Environmental and structural factors driving poor quality of care: An examination of nursing homes serving Black residents.

BACKGROUND: Poor quality of care in nursing homes (NHs) with high proportions of Black residents has been a problem in the US and even more pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Federal and state agencies are devoting attention to identifying the best means of improving care in the neediest facilities. It is important to understand environmental and structural characteristics that may have led to poor healthcare outcomes in NHs serving high proportions of Black residents pre-pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional observational study using multiple 2019 national datasets. Our exposure was the proportion of Black residents in a NH (i.e., none, <5%, 5%-19.9%, 20-49.9%, ≥50%). Healthcare outcomes examined were hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits, both observed and risk-adjusted. Structural factors included staffing, ownership status, bed count (0-49, 50-149, or ≥150), chain organization membership, occupancy, and percent Medicaid as a payment source. Environmental factors included region and urbanicity. Descriptive and multivariable linear regression models were estimated. RESULTS: In the 14,121 NHs, compared to NHs with no Black residents, NHs with ≥50% Black residents tended to be urban, for-profit, located in the South, have more Medicaid-funded residents, and have lower ratios of registered-nurse (RN) and aide hours per resident per day (HPRD) and greater ratios of licensed practical nurse HPRD. In general, as the proportion of Black residents in a NH increased, hospitalizations and ED visits also increased. DISCUSSION/IMPLICATIONS: As lower use of RNs has been associated with increased ED visits and hospitalizations in NHs generally, it is likely low RN use largely drove the differences in hospitalizations and ED visits in NHs with greater proportions of Black residents. Staffing is an area in which state and federal agencies should take action to improve the quality of care in NHs with larger proportions of Black residents.

Health Information Technology Adoption at U.S. Home Health Care Agencies: Results from a Multi-Methods Study

Health information technology (HIT) holds potential to transform Home Health Care (HHC), yet, little is known about its adoption in this setting. In the context of infection prevention and control, we aimed to: (1) describe challenges associated with the adoption of HIT, for example, electronic health records (EHR) and telehealth and (2) examine HHC agency characteristics associated with HIT adoption. We conducted in-depth interviews with 41 staff from 13 U.S. HHC agencies (May-October 2018), then surveyed a stratified random sample of 1506 agencies (November 2018-December 2019), of which 35.6% participated (N = 536 HHC agencies). We applied analytic weights, generating nationally-representative estimates, and computed descriptive statistics, bivariate and multivariable analyses. Four themes were identified: (1) Reflections on providing HHC without EHR;(2) Benefits of EHR;(3) Benefits of other HIT;(4) Challenges with HIT and EHR. Overall, 10% of the agencies did not have an EHR;an additional 2% were in the process of acquiring one. Sixteen percent offered telehealth, and another 4% were in the process of acquiring telehealth services. In multivariable analysis, EHR use varied significantly by geographic location and ownership, and telehealth use varied by geographic location, ownership, and size. Although HIT use has increased, our results indicate that many HHC agencies still lack the HIT needed to implement technological solutions to improve workflow and quality of care. Future research should examine the impact of HIT on patient outcomes and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HIT use in HHC.

Examining Structural Disparities in US Nursing Homes: National Survey of Health Information Technology Maturity.

BACKGROUND: There are 15,632 nursing homes (NHs) in the United States. NHs continue to receive significant policy attention due to high costs and poor outcomes of care. One strategy for improving NH care is use of health information technology (HIT). A central concept of this study is HIT maturity, which is used to identify adoption trends in HIT capabilities, use and integration within resident care, clinical support, and administrative activities. This concept is guided by the Nolan stage theory, which postulates that a system such as HIT moves through a series of measurable stages. HIT maturity is an important component of the rapidly changing NH landscape, which is being affected by policies generated to protect residents, in part because of the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to identify structural disparities in NH HIT maturity and see if it is moderated by commonly used organizational characteristics. METHODS: NHs (n=6123, >20%) were randomly recruited from each state using Nursing Home Compare data. Investigators used a validated HIT maturity survey with 9 subscales including HIT capabilities, extent of HIT use, and degree of HIT integration in resident care, clinical support, and administrative activities. Each subscale had a possible HIT maturity score of 0-100. Total HIT maturity, with a possible score of 0-900, was calculated using the 9 subscales (3 x 3 matrix). Total HIT maturity scores equate 1 of 7 HIT maturity stages (stages 0-6) for each facility. Dependent variables included HIT maturity scores. We included 5 independent variables (ie, ownership, chain status, location, number of beds, and occupancy rates). Unadjusted and adjusted cumulative odds ratios were calculated using regression models. RESULTS: Our sample (n=719) had a larger proportion of smaller facilities and a smaller proportion of larger facilities than the national nursing home population. Integrated clinical support technology had the lowest HIT maturity score compared to resident care HIT capabilities. The majority (n=486, 60.7%) of NHs report stage 3 or lower with limited capabilities to communicate about care delivery outside their facility. Larger NHs in metropolitan areas had higher odds of HIT maturity. The number of certified beds and NH location were significantly associated with HIT maturity stage while ownership, chain status, and occupancy rate were not. CONCLUSIONS: NH structural disparities were recognized through differences in HIT maturity stage. Structural disparities in this sample appear most evident in HIT maturity, measuring integration of clinical support technologies for laboratory, pharmacy, and radiology services. Ongoing assessments of NH structural disparities is crucial given 1.35 million Americans receive care in these facilities annually. Leaders must be willing to promote equal opportunities across the spectrum of health care services to incentivize and enhance HIT adoption to balance structural disparities and improve resident outcomes.

Association Between the COVID-19 Pandemic and Insurance-Based Disparities in Mortality After Major Surgery Among US Adults.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions in surgical care. Whether these disruptions disproportionately impacted economically disadvantaged individuals is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and mortality after major surgery among patients with Medicaid insurance or without insurance compared with patients with commercial insurance. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Vizient Clinical Database for patients who underwent major surgery at hospitals in the US between January 1, 2018, and May 31, 2020. Exposures: The hospital proportion of patients with COVID-19 during the first wave of COVID-19 cases between March 1 and May 31, 2020, stratified as low (≤5.0%), medium (5.1%-10.0%), high (10.1%-25.0%), and very high (>25.0%). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was inpatient mortality. The association between mortality after surgery and payer status as a function of the proportion of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was evaluated with a quasi-experimental triple-difference approach using logistic regression. Results: Among 2 950 147 adults undergoing inpatient surgery (1 550 752 female [52.6%]) at 677 hospitals, the primary payer was Medicare (1 427 791 [48.4%]), followed by commercial insurance (1 000 068 [33.9%]), Medicaid (321 600 [10.9%]), other payer (140 959 [4.8%]), and no insurance (59 729 [2.0%]). Mortality rates increased more for patients undergoing surgery during the first wave of the pandemic in hospitals with a high COVID-19 burden (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.24; P = .01) and a very high COVID-19 burden (AOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.24-1.53; P < .001) compared with patients in hospitals with a low COVID-19 burden. Overall, patients with Medicaid had 29% higher odds of death (AOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.22-1.36; P < .001) and patients without insurance had 75% higher odds of death (AOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.55-1.98; P < .001) compared with patients with commercial insurance. However, mortality rates for surgical patients with Medicaid insurance (AOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82-1.30; P = .79) or without insurance (AOR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.47-1.54; P = .60) did not increase more than for patients with commercial insurance in hospitals with a high COVID-19 burden compared with hospitals with a low COVID-19 burden. These findings were similar in hospitals with very high COVID-19 burdens. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a higher risk of mortality after surgery in hospitals with more than 25.0% of patients with COVID-19. However, the pandemic was not associated with greater increases in mortality among patients with no insurance or patients with Medicaid compared with patients with commercial insurance in hospitals with a very high COVID-19 burden.

Association Between the COVID-19 Pandemic and Disparities in Access to Major Surgery in the US.

Importance: Racial minority groups account for 70% of excess deaths not related to COVID-19. Understanding the association of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS's) moratorium delaying nonessential operations with racial disparities will help shape future pandemic responses. Objective: To evaluate the association of the CMS's moratorium on elective operations during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic among Black individuals, Asian individuals, and individuals of other races compared with White individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed a 719-hospital retrospective cohort of 3 470 905 adult inpatient hospitalizations for major surgery between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2020. Exposure: The first wave of COVID-19 infections between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the association between changes in monthly elective surgical case volumes and the first wave of COVID-19 infections as a function of patient race, evaluated using negative binomial regression analysis. Results: Among 3 470 905 adults (1 823 816 female [52.5%]) with inpatient hospitalizations for major surgery, 70 752 (2.0%) were Asian, 453 428 (13.1%) were Black, 2 696 929 (77.7%) were White, and 249 796 (7.2%) were individuals of other races. The number of monthly elective cases during the first wave was 49% (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.486-0.492; P < .001) compared with the baseline period. The relative reduction in unadjusted elective surgery cases for Black (unadjusted IRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.01; P = .36), Asian (unadjusted IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.14; P = .001), and other race individuals (unadjusted IRR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-1.00; P = .05) during the surge period compared with the baseline period was very close to the change in cases for White individuals. After adjustment for age, sex, comorbidities, and surgical procedure, there was still no evidence that the first wave of the pandemic was associated with disparities in access to elective surgery. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the CMS's moratorium on nonessential operations was associated with a 51% reduction in elective operations. It was not associated with greater reductions in operations for racial minority individuals than for White individuals. This evidence suggests that the early response to the pandemic did not increase disparities in access to surgical care.

Influenza vaccination of home health care staff and the impact on patient hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: Influenza is associated with significant morbidity and mortality for adults aged 65 years and older. Influenza vaccination of health care workers is recommended. There is limited evidence regarding influenza vaccinations among health care workers in the home health care (HHC) setting and their impact on HHC patient outcomes. METHODS: A national survey of HHC agencies was conducted in 2018-2019 and linked with patient data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Adjusted logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between hospital transfers due to respiratory infection during a 60 day HHC episode and staff vaccination policies. RESULTS: Only 26.2% of HHC agencies had staff vaccination requirements and 71.2% agencies had staff vaccination rates higher than 75%. Agency policies for staff influenza vaccination were associated with reduced hospital transfers due to respiratory infection among HHC patients. DISCUSSION: Influenza vaccination rates among HHC staff were low during the 2017-2018 influenza season. Policymakers may consider vaccination mandates to improve health care worker vaccination rates and protect patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: This study sheds light on the potential impact of COVID-19 vaccination among HHC workers on patient outcomes. COVID-19 vaccination mandates could prove to be a vital tool in the fight against COVID-19 variants and infection outbreaks.

Assessment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection and Mortality Rates Among Nursing Homes With Different Proportions of Black Residents.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disproportionately impacted nursing homes (NHs) with large shares of Black residents. We examined the associations between the proportion of Black residents in NHs and COVID-19 infections and deaths, accounting for structural bias (operationalized as county-level factors) and stratifying by urbanicity/rurality. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional observational cohort study using publicly available data from the LTCfocus, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Long-Term Care Facility COVID-19 Module, and the NYTimes county-level COVID-19 database. Four multivariable linear regression models omitting and including facility characteristics, COVID-19 burden, and county-level fixed effects were estimated. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: In total, 11,587 US NHs that reported data on COVID-19 to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and had data in LTCfocus and NYTimes from January 20, 2020 through July 19, 2020. MEASURES: Proportion of Black residents in NHs (exposure); COVID-19 infections and deaths (main outcomes). RESULTS: The proportion of Black residents in NHs were as follows: none= 3639 (31.4%), <20% = 1020 (8.8%), 20%-49.9% = 1586 (13.7%), ≥50% = 681 (5.9%), not reported = 4661 (40.2%). NHs with any Black residents showed significantly more COVID-19 infections and deaths than NHs with no Black residents. There were 13.6 percentage points more infections and 3.5 percentage points more deaths in NHs with ≥50% Black residents than in NHs with no Black residents (P < .001). Although facility characteristics explained some of the differences found in multivariable analyses, county-level factors and rurality explained more of the differences. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: It is likely that attributes of place, such as resources, services, and providers, important to equitable care and health outcomes are not readily available to counties where NHs have greater proportions of Black residents. Structural bias may underlie these inequities. It is imperative that support be provided to NHs that serve greater proportions of Black residents while considering the rurality of the NH setting.

A Review of Web-Based COVID-19 Resources for Palliative Care Clinicians, Patients, and Their Caregivers.

Palliative and end-of-life care has been pushed to the forefront of medical care during the pandemic caused by the coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19). Palliative care organizations have responded to the growing demand for the rapid dissemination of research, clinical guidance, and instructions for care to clinicians, patients with COVID-19, and their caregivers by creating COVID-19 resource Web pages. Here, end users can access resources that can be updated in real time. These Web pages, however, can be variable in what resources they offer and for whom they are designed for (clinicians, patients, caregivers). Therefore, this project was conducted to consolidate these resources via summary tables of specific contents available through each Web page grouped by palliative care domains (eg, care discussion and planning, communication, symptom management, care access) and to identify the target audience. This environmental scan was conducted by compiling a comprehensive list of COVID-19 resource Web pages of palliative care organizations generated by reviewing previously published research studies and consulting with palliative care research experts. Snowballing techniques were used to identify resource Web pages not captured in the initial scan. Two reviewers independently evaluated eligible Web pages for content via a form developed for the study, and Cohen κ statistic was calculated to ensure interrater reliability. The final κ statistic was 0.76. Of the 24 websites screened, 15 websites met our eligibility criteria. Among the eligible resource Web pages, most (n = 12, 80%) had specific target audiences and care settings, whereas the rest presented information targeted to all audiences. Although 11 Web pages offered resources that addressed all 4 domains, only 1 Web page conveyed all 12 subdomains. We recommend the use of this guide to all frontline clinicians who require guidance in clinically managing patients with COVID-19 receiving palliative care and/or end-of-life care.

The state of infection prevention and control at home health agencies in the United States prior to COVID-19: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Home health care is a rapidly growing healthcare sector worldwide. Home health professionals face unique challenges related to preventing and controlling infections, which are likely to amplify during an infectious disease outbreak (e.g. SARS-CoV-2). Little is known about the current state of infection prevention and control-related policies and outbreak preparedness at U.S. home health agencies. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we conducted a national survey to assess infection prevention and control-related policies, infrastructure, and procedures prior to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Using a stratified random sample of 1506 U.S. home health agencies, we conducted a 61-item survey (paper and online) from November 9, 2018 to December 31, 2019. METHODS: Survey data were linked to publicly-available data on the quality of patient care, patient satisfaction, and other agency characteristics. Probability weights were developed to account for sample design and nonresponse; Pearson's χ2, Fisher's exact, t-tests or linear regression were used to compare the universe of agencies/respondents and urban/rural agencies. RESULTS: 35.6% of agencies responded (n = 536). Most home health personnel in charge of infection prevention and control have other responsibilities; one-third have no formal infection prevention and control training. Rural agencies are more likely to not have anyone in charge of infection prevention and control compared to those in urban areas. About 22% of agencies implement recommended guidelines when administering antibiotics. Less than a third (26.4%) report that their staff vaccination rates were higher than 95% during the last flu season. Only 48.1% of agencies accept patients requiring ventilation, and of those, 40.9% located in rural areas do not have specific infection prevention and control policies for ventilated patients, compared to 20.8% in urban areas (p < 0.001). Only 39.7% of agencies provide N95 respirators to their clinical staff; rural agencies are significantly more likely to provide those supplies than urban agencies (50.7% vs. 37.7%, p = 0.004). Lastly, agencies report their greatest challenges with infection prevention and control are collecting/reporting infection data and adherence to/monitoring of nursing bag technique. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we found that infection prevention and control was suboptimal among U.S. home health care agencies. Consequently, most agencies have limited capacity to respond to infectious disease outbreaks. Staff and personal protective equipment shortages remain major concerns, and agencies will need to quickly adjust their existing infection prevention and control policies and potentially create new ones. In the long-term, agencies also need to improve influenza vaccination coverage among their staff. Tweetable abstract: Infection prevention and control infrastructure, policies and procedures and outbreak preparedness at U.S. home health agencies was found to be suboptimal in nationally-representative survey conducted just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Home Health Staff Perspectives on Infection Prevention and Control: Implications for Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The role of home healthcare (HHC) services in providing care to vulnerable, often frail individuals with chronic conditions is critical. Effective infection prevention and control (IPC) in HHC is essential to keeping both healthcare workers and patients safe, especially in the event of an emerging infectious disease outbreak. Prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, we explored successes and challenges with IPC from the perspectives of HHC staff. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: From May to November 2018, we conducted in-depth telephone interviews with 41 staff from 13 agencies across the nation. METHODS: Transcripts were coded by a multidisciplinary coding team, and several primary and subcategories were identified using directed content analysis. RESULTS: Four primary categories were generated including (1) uniqueness of HHC; (2) IPC as a priority; (3) importance of education; and (4) keys to success and innovation. Participants perceived that IPC plays a big part in patient safety and reducing rehospitalizations, and protection of patients and staff was a major motivator for compliance with IPC. The identified challenges included the unpredictability of the home environment, patient/family dynamics, the intermittent nature of HHC, and staffing issues. Education was seen as a tool to improve staff, patient, caregiver and families' compliance with IPC. Keys to success and innovation included a leadership focus on quality, using agency infection data to improve quality, and a coordinated approach to patient care. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This qualitative work identified barriers to effective IPC in HHC, as well as important facilitators that HHC agencies can use to implement policies and procedures to improve patient care and keep staff safe. Leadership prioritization of IPC is key to implementing appropriate IPC policies and may be especially important in midst of a crisis such as coronavirus disease 2019.

COVID-19 Preparedness in US Home Health Care Agencies.

OBJECTIVES: In the United States, home health agencies (HHAs) provide essential services for patients recovering from post-acute care and older adults who are aging in place. During the COVID-19 pandemic, HHAs may face additional challenges caring for these vulnerable patients. Our objective was to explore COVID-19 preparedness of US HHAs and compare results by urban/rural location. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Using a stratified random sample of 978 HHAs, we conducted a 22-item online survey from April 10 to 17, 2020. METHODS: Summary statistics were computed; open-ended narrative responses were synthesized using qualitative methods. RESULTS: Similar to national data, most responding HHAs (n = 121, 12% response rate) were for-profit and located in the South. Most HHAs had infectious disease outbreaks included in their emergency preparedness plan (76%), a staff member in charge of outbreak/disaster preparedness (84%), and had provided their staff with COVID-19 education and training (97%). More urban HHAs had cared for confirmed and recovered COVID-19 patients than rural HHAs, but urban HHAs had less capacity to test for COVID-19 than rural HHAs (9% vs 21%). Most (69%) experienced patient census declines and had a current and/or anticipated supply shortage. Rural agencies were affected less than urban agencies. HHAs have already rationed (69%) or implemented extended use (55%) or limited reuse (61%) of personal protective equipment (PPE). Many HHAs reported accessing supplemental PPE from state/local resources, donations, and do-it-yourself efforts; more rural HHAs had accessed these additional resources compared with urban HHAs. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: This survey reveals challenges that HHAs are having in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among urban agencies. Of greatest concern are the declines in patient census, which drastically affect agency revenue, and the shortages of PPE and disinfectants. Without proper protection, HHA clinicians are at risk of self-exposure and viral transmission to patients and vulnerable family members.