Dataset Information

Expectations and experiences with physician care among patients receiving post-acute care in US skilled nursing facilities.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In the US, post-acute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) is common and outcomes vary greatly across facilities. Little is known about the expectations of patients and their caregivers about physician care during the hospital to SNF transition. Our objectives were to (1) describe the experiences and expectations of patients and their caregivers with SNF physicians in SNFs, and (2) identify patterns that differed between patients with vs. without cognitive impairment.

Methods

This qualitative study used grounded theory approach to analyze data collected from semi-structured interviews at five SNFs in January-August 2018. Patients admitted for short-term SNF care 5-10 days prior were eligible to participate. Thematic analysis was performed to detect recurrent themes with a focus on modifiable aspects of physician care. Analysis was stratified by patient cognitive impairment (measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment at the time of the interview).

Results

Fifty patients and six caregivers were interviewed. Major themes were: (1) patients had poor awareness of the physician in charge of their care; (2) they were dissatisfied with the frequency of interaction with the physician; and (3) participants valued the perception of receiving individualized care from the physician. Less cognitively impaired patients were more concerned about limited interactions with the physicians and were more likely to report attempts to seek out the physician.

Conclusion

Patient and caregiver expectations of SNF physicians were not well aligned with their experiences. SNFs aiming to improve satisfaction with care may focus efforts in this area, such as facilitating frequent communication between physicians, patients and caregivers.

SUBMITTER: Ryskina KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7653446 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs the veteran population ages, more veterans are receiving post-acute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). However, the outcomes of these transitions across Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA settings are unclear.ObjectiveTo measure adverse outcomes in veterans transitioning from hospital to SNF in VA and non-VA hospitals and SNFs.DesignRetrospective observational study using the 2012 to 2014 Residential History File, which concatenates VA, Medicare, and Medicaid data into longitudinal episodes of care for veterans.SettingVA and non-VA hospitals and SNFs in four categories: non-VA SNFs, VA-contracted SNFs, VA Community Living Centers (CLCs), and State Veterans Homes.ParticipantsVeterans, aged 65 years or older, who were acutely hospitalized and discharged to an SNF; one transition was randomly selected per patient.MeasurementsAdverse "transitional care" outcomes were a composite of hospital readmission, emergency department visit, or mortality within 7 days of hospital discharge.ResultsMore than four in five veteran transitions (81.7%) occurred entirely outside the VA system. The overall 7-day outcome rate was 10.7% in the 388 339 veterans included. Adverse outcomes were lowest in VA hospital-CLC transitions (7.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.1%-7.8%) and highest in non-VA hospital to VA-contracted nursing home transitions (17.5%; 95% CI = 16.0%-18.9%) in unadjusted analysis. In multivariate analyses adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics, VA hospitals had lower adverse outcome rates than non-VA hospitals (odds ratio [OR] = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.74-0.86). In comparison to VA hospital-VA CLC transitions, non-VA hospital to VA-contracted nursing homes (OR = 2.51; 95% CI = 2.09-3.02) and non-VA hospital to CLC (OR = 2.25; 95% CI = 1.81-2.79) had the highest overall adverse outcome rates.ConclusionMost veteran hospital-SNF transitions occur outside the VA, although adverse transitional care outcomes are lowest inside the VA. These findings raise important questions about the VA's role as a provider and payer of post-acute care in SNFs. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1820-1826, 2019.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care is believed to be suffered from a "cost disease," in which a heavy reliance on labor limits opportunities for efficiencies stemming from technological improvement. Although recent evidence shows that U.S. hospitals have experienced a positive trend of productivity growth, skilled nursing facilities are relatively "low-tech" compared to hospitals, leading some to worry that productivity at skilled nursing facilities will lag behind the rest of the economy.ObjectiveTo assess productivity growth among skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) in the treatment of conditions which frequently involve substantial post-acute care after hospital discharge.MethodsWe constructed an analytic file with the records of Medicare beneficiaries that were discharged from acute-care hospitals to SNFs with stroke, hip fracture, or lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) between 2006 and 2014. We populated each record for 90 days starting at the time of SNF admission, detailing for each day the treatment site and all associated costs. We used ordinary least square regression to estimate growth in SNF productivity, measured by the ratio of "high-quality SNF stays" to total treatment costs. The primary definition of a high-quality stay was a stay that ended with the return of the patient to the community within 90 days after SNF admission. We controlled for patient demographics and comorbidities in the regression analyses.ResultsOur sample included 1,076,066 patient stays at 14,394 SNFs with LEJR, 315,546 patient stays at 14,154 SNFs with stroke, and 739,608 patient stays at 14,588 SNFs with hip fracture. SNFs improved their productivity in the treatment of patients with LEJR, stroke, and hip fracture by 1.1%, 2.2%, and 2.0% per year, respectively. That pattern was robust to a number of alternative specifications. Regressions on year dummies showed that the productivity first decreased and then increased, with a lowest point in 2011. Over the study period, quality continued to rise, but dominated by higher costs at first. Costs then started to decrease, driving productivity to grow.ConclusionThere has been substantial productivity growth in recent years among SNFs in the U.S. in the treatment of post-acute-care-intensive conditions.

Project description:IntroductionPost-dialysis recovery time (DRT) has an important relationship to quality of life and survival, as identified in studies of ESRD patients on conventional dialysis. ESRD patients are often discharged from hospitals to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) where on-site treatment using home hemodialysis technology is increasingly offered, but nothing is known about DRT in this patient population.MethodsFrom November 4, 2019 to June 11, 2021, within a dialysis organization providing service across 12 states and 154 SNFs, patients receiving in-SNF, more frequent dialysis (MFD) (modeled to deliver 14 treatment hours minimum per week and stdKt/V ≥2.0) were asked to describe their post-dialysis recovery time following their previous treatment, within predefined categoric choices: 0-½, ½-1, 1-2, 2-4, 4-8, 8-12 h, by next morning, or not even by next morning. Patients reporting DRT following at least one full-week treatment opportunity were included in a mixed model logistic regression of rapid recovery (DRT ≤2 h).FindingsTwo thousand three hundred and nine patients met the statistical modeling inclusion criteria, providing DRT on 108,876 dialysis sessions, while receiving mean (SD) 4.3 (0.96) weekly dialysis treatments. 2118 (92%) reported DRT ≤2 h. Results appeared biologically plausible, as lower odds of rapid DRT were observed for patients who were older, missed their previous treatment, or experienced intradialytic hypotension. Greater odds of rapid DRT were observed in patients receiving five dialyses in the previous week or having 160-179 mmHg pre-hemodialysis systolic blood pressure. Rapid recovery was associated with reduced mortality or hospitalization.DiscussionSNF dialysis patients receiving 5x per week MFD report rapid recovery time ≤2 h in 92% of dialyses despite advanced age, frailty, and comorbidities. Future studies will assess the practical ramifications of rapid DRT perception/experience on nursing home rehabilitation programs, which could impact patient health beyond the nursing home stay.

Project description:Background: As hospitals in the US face pressures to reduce lengths of stay, healthcare systems are increasingly utilizing skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) to continue treating patients stable enough to leave the hospital, but not to return home. Substance use disorder (SUD) can complicate care of patients transferred to SNFs. The objective of this paper is to understand SNF experiences for this population of patients with comorbid SUD transferred to SNFs and examine care experiences in these facilities. Methods: This secondary mixed-methods analysis focuses on SNF experiences from a clinical trial of patient navigation services for medically-hospitalized adults with comorbid opioid, cocaine, and/or alcohol use disorder. This study compared baseline assessments and medical record review for participants (N = 400) with vs. without SNF transfer, and analyzed semi-structured qualitative interviews with a subsample of 15 participants purposively selected based on their transfer to a SNF. Results: Over 1 in 4 participants had a planned discharged to a SNF (26.8% sub-acute, 3.3% acute). Compared to participants with other types of discharge, participants discharged to a SNF had longer initial hospitalizations (4.9 vs. 11.8 days, p < 0.001), and were more likely to be White (38.6 vs. 50.8%; p = 0.02), female (38.9 vs. 52.5%; p = 0.01), have opioid use disorder (75.7 vs. 85.0%, p = 0.03), and be hospitalized for infection (43.6 vs. 58.3%; p = 0.007), and less likely to have worked prior to hospitalization (24.3 vs. 12.5%; p = 0.006). Qualitative narratives identified several themes from the SNF experience, including opioid analgesic dosing issues, challenges to the use of opioid agonist treatment of OUD, illicit opioid dealing/use, and limited access to addiction recovery support services during and following the SNF stay. Conclusions: SNFs are a common disposition for patients in need of subacute services following hospitalization but may be ill-equipped to properly manage patients in need of new or continuing SUD treatment.

Project description:ObjectiveOlder hospitalized adults with an existing diagnosis of cancer rarely receive cancer treatment after discharge to a skilled nursing facility (SNF). It is unclear to what degree these outcomes may be driven by cumulative effects of previous cancer treatment and their complications vs an absolute functional threshold from which it is not possible to return. We sought to understand post-acute care outcomes of adults newly diagnosed with cancer and explore functional improvement during their SNF stay.DesignRetrospective cohort study, 2011-2013.Setting and participantsSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results - Medicare database of patients with new stage II-IV colorectal, pancreatic, bladder, or lung cancer discharged to SNF.MethodsPrimary outcome was time to death after hospital discharge. Covariates include cancer treatment receipt and hospice use. A Minimum Data Set (MDS)-Activities of Daily Living (ADL) score was calculated to measure changes in ADLs during SNF stay. Patient groups of interest were compared descriptively using means and standard deviations for continuous variables and frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Logistic regression was used to compare patient groups.ResultsA total of 6791 cases were identified. Forty-six percent of patients did not receive treatment or hospice, 25.0% received no treatment but received hospice, 20.8% received treatment but no hospice, and 8.5% received both treatment and hospice. Only 43% of decedents received hospice. Patients who received treatment but not hospice had the best survival. There were limited improvements in MDS-ADL scores in the subset of patients for whom we have complete data. Those with greater functional improvement had improved survival.Conclusions and implicationsThe majority of patients did not receive future cancer treatment or hospice care prior to death. There was limited improvement in MDS-ADL scores raising concern this population might not benefit from the rehabilitative intent of SNFs.

Project description:Importance:Health care reform legislation and Medicare plans for unified payment for postacute care highlight the need for research examining service delivery and outcomes. Objective:To compare functional outcomes in patients with stroke after postacute care in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF) vs skilled nursing facilities (SNF). Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study included patients with stroke who were discharged from acute care hospitals to IRF or SNF from January 1, 2013, to November 30, 2014. Medicare claims were used to link to IRF and SNF assessments. Data analyses were conducted from January 17, 2017, through April 25, 2019. Exposures:Inpatient rehabilitation received in IRFs vs SNFs. Main Outcomes and Measures:Changes in mobility and self-care measures during an IRF or SNF stay were compared using multivariate analyses, inverse probability weighting with propensity score, and instrumental variable analyses. Mortality between 30 and 365 days after discharge was included as a control outcome as an indicator for unmeasured confounders. Results:Among 99 185 patients who experienced a stroke between January 1, 2013, and November 30, 2014, 66 082 patients (66.6%) were admitted to IRFs and 33 103 patients (33.4%) were admitted to SNFs. A higher proportion of women were admitted to SNFs (21 466 [64.8%] women) than IRFs (36 462 [55.2%] women) (P < .001). Compared with patients admitted to IRFs, patients admitted to SNFs were older (mean [SD] age, 79.4 [7.6] years vs 83.3 [7.8] years; P < .001) and had longer hospital length of stay (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.0] days vs 5.9 [4.2] days; P < .001) than those admitted to IRFs. In unadjusted analyses, patients with stroke admitted to IRF compared with those admitted to SNF had higher mean scores for mobility on admission (44.2 [95% CI, 44.1-44.3] points vs 40.8 [95% CI, 40.7-40.9] points) and at discharge (55.8 [95% CI, 55.7-55.9] points vs 44.4 [95% CI, 44.3-44.5] points), and for self-care on admission (45.0 [95% CI, 44.9-45.1] points vs 41.8 [95% CI, 41.7-41.9] points) and at discharge (58.6 [95% CI, 58.5-58.7] points vs 45.1 [95% CI, 45.0-45.2] points). Additionally, patients in IRF compared with those in SNF had larger improvements for mobility score (11.6 [95% CI, 11.5-11.7] points vs 3.5 [95% CI, 3.4-3.6] points) and for self-care score (13.6 [95% CI, 13.5-13.7] points vs 3.2 [95% CI, 3.1-3.3] points). Multivariable, propensity score, and instrumental variable analyses showed a similar magnitude of better improvements in patients admitted to IRF vs those admitted to SNF. The differences between SNF and IRF in odds of 30- to 365-day mortality (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.46-0.49]) were reduced but not eliminated in multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.69-0.74]) and propensity score analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.72-0.77]). These differences were no longer statistically significant in the instrumental variable analyses. Conclusions and Relevance:In this cohort study of a large national sample, inpatient rehabilitation in IRFs for patients with stroke was associated with substantially improved physical mobility and self-care function compared with rehabilitation in SNFs. This finding raises questions about the value of any policy that would reimburse IRFs or SNFs at the same standard rate for stroke.

Project description:ImportanceTelemedicine in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) has the potential to improve access and timeliness of care. During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 to 2022, telemedicine coverage expanded, but little is known about patterns of use in SNFs.ObjectiveTo describe patterns of telemedicine use in SNFs.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used 2018 to 2022 Medicare fee-for-service claims and Minimum Data Set 3.0 records to identify short- and long-term care SNF residents. Clinician visits were grouped into routine SNF visits (ie, regular primary care within SNF) and other outpatient visits (ie, with non-SNF affiliated primary and specialty care clinicians). Using a difference-in-differences approach, assessments included whether off-hours visits (measured as weekend visits), new specialist visits, psychiatrist visits, or visits for residents with limited mobility changed differentially between 2018 to 2019 and 2020 to 2021 for SNFs with high compared with low telemedicine use in 2020.ExposureTelemedicine adoption at SNF after 2020.Main outcomes and measuresNumber and proportion of telemedicine SNF and outpatient visits.ResultsAcross 15 434 SNFs and 4 463 591 residents from the period January 2019 through June 2022 (mean [SD] age, 79.7 [11.6] years; 61% female in 2020), telemedicine visits increased from 0.15% in January 2019 to February 2020 to 15% SNF visits and 25% outpatient visits in May 2020. By 2022, telemedicine dropped to 2% of SNF visits and 8% of outpatient visits. The proportion of SNFs with any telemedicine visits annually dropped from 91% in 2020 to 61% in 2022. The facilities with high telemedicine use were more likely to be rural (adjusted odds ratio vs urban, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.77 to 2.40). Psychiatry visits differentially increased in high vs low telemedicine-use SNFs (20.2% relative increase; 95% CI, 1.2% to 39.2%). In contrast, there was little change in outpatient visits for residents with limited mobility (7.2%; 95% CI, -0.1% to 14.6%) or new specialist visits (-0.7%; 95% CI, -2.5% to 1.2%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of SNF residents, telemedicine was rapidly adopted in early 2020 but subsequently stabilized at a low use rate that was nonetheless higher than before 2020. Higher telemedicine use in SNFs was associated with improved access to psychiatry visits in SNFs. A policy to encourage continued telemedicine use may facilitate further access to important services as the technology matures.