Dataset Information

Where Skilled Nursing Facility Residents Get Acute Care: Is the Emergency Department the Medical Home?

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study aimed to characterize the distribution of acute care visits among Medicare beneficiaries receiving skilled nursing facility (SNF) services.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a 20% sample of continuously enrolled Medicare beneficiaries in the 2012 Chronic Condition Warehouse data set. Beneficiaries were grouped by the number of days of SNF services, and acute care visits were categorized as "before SNF," "during SNF," or "after SNF."

Results

Among the 10,717,786 Medicare beneficiaries analyzed, 384,312 (3.6%) had at least one SNF stay.

Discussion

Beneficiaries who received SNF services had a higher proportion of acute care visits made to emergency departments (EDs) than beneficiaries who did not receive SNF services. Also, a higher proportion of acute care visits were made to EDs by beneficiaries after a SNF stay in comparison to residents actively residing in a SNF. The acute care capabilities of SNFs and post-SNF transitions of care to the community setting are discussed.

SUBMITTER: Venkatesh AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7904961 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the frequency and timing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody detection in a convenience sample of skilled nursing facility (SNF) residents with and without confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.DesignRetrospective analysis of SNF electronic health records.SettingQualitative SARS-CoV-2 antibody test results were available from 81 SNFs in 16 states.ParticipantsSix hundred and sixty nine SNF residents who underwent both polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2.MeasurementsPresence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies following the first positive PCR test for confirmed cases, or first PCR test for non-cases.ResultsAmong 397 residents with PCR-confirmed infection, antibodies were detected in 4 of 7 (57.1%) tested within 7-14 days of their first positive PCR test; in 44 of 47 (93.6%) tested within 15-30 days; in 182 of 219 (83.1%) tested within 31-60 days; and in 110 of 124 (88.7%) tested after 60 days. Among 272 PCR negative residents, antibodies were detected in 2 of 9 (22.2%) tested within 7-14 days of their first PCR test; in 41 of 81 (50.6%) tested within 15-30 days; in 65 of 148 (43.9%) tested within 31-60 days; and in 9 of 34 (26.5%) tested after 60 days. No significant differences in baseline resident characteristics or symptoms were observed between those with versus without antibodies.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that vulnerable older adults can mount an antibody response to SARS-CoV-2, and that antibodies are most likely to be detected within 15-30 days of diagnosis. That antibodies were detected in a large proportion of residents with no confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection highlights the complexity of identifying who is infected in real time. Frequent surveillance and diagnostic testing based on low thresholds of clinical suspicion for symptoms and/or exposure will remain critical to inform strategies designed to mitigate outbreaks in SNFs while community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence remains high.

Project description:ImportanceUse of postacute care is common and costly in the United States, but there is significant uncertainty about whether the choice of postacute care setting matters. Understanding these tradeoffs is particularly important as new alternative payment models push patients toward lower-cost settings for care.ObjectiveTo investigate the association of patient outcomes and Medicare costs of discharge to home with home health care vs discharge to a skilled nursing facility.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study used Medicare claims data from short-term acute-care hospitals in the United States and skilled nursing facility and home health assessment data from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2016, on Medicare beneficiaries who were discharged from the hospital to home with home health care or to a skilled nursing facility. To address the endogeneity of treatment choice, an instrumental variables approach used the differential distance between the beneficiary's home zip code and the closest home health agency and the closest skilled nursing facility as an instrument.ExposuresReceipt of postacute care at home vs in a skilled nursing facility.Main outcomes and measuresReadmission within 30 days of hospital discharge, death within 30 days of hospital discharge, improvement in functional status during the postacute care episode, and Medicare payment for postacute care and total payment for the 60-day episode.ResultsA total of 17 235 854 hospitalizations (62.2% women and 37.8% men; mean [SD] age, 80.5 [7.9] years) were discharged either to home with home health care (38.8%) or to a skilled nursing facility (61.2%) during the study period. Discharge to home was associated with a 5.6-percentage point higher rate of readmission at 30 days compared with discharge to a skilled nursing facility (95% CI, 0.8-10.3; P = .02). There were no significant differences in 30-day mortality rates (-2.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.8-10.3; P = .12) or improved functional status (-1.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -12.0 to 8.2; P = .71). Medicare payment for postacute care was significantly lower for those discharged to home compared with those discharged to a skilled nursing facility (-$5384; 95% CI, -$6932 to -$3837; P < .001), as was total Medicare payment within the first 60 days after admission (-$4514; 95% CI, -$6932 to -$3837; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceAmong Medicare beneficiaries eligible for postacute care at home or in a skilled nursing facility, discharge to home with home health care was associated with higher rates of readmission, no detectable differences in mortality or functional outcomes, and lower Medicare payments.

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:BackgroundLong-term acute care hospital (LTACH) use varies considerably across the U.S., which may reflect uncertainty about the effectiveness of LTACHs vs. skilled nursing facilities (SNF), the principal post-acute care alternative. Given that LTACHs provide more intensive care and thus receive over triple the reimbursement of SNFs for comparable diagnoses, we sought to compare outcomes and spending between LTACH versus SNF transfer.MethodsUsing Medicare claims linked to electronic health record (EHR) data from six Texas Hospitals between 2009 and 2010, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized on a medicine service in a high-LTACH use region and discharged to either an LTACH or SNF and followed for one year. The primary outcomes included mortality, 60-day recovery without inpatient care, days at home, and healthcare spending RESULTS: Of 3503 patients, 18% were transferred to an LTACH. Patients transferred to LTACHs were younger (median 71 vs. 82 years), less likely to be female (50.5 vs 66.6%) and white (69.0 vs. 84.1%), but were sicker (24.3 vs. 14.2% for prolonged intensive care unit stay; median diagnosis resource intensity weight of 2.03 vs. 1.38). In unadjusted analyses, patients transferred to an LTACH vs. SNF were less likely to survive (59.1 vs. 65.0%) or recover (62.5 vs 66.0%), and spent fewer days at home (186 vs. 200). Adjusting for demographic and clinical confounders available in Medicare claims and EHR data, LTACH transfer was not significantly associated with differences in mortality (HR, 1.12, 95% CI, 0.94-1.33), recovery (SHR, 1.07, 0.93-1.23), and days spent at home (IRR, 0.96, 0.83-1.10), but was associated with greater Medicare spending ($16,689 for one year, 95% CI, $12,216-$21,162).ConclusionLTACH transfer for Medicare beneficiaries is associated with similar clinical outcomes but with higher healthcare spending compared to SNF transfer. LTACH use should be reserved for patients who require complex inpatient care and cannot be cared for in SNFs.

Project description:BackgroundNursing home (NH) residents are frequent users of emergency departments (ED) and while prior research suggests that repeat visits are common, there is little data describing this phenomenon. Our objectives were to describe repeat ED visits over one year, identify risk factors for repeat use, and characterize "frequent" ED visitors.MethodsUsing provincial administrative data from Ontario, Canada, we identified all NH residents 65 years or older who visited an ED at least once between January 1 and March 31, 2010 and then followed them for one year to capture all additional ED visits. Frequent ED visitors were defined as those who had 3 or more repeat ED visits. We used logistic regression to estimate risk factors for any repeat ED visit and for being a frequent visitor and Andersen-Gill regression to estimate risk factors for the rate of repeat ED visits.ResultsIn a cohort of 25,653 residents (mean age 84.5 (SD?=?7.5) years, 68.2% female), 48.8% had at least one repeat ED visit. Residents who experienced a repeat ED visit were generally similar to others but they tended to be slightly younger, have a higher proportion male, and a higher proportion with minimal cognitive or physical impairment. Risk factors for a repeat ED visit included: being male (adjusted odds ratio 1.27, (95% confidence interval 1.19-1.36)), diagnoses such as diabetes (AOR 1.28 (1.19-1.37)) and congestive heart failure (1.26 (1.16-1.37)), while severe cognitive impairment (AOR 0.92 (0.84-0.99)) and 5 or more chronic conditions (AOR 0.82 (0.71-0.95)) appeared protective. Eleven percent of residents were identified as frequent ED visitors, and they were more often younger then 75 years, male, and less likely to have Alzheimer's disease or other dementias than non-frequent visitors.ConclusionsRepeat ED visits were common among NH residents but a relatively small group accounted for the largest number of visits. Although there were few clear defining characteristics, our findings suggest that medically complex residents and younger residents without cognitive impairments are at risk for such outcomes.