The Effect of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid's Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting Program on the Use of Restraint and Seclusion.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Patients in inpatient psychiatry settings are uniquely vulnerable to harm. As sources of harm, research and policy efforts have specifically focused on minimizing and eliminating restraint and seclusion. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid's Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting (IPFQR) program attempts to systematically measure and reduce restraint and seclusion. We evaluated facilities' response to the IPFQR program and differences by ownership, hypothesizing that facilities reporting these measures for the first time will show a greater reduction and that ownership will moderate this effect.Methods
Using a difference-in-differences design and exploiting variation among facilities that previously reported on these measures to The Joint Commission, we examined the effect of the IPFQR public reporting program on the use and duration of restraint and seclusion from the end of 2012 through 2017.Results
There were a total of 9705 observations of facilities among 1841 unique facilities. Results suggest the IPFQR program reduced duration of restraint by 48.96% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 16.69%-68.73%] and seclusion by 53.54% (95% CI, 19.71%-73.12%). There was no change in odds of zero restraint and, among for-profits only, a decrease of 36.89% (95% CI, 9.32%-56.07%) in the odds of zero seclusion.Conclusions
This is the first examination of the effect of the IPFQR program on restraint and seclusion, suggesting the program was successful in reducing their use. We did not find support for ownership moderating this effect. Additional research is needed to understand mechanisms of response and the impact of the program on nontargeted aspects of quality.
SUBMITTER: Shields MC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7495495 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:There has been limited research on the quality of inpatient psychiatry, yet policies to expand access have increased, such as the use of Medicaid Section 1115 waivers for treatment in “Institutions for Mental Disease” (IMD). Using data from public records requests, we evaluated complaints, restraint, and seclusion from inpatient psychiatric facilities in Massachusetts occurring from 2008 to 2018, and compared differences in the rates of these events by IMD status. There were 17,962 total complaints, with 48.9% related to safety and 19.9% related to abuse (sexual, physical, verbal), and 92,670 episodes of restraint and seclusion. On average, for every 30 census days in a given facility, restraint, and seclusion occurred 7.47 and 1.81 times, respectively, and a complaint was filed 0.94 times. IMDs had 47.8%, 68.3%, 276.9%, 284.8%, 183.6%, and 236.1% greater rates of restraint, seclusion, overall complaints, substantiated complaints, safety-related complaints, and abuse-related complaints, respectively, compared to non-IMDs. This is the first known study to describe complaints from United States inpatient psychiatric facilities. Policies should strengthen the implementation of patients’ rights and patient-centeredness, as well as external critical-incident-reporting systems.
| S-EPMC10265359 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch in recent years has demonstrated that the use of coercive measures such as seclusion and restraint differs very much between hospitals within a country. In 2015, a central register for all coercive measures in the German federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg has been established for 32 hospitals treating involuntary patients. The objective of the present study was to identify factors that determine the differences between these hospitals.MethodsData on coercive measures and diagnoses from the central register in 2015-2017 were linked with structural data of the 32 hospitals and their supply areas.ResultsOn average, coercive measures were applied in 6.7% of cases (SD = 2.8%; Min-Max = 0.35-12.0%). The proportion of affected cases was significantly correlated with the proportion of involuntary patients (r = 0.56), the proportion of cases with affective or neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders (r = -0.42), number of hospital beds (r = 0.44), a sheltered home associated with the hospital (r = 0.43) and number of addiction counseling centers per 100,000 inhabitants in the service area (r = -0.39). The final regression model only included the proportion of involuntary cases as a significant predictor (standardized beta = 0.55, adjusted R 2 = 0.27).ConclusionsThe predominating part of the considerable variance observed between hospitals could not be explained by structural variables. The proportion of involuntary patients had a significant impact, but a considerable amount of unexplained variance due to different practices within psychiatric hospitals remains.
| S-EPMC9086971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious research on mental health care has shown considerable differences in use of seclusion, restraint and involuntary medication among different wards and geographical areas. This study investigates to what extent use of seclusion, restraint and involuntary medication for involuntary admitted patients in Norwegian acute psychiatric wards is associated with patient, staff and ward characteristics. The study includes data from 32 acute psychiatric wards.MethodsMultilevel logistic regression using Stata was applied with data from 1016 involuntary admitted patients that were linked to data about wards. The sample comprised two hierarchical levels (patients and wards) and the dependent variables had two values (0 = no use and 1 = use). Coercive measures were defined as use of seclusion, restraint and involuntary depot medication during hospitalization.ResultsThe total number of involuntary admitted patients was 1214 (35% of total sample). The percentage of patients who were exposed to coercive measures ranged from 0-88% across wards. Of the involuntary admitted patients, 424 (35%) had been secluded, 117 (10%) had been restrained and 113 (9%) had received involuntary depot medication at discharge. Data from 1016 patients could be linked in the multilevel analysis. There was a substantial between-ward variance in the use of coercive measures; however, this was influenced to some extent by compositional differences across wards, especially for the use of restraint.ConclusionsThe substantial between-ward variance, even when adjusting for patients' individual psychopathology, indicates that ward factors influence the use of seclusion, restraint and involuntary medication and that some wards have the potential for quality improvement. Hence, interventions to reduce the use of seclusion, restraint and involuntary medication should take into account organizational and environmental factors.
| S-EPMC2858144 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe Relational Neurobehavioral Approach (RNA) is a set of non-aversive intervention methods to manage individuals with brain injury-related aggression. New data on interventions used in the RNA and on how the RNA interventions can be used with patients with acquired brain injury (ABI) who have differing levels of functional impairment are provided in this paper.MethodThe study was conducted over a 6-week period in a secure 65-bed program for individuals with ABI that is housed in two units of a skilled nursing facility (SNF). Implementation of the RNA was compared between two units that housed patients with differing levels of functional impairment (n = 65 adults). Since this was a hierarchical clustered dataset, Generalized Estimating Equations regression was used in the analyses.ResultsRNA interventions used to manage the 495 aggressive incidents included the following: Aggression ignored, Closer observation, Talking to patient, Reassurance, Physical distraction, Isolation without seclusion, Immediate medication by mouth, Holding patient. Different interventions were implemented differentially by staff based on level of functional impairment and without use of seclusion or mechanical restraint.ConclusionsThe RNA can be used to non-aversively manage aggression in patients with brain injury and with differing levels of functional impairment. Programs adopting the RNA can potentially manage brain injury-related aggression without seclusion or mechanical restraint. Implications for Rehabilitation The Relational Neurobehavioral Approach (RNA) is a set of non-aversive intervention methods to manage individuals with brain injury-related aggression. RNA methods can be used to manage aggression in patients with brain injury who have differing levels of functional impairment. Successful implementation of the RNA may allow for the management of brain injury-related aggression without seclusion or mechanical restraint.
| S-EPMC5354988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Determining the clinical effects of coercion is a difficult challenge, raising ethical, legal, and methodological questions. Despite limited scientific evidence on effectiveness, coercive measures are frequently used, especially in psychiatry. This systematic review aims to search for effects of seclusion and restraint on psychiatric inpatients with wider inclusion of outcomes and study designs than former reviews. Methods: A systematic search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, primarily through Pubmed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Interventional and prospective observational studies on effects of seclusion and restraint on psychiatric inpatients were included. Main search keywords were restraint, seclusion, psychiatry, effect, harm, efficiency, efficacy, effectiveness, and quality of life. Results: Thirty-five articles were included, out of 6,854 records. Studies on the effects of seclusion and restraint in adult psychiatry comprise a wide range of outcomes and designs. The identified literature provides some evidence that seclusion and restraint have deleterious physical or psychological consequences. Estimation of post-traumatic stress disorder incidence after intervention varies from 25% to 47% and, thus, is not negligible, especially for patients with past traumatic experiences. Subjective perception has high interindividual variability, mostly associated with negative emotions. Effectiveness and adverse effects of seclusion and restraint seem to be similar. Compared to other coercive measures (notably forced medication), seclusion seems to be better accepted, while restraint seems to be less tolerated, possibly because of the perception of seclusion as "non-invasive." Therapeutic interaction appears to have a positive influence on coercion perception. Conclusion: Heterogeneity of the included studies limited drawing clear conclusions, but the main results identified show negative effects of seclusion and restraint. These interventions should be used with caution and as a last resort. Patients' preferences should be taken into account when deciding to apply these measures. The therapeutic relationship could be a focus for improvement of effects and subjective perception of coercion. In terms of methodology, studying coercive measures remains difficult but, in the context of current research on coercion reduction, is needed to provide workable baseline data and potential targets for interventions. Well-conducted prospective cohort studies could be more feasible than randomized controlled trials for interventional studies.
| S-EPMC6673758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Acute psychiatric units in general hospitals must ensure that acutely disturbed patients do not harm themselves or others, and simultaneously provide care and treatment and help patients regain control of their behavior. This led to the development of strategies for the seclusion of a patient in this state within a particular area separated from other patients in the ward. While versions of this practice have been used in different countries and settings, a systematic framework for describing the various parameters and types of seclusion interventions has not been available. The aims of the project were to develop and test a valid and reliable checklist for characterizing seclusion in inpatient psychiatric care. Methods: Development and testing of the checklist were accomplished in five stages. Staff in psychiatric units completed detailed descriptions of seclusion episodes. Elements of seclusion were identified by thematic analysis of this material, and consensus regarding these elements was achieved through a Delphi process comprising two rounds. Good content validity was ensured through the sample of seclusion episodes and the representative participants in the Delphi process. The first draft of the checklist was revised based on testing by clinicians assessing seclusion episodes. The revised checklist with six reasons for and 10 elements of seclusion was tested with different response scales, and acceptable interrater reliability was achieved. Results: The Clinical Seclusion Checklist is a brief and feasible tool measuring six reasons for seclusion, 10 elements of seclusion, and four contextual factors. It was developed through a transparent process and exhibited good content validity and acceptable interrater reliability. Conclusion: The checklist is a step toward achieving valid and clinically relevant measurements of seclusion. Its use in psychiatric units may contribute to quality assurance, more reliable statistics and comparisons across sites and periods, improved research on patients' experiences of seclusion and its effects, reduction of negative consequences of seclusion, and improvement of psychiatric intensive care.
| S-EPMC8733687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine if Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) accountable care organizations (ACOs) are meeting public reporting requirements related to shared savings plans, to quantitate the composition of shared savings distribution plans, and to investigate whether early ACO success is associated with specific plan or ACO characteristics.Cross-sectional study.ACO descriptive characteristics and distribution plan details were abstracted from official ACO websites for all 338 active MSSP ACOs launched through January 2014. Publicly available MSSP results from 2012 and 2013 start date ACOs were used to investigate associations with successful shared savings generation.Of current MSSP ACOs, 313 of 338 (93%) maintain a website, 284 of 338 (84%) provided at least a general statement about shared savings distributions, and 176 of 338 (52%) reported detailed allocation percentages to ACO participants. On average, ACOs reporting detailed allocations planned to give 63% (range = 0%-100%; SD = 26.3) to their primary care providers (PCPs), specialists, and/or hospitals, and 33% (range = 0%-100%; SD = 25.6) to infrastructure. ACOs including a hospital planned to give a larger average percentage to participating entities than those without (69% vs 58%; P = .01). ACOs planning to give > 50% to their PCPs and specialists were more likely to have generated savings (P = .001), as were ACOs composed of > 10 participating entities (P = .004).Just over one-half of MSSP ACOs report detailed shared savings distribution plans online, and these plans vary widely. There appears to be no single shared savings distribution plan determinate of ACO success. Continued investigation of predictors for generating savings is needed to inform future shared savings models.
| S-EPMC5578417 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Inpatient and skilled nursing facility (SNF) cost sharing in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans may reduce unnecessary use of these services. However, large out-of-pocket expenses potentially limit access to care and encourage beneficiaries at high risk of needing inpatient and postacute care to avoid or leave MA plans. In 2011 new federal regulations restricted inpatient and skilled nursing facility cost sharing and mandated limits on out-of-pocket spending in MA plans. After these regulations, MA members in plans with low premiums averaged $1,758 in expected out-of-pocket spending for an episode of seven hospital days and twenty skilled nursing facility days. Among members with the same low-premium plan in 2010 and 2011, 36 percent of members belonged to plans that added an out-of-pocket spending limit in 2011. However, these members also had a $293 increase in average cost sharing for an inpatient and skilled nursing facility episode, possibly to offset plans' expenses in financing out-of-pocket limits. Some MA beneficiaries may still have difficulty affording acute and postacute care despite greater regulation of cost sharing.
| S-EPMC4681704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceImproving the quality of dialysis care and access to kidney transplantation for patients with end-stage kidney disease is a national clinical and policy priority. The role of dialysis facility quality in increasing access to kidney transplantation is not known.ObjectiveTo determine whether patient, facility, and kidney transplant waitlisting characteristics are associated with variations in dialysis center quality.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based cohort study is an analysis of US Renal Data System data and Medicare Dialysis Facility Compare (DFC) data from 2013 to 2018. Participants included all adult (aged ≥18 years) patients in the US Renal Data System beginning long-term dialysis in the US from 2013 to 2017 with follow-up through the end of 2018. Patients with a prior kidney transplant and matched Medicare DFC star ratings to each annual cohort of recipients were excluded. Patients at facilities without a star rating in that year were also excluded. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2021.ExposuresDialysis center quality, as defined by Medicare DFC star ratings.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients undergoing incident dialysis who were waitlisted within 1 year of dialysis initiation. Secondary outcomes were patient and facility characteristics.ResultsOf 507 581 patients beginning long-term dialysis in the US from 2013 to 2017, 291 802 (57.4%) were male, 266 517 (52.5%) were White, and the median (interquartile range) age was 65 (55-75) years. Of 5869 dialysis facilities in 2017, 132 (2.2%) were 1-star, 436 (7.4%) were 2-star, 2047 (34.9%) were 3-star, 1660 (28.3%) were 4-star, and 1594 (27.2%) were 5-star. Higher-quality dialysis facilities were associated with 47% higher odds of transplant waitlisting (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57 for 5-star facilities vs 1-star facilities; P < .001). Black patients were less likely than White patients to be waitlisted for transplantation (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.72-0.76). In addition, patients at for-profit (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81) and rural (OR, 0.63; 95%, CI 0.58-0.68) facilities were less likely to be waitlisted for transplantation compared with those at nonprofit and urban facilities, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, patients at higher-quality dialysis facilities had higher odds than patients at lower-quality facilities of being waitlisted for kidney transplantation within 1 year. Waitlisting rates for kidney transplantation should be considered for integration into the current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services DFC star ratings to incentivize dialysis facility referral to transplant centers, inform patient choice, and drive quality improvement by increasing transplant waitlisting rates.
| S-EPMC8463939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reporting of quality indicators (QIs) in Veterans Health Administration Medical Centers is complicated by estimation error caused by small numbers of eligible patients per facility. We applied multilevel modeling and empirical Bayes (EB) estimation in addressing this issue in performance reporting of stroke care quality in the Medical Centers.We studied a retrospective cohort of 3812 veterans admitted to 106 Medical Centers with ischemic stroke during fiscal year 2007. The median number of study patients per facility was 34 (range, 12-105). Inpatient stroke care quality was measured with 13 evidence-based QIs. Eligible patients could either pass or fail each indicator. Multilevel modeling of a patient's pass/fail on individual QIs was used to produce facility-level EB-estimated QI pass rates and confidence intervals. The EB estimation reduced interfacility variation in QI rates. Small facilities and those with exceptionally high or low rates were most affected. We recommended 8 of the 13 QIs for performance reporting: dysphagia screening, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale documentation, early ambulation, fall risk assessment, pressure ulcer risk assessment, Functional Independence Measure documentation, lipid management, and deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. These QIs displayed sufficient variation across facilities, had room for improvement, and identified sites with performance that was significantly above or below the population average. The remaining 5 QIs were not recommended because of too few eligible patients or high pass rates with little variation.Considerations of statistical uncertainty should inform the choice of QIs and their application to performance reporting.
| S-EPMC3261327 | biostudies-literature