert staff before the late-loss ADLs trigger this measure.
Additionally, the team should use a person-centered approach to monitor the need for restorative programs, therapy referrals, pain management, environmental needs (e.g., adaptive devices, visual appliances), and nutritional deficits that may impact functional abilities. These interventions must be individualized and reflected in the resident’s care plan and communicated to the team.
Strategies to improve functional outcomes
Adopting a facility-wide culture that focuses on the accuracy of functional documentation is vital to monitor subtle changes in function. Direct care staff must be empowered to recognize and to communicate even minor variations in ability with charge nurses, prompting early clinical review before decline becomes permanent. Nurses and therapy staff should collaborate to refresh restorative programs regularly, ensuring they reflect each resident’s current strengths and goals.
Scheduled team huddles to discuss residents at risk, review documentation accuracy, and celebrate functional gains reinforce a culture focused on independence rather than dependence. When staff across all shifts view every care interaction as an opportunity to maintain function, the facility can significantly reduce triggers for ADL decline and improve overall QM performance. Consistent, intentional support—such as encouraging residents to complete portions of tasks independently, adjusting the environment for safe participation, and using adaptive equipment—helps preserve mobility and confidence.
Conclusion
The “Percent of Residents Whose Need for Help with ADLs Has Increased” measure is far more than a regulatory metric. It reflects how effectively a team preserves independence and dignity through daily practice. When coding accuracy, interdisciplinary communication, and restorative interventions align, this measure becomes a meaningful indicator of quality, not just compliance.
Sustained success begins with clarity: accurate MDS coding rooted in observation and a shared commitment to identify and address decline early. Each action, whether validating documentation, coaching staff, or adjusting care plans, translates data into improved outcomes.
Maintaining each resident’s functional abilities is ultimately not just about achieving a number. It’s about honoring each resident’s potential. By turning assessment accuracy and teamwork into everyday habits, facilities strengthen quality, uphold regulatory standards, and, most importantly, safeguard what matters most: resident dignity, purpose, and quality of life.
References
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). (2025). MDS 3.0 Quality Measures User’s Manual, v17.0. Effective January 1, 2025. https://www.cms.gov/files/document/mds-30-qm-users-manual-v170.pdf
This AAPACN resource is copyright protected. AAPACN individual members may download or print one copy for use within their facility only. AAPACN facility organizational members have unlimited use only within facilities included in their organizational membership. Violation of AAPACN copyright may result in membership termination and loss of all AAPACN certification credentials. Learn more.