Dataset Information

Long-Term Acute Care Hospital Use of Non-Mechanically Ventilated Hospitalized Older Adults.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To determine why non-mechanically ventilated hospitalized older adults are transferred to long-term acute care (LTAC) hospitals rather than remaining in the hospital. DESIGN:Observational cohort. SETTING:National Medicare data. PARTICIPANTS:Non-mechanically ventilated hospitalized adults aged 65 and older with fee-for-service Medicare in 2012 who were transferred to an LTAC hospital (n=1,831) or had a prolonged hospitalization without transfer (average hospital length of stay or longer of those transferred to an LTAC hospital) and had one of the 50 most common hospital diagnoses leading to LTAC transfer (N=12,875). MEASUREMENTS:We assessed predictors of transfer using a multilevel model, adjusting for patient-, hospital-, and hospital referral region (HRR)-level factors. We estimated proportions of variance at each level and adjusted hospital- and HRR-specific LTAC transfer rates using sequential models. RESULTS:The strongest predictor of transfer was being hospitalized near an LTAC hospital (<1.4 vs?>?33.6 miles, adjusted odds ratio=6.2, 95% confidence interval (CI)=4.2-9.1). After adjusting for case mix, differences between hospitals explained 15.4% of the variation in LTAC use and differences between regions explained 27.8%. Case mix-adjusted LTAC use was high in the South, where many HRRs had rates between 20.3% and 53.1%, whereas many HRRs were less than 5.4% in the Pacific Northwest, North, and New England. From our fully adjusted model, the median adjusted hospital LTAC transfer rate was 7.2% (interquartile range 2.8-17.5%), with substantial within-region variation (intraclass coefficient=0.25, 95% CI=0.21-0.30). CONCLUSIONS:Nearly half of the variation in LTAC use is independent of illness severity and is explained by which hospital and what region the individual was hospitalized in. Because of the greater fragmentation of care and Medicare spending with LTAC transfers (because LTAC hospitals generate a separate bundled payment from the hospital), greater attention is needed to define the optimal role of LTAC hospitals in caring for older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 66:2112-2119, 2018.

SUBMITTER: Makam AN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6239216 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Long-Term Acute Care Hospital Use of Non-Mechanically Ventilated Hospitalized Older Adults.

Makam Anil N AN Nguyen Oanh Kieu OK Xuan Lei L Miller Michael E ME Halm Ethan A EA

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 20180917 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine why non-mechanically ventilated hospitalized older adults are transferred to long-term acute care (LTAC) hospitals rather than remaining in the hospital.<h4>Design</h4>Observational cohort.<h4>Setting</h4>National Medicare data.<h4>Participants</h4>Non-mechanically ventilated hospitalized adults aged 65 and older with fee-for-service Medicare in 2012 who were transferred to an LTAC hospital (n=1,831) or had a prolonged hospitalization without transfer (average hos ...[more]

PMID: 30295927

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Despite providing an overlapping level of care, it is unknown why hospitalized older adults are transferred to long-term acute care hospitals (LTACs) vs less costly skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for postacute care. Objective:To examine factors associated with variation in LTAC vs SNF transfer among hospitalized older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants:We conducted this retrospective observational cohort study of hospitalized older adults (≥65 years) transferred to an LTAC vs SNF during fiscal year 2012 using national 5% Medicare data. Main Outcomes and Measures:Predictors of LTAC transfer were assessed using a multilevel mixed-effects model adjusting for patient-, hospital-, and region-level factors. We estimated variation partition coefficients and adjusted hospital- and region-specific LTAC transfer rates using sequential models. Results:Among 65 525 hospitalized older adults (42 461 [64.8%] women; 39 908 [60.9%] ≥85 years) transferred to an LTAC or SNF, 3093 (4.7%) were transferred to an LTAC. We identified 29 patient-, 3 hospital-, and 5 region-level independent predictors. The strongest predictors of LTAC transfer were receiving a tracheostomy (adjusted odds ration [aOR], 23.8; 95% CI, 15.8-35.9) and being hospitalized in close proximity to an LTAC (0-2 vs >42 miles; aOR, 8.4, 95% CI, 6.1-11.5). After adjusting for case-mix, differences between patients explained 52.1% (95% CI, 47.7%-56.5%) of the variation in LTAC use. The remainder was attributable to hospital (15.0%; 95% CI, 12.3%-17.6%), and regional differences (32.9%; 95% CI, 27.6%-38.3%). Case-mix adjusted LTAC use was very high in the South (17%-37%) compared with the Pacific Northwest, North, and Northeast (<2.2%). From the full multilevel model, the median adjusted hospital LTAC transfer rate was 2.1% (10th-90th percentile, 0.24%-10.8%). Even within a region, adjusted hospital LTAC transfer rates varied substantially (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.23-0.30). Conclusions and Relevance:Although many patient-level factors were associated with LTAC use, half of the variation in LTAC vs SNF transfer is independent of patients' illness severity or clinical complexity, and is explained by where the patient was hospitalized and in what region, with far greater use in the South. Even among hospitals in regions with similar LTAC access, there was considerable variation in LTAC use. Given the higher expense associated with LTACs vs SNFs, greater attention is needed to define the optimal role of LTACs in the postacute care of older adults.

Project description:BackgroundInformation is lacking regarding long-term survival and predictive factors for mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. We aimed to estimate 180-day mortality of patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive ventilation, and to develop a predictive model for long-term mortality.MethodsRetrospective, multicentre, national cohort study between March 8 and April 30, 2020 in 16 intensive care units (ICU) in Spain. Participants were consecutive adults who received invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection detected in positive testing of a nasopharyngeal sample and confirmed by real time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR). The primary outcomes was 180-day survival after hospital admission. Secondary outcomes were length of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU and in-hospital mortality. A predictive model was developed to estimate the probability of 180-day mortality.Results868 patients were included (median age, 64 years [interquartile range [IQR], 56-71 years]; 72% male). Severity at ICU admission, estimated by SAPS3, was 56 points [IQR 50-63]. Prior to intubation, 26% received some type of noninvasive respiratory support. The unadjusted overall 180-day survival rates was 59% (95% CI 56-62%). The predictive factors measured during ICU stay, and associated with 180-day mortality were: age [Odds Ratio [OR] per 1-year increase 1.051, 95% CI 1.033-1.068)), SAPS3 (OR per 1-point increase 1.027, 95% CI 1.011-1.044), diabetes (OR 1.546, 95% CI 1.085-2.204), neutrophils to lymphocytes ratio (OR per 1-unit increase 1.008, 95% CI 1.001-1.016), failed attempt of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation prior to orotracheal intubation (OR 1.878 (95% CI 1.124-3.140), use of selective digestive decontamination strategy during ICU stay (OR 0.590 (95% CI 0.358-0.972) and administration of low dosage of corticosteroids (methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg) (OR 2.042 (95% CI 1.205-3.460).ConclusionThe long-term survival of mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19 reaches more than 50% and may help to provide individualized risk stratification and potential treatments.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04379258. Registered 10 April 2020 (retrospectively registered).

Project description:Clinical practice recommendations increasingly advocate that older patients' life expectancy be considered to inform a number of clinical decisions. It is not clear how primary care practitioners approach these recommendations in their clinical practice.To explore the range of perspectives from primary care practitioners on long-term prognosis, defined as prognosis regarding life expectancy in the range of years, in their care of older adults.A qualitative, semistructured interview study was conducted in a large group practice with multiple sites in rural, urban, and suburban settings. Twenty-eight primary care practitioners were interviewed; 20 of these participants (71%) reported that at least 25% of their patient panel was older adults. The audiorecorded discussions were transcribed and analyzed, using qualitative content analysis to identify major themes and subthemes. The study was conducted between January 30 and May 13, 2015. Data analysis was performed between June 10 and September 1, 2015.The constant comparative approach was used to qualitatively analyze the content of the transcripts.Of the 28 participants, 16 were women and 21 were white; the mean (SD) age was 46.2 (10.3) years. Twenty-six were physicians and 2 were nurse practitioners. Their time since completing clinical training was 16.0 (11.4) years. These primary care practitioners reported considering life expectancy, often in the range of 5 to 10 years, in several clinical scenarios in the care of older adults, but balanced the prognosis consideration against various other factors in decision making. In particular, patient age was found to modulate how prognosis affects the primary care practitioners' decision making, with significant reluctance among them to cease preventive care that has a long lag time to achieve benefit in younger patients despite limited life expectancy. The participants assessed life expectancy based on clinical experience rather than using validated tools and varied widely in their prognostication time frame, from 2 years to 30 years. Participants often considered prognosis without explicitly discussing it with patients and disagreed on whether and when long-term prognosis needs to be specifically discussed. The participants identified numerous barriers to incorporating prognosis in the care of older adults including uncertainty in predicting prognosis, difficulty in discussing prognosis, and concern about patient reactions.Despite clinical recommendations to increasingly incorporate patients' long-term prognosis in clinical decisions, primary care practitioners encounter several barriers and ambiguities in the implementation of these recommendations.

Dataset Information

Long-Term Acute Care Hospital Use of Non-Mechanically Ventilated Hospitalized Older Adults.

Publications

Long-Term Acute Care Hospital Use of Non-Mechanically Ventilated Hospitalized Older Adults.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure