Dataset Information

Outcomes of a Nursing Home-to-Community Care Transition Program.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Most transitional care initiatives to reduce rehospitalization have focused on the transition that occurs between a patient's hospital discharge and return home. However, many patients are discharged from a skilled nursing facility (SNF) to their homes. The goal was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Mayo Clinic Care Transitions (MCCT) program (hereafter called program) among patients discharged from SNFs to their homes.

Design

Propensity-matched control-intervention trial.

Intervention

Patients in the intervention group received care management following nursing stay (a home visit and nursing phone calls).

Setting and participants

Patients enrolled after discharge from an SNF to home were matched to patients who did not receive intervention because of refusal, program capacity, or distance. Patients were aged ≥60 years, at high risk for hospitalization, and discharged from an SNF.

Methods

Program enrollees were matched through propensity score to nonenrollees on the basis of age, sex, comorbid health burden, and mortality risk score. Conditional logistic regression analysis examined 30-day hospitalization and emergency department (ED) use; Cox proportional hazards analyses examined 180-day hospital stay and ED use.

Results

Each group comprised 160 patients [mean (standard deviation) age, 85.4 (7.4) years]. Thirty-day hospitalization and ED rates were 4.4% and 10.0% in the program group and 3.8% and 10.0% in the group with usual care (P = .76 for hospitalization; P > .99 for ED). At 180 days, hospitalization and ED rates were 30.6% and 46.3% for program patients compared with 11.3% and 25.0% in the comparison group (P < .001).

Conclusions and implications

We found no evidence of reduced hospitalization or ED visits by program patients vs the comparison group. Such findings are crucial because they illustrate how aggressive stabilization care within the SNF may mitigate the program role. Furthermore, we found higher ED and hospitalization rates at 180 days in program patients than the comparison group.

SUBMITTER: Takahashi PY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8581072 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo provide the first plausibly causal national estimates of health outcomes for older dual-eligible recipients of Medicaid HCBS relative to nursing home care and to explore possible mechanisms for the effect.Data sourcesWe use 2005 and 2012 Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX), a national compilation of Medicaid claims, merged with Medicare claims to identify hospital admissions, our main outcome variable.Study designWe model the effects of HCBS using a longitudinal instrumental variables framework. To address the endogeneity of HCBS receipt, we instrument for it using the county percentage of nonelderly long-term care users who receive HCBS. The percentage of nonelderly users is highly predictive of HCBS use for an elderly beneficiary, but because the instrument was derived from a separate population, the exclusion restriction is unlikely to be violated.Population studied1,312,498 older adults (65+) dually enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare and are using long-term care. We also examine heterogeneity of effects by race/ethnicity and the presence of dementia.Principal findingsHCBS users have 10 percentage points higher (P < .01) annual rates of hospitalization than their nursing home counterparts when selection bias is addressed; rates of potentially avoidable hospitalizations are 3 percentage points higher (P < .01). These differences persist across races, dementia status, and intensity of HCBS spending.ConclusionsShifting Medicaid long-term care funding for older adults from nursing homes to HCBS, while well-motivated, results in the unintended consequence of substantially higher hospitalization rates for older dual eligibles. The quality and/or quantity of services may be inadequate for some HCBS recipients. Hospitalizations are costly to Medicare but also to the HCBS recipient in terms of stress and risks. Although consumer preferences to remain at home may outweigh poor outcomes of HCBS, the full costs and benefits need to be considered. HCBS outcomes-not just expansion-need more attention.

Project description:BACKGROUND:While various initiatives have been taken to improve advance care planning in nursing homes, it is difficult to find enough details about interventions to allow comparison, replication and translation into practice. OBJECTIVES:We report on the development and description of the ACP+ program, a multi-component theory-based program that aims to implement advance care planning into routine nursing home care. We aimed to 1) specify how intervention components can be delivered; 2) evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the program; 3) describe the final program in a standardized manner. DESIGN:To develop and model the intervention, we applied multiple study methods including a literature review, expert discussions and individual and group interviews with nursing home staff and management. We recruited participants through convenience sampling. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Management and staff (n = 17) from five nursing homes in Flanders (Belgium), a multidisciplinary expert group and a palliative care nurse-trainer. METHODS:The work was carried out by means of 1) operationalization of key intervention components-identified as part of a previously developed theory on how advance care planning is expected to lead to its desired outcomes in nursing homes-into specific activities and materials, through expert discussions and review of existing advance care planning programs; 2) evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the program through interviews with nursing home management and staff and expert revisions; and 3) standardized description of the final program according to the TIDieR checklist. During step 2, we used thematic analysis. RESULTS:The original program with nine key components was expanded to include ten intervention components, 22 activities and 17 materials to support delivery into routine nursing home care. The final ACP+ program includes ongoing training and coaching, management engagement, different roles and responsibilities in organizing advance care planning, conversations, documentation and information transfer, integration of advance care planning into multidisciplinary meetings, auditing, and tailoring to the specific setting. These components are to be implemented stepwise throughout an intervention period. The program involves the entire nursing home workforce. The support of an external trainer decreases as nursing home staff become more autonomous in organizing advance care planning. CONCLUSIONS:The multicomponent ACP+ program involves residents, family, and the different groups of people working in the nursing home. It is deemed feasible and acceptable by nursing home staff and management. The findings presented in this paper, alongside results of the subsequent randomized controlled cluster trial, can facilitate comparison, replicability and translation of the intervention into practice.

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:IMPORTANCE:While the number of prescribing clinicians (physicians and nurse practitioners) who provide any nursing home care remained stable over the past decade, the number of clinicians who focus their practice exclusively on nursing home care has increased by over 30%. OBJECTIVES:To measure the association between regional trends in clinician specialization in nursing home care and nursing home quality. DESIGN:Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Patients treated in 15,636 nursing homes in 305 US hospital referral regions between 2013 and 2016. MEASURES:Clinician specialization in nursing home care for 2012-2015 was measured using Medicare fee-for-service billings. Nursing home specialists were defined as generalist physicians (internal medicine, family medicine, geriatrics, and general practice) or advanced practitioners (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) with at least 90% of their billings for care in nursing homes. The number of clinicians was aggregated at the hospital referral region level and divided by the number of occupied Medicare-certified nursing home beds. Nursing Home Compare quality measure scores for 2013-2016 were aggregated at the HHR level, weighted by occupied beds in each nursing home in the hospital referral region. We measured the association between the number of nursing home specialists per 1000 beds and the clinical quality measure scores in the subsequent year using linear regression. RESULTS:An increase in nursing home specialists per 1000 occupied beds in a region was associated with lower use of long-stay antipsychotic medications and indwelling bladder catheters, higher prevalence of depressive symptoms, and was not associated with urinary tract infections, use of restraints, or short-stay antipsychotic use. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:Higher prevalence of nursing home specialists was associated with regional improvements in 2 of 6 quality measures. Future studies should evaluate whether concentrating patient care among clinicians who specialize in nursing home practice improves outcomes for individual patients. The current findings suggest that prescribing clinicians play an important role in nursing home care quality.