Perspectives of Physicians with Experience in Nursing Home Care on Telehealth Use During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.

BACKGROUND: Despite expanded access to telehealth services for Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes (NHs) during the COVID-19 public health emergency, information on physicians' perspectives on the feasibility and challenges of telehealth provision for NH residents is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To examine physicians' perspectives on the appropriateness and challenges of providing telehealth in NHs. PARTICIPANTS: Medical directors or attending physicians in NHs. APPROACH: We conducted 35 semistructured interviews with members of the American Medical Directors Association from January 18 through January 29, 2021. Outcomes of the thematic analysis reflected perspectives of physicians experienced in NH care on telehealth use. MAIN MEASURES: The extent to which participants used telehealth in NHs, the perceived value of telehealth for NH residents, and barriers to telehealth provision. KEY RESULTS: Participants included 7 (20.0%) internists, 8 (22.9%) family physicians, and 18 (51.4%) geriatricians. Five common themes emerged: (1) direct care is needed to adequately care for residents in NHs; (2) telehealth may allow physicians to reach NH residents more flexibly during offsite hours and other scenarios when physicians cannot easily reach patients; (3) NH staff and other organizational resources are critical to the success of telehealth, but staff time is a major barrier to telehealth provision; (4) appropriateness of telehealth in NHs may be limited to certain resident populations and/or services; (5) conflicting views about whether telehealth use will be sustained over time in NHs. Subthemes included the role of resident-physician relationships in facilitating telehealth and the appropriateness of telehealth for residents with cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Participants had mixed views on the effectiveness of telehealth in NHs. Staff resources to facilitate telehealth and the limitations of telehealth for NH residents were the most raised issues. These findings suggest that physicians in NHs may not view telehealth as a suitable substitute for most in-person services.

Association between city-wide lockdown and COVID-19 hospitalization rates in multigenerational households in New York City.

BACKGROUND: City-wide lockdowns and school closures have demonstrably impacted COVID-19 transmission. However, simulation studies have suggested an increased risk of COVID-19 related morbidity for older individuals inoculated by house-bound children. This study examines whether the March 2020 lockdown in New York City (NYC) was associated with higher COVID-19 hospitalization rates in neighborhoods with larger proportions of multigenerational households. METHODS: We obtained daily age-segmented COVID-19 hospitalization counts in each of 166 ZIP code tabulation areas (ZCTAs) in NYC. Using Bayesian Poisson regression models that account for spatiotemporal dependencies between ZCTAs, as well as socioeconomic risk factors, we conducted a difference-in-differences study amongst ZCTA-level hospitalization rates from February 23 to May 2, 2020. We compared ZCTAs in the lowest quartile of multigenerational housing to other quartiles before and after the lockdown. FINDINGS: Among individuals over 55 years, the lockdown was associated with higher COVID-19 hospitalization rates in ZCTAs with more multigenerational households. The greatest difference occurred three weeks after lockdown: Q2 vs. Q1: 54% increase (95% Bayesian credible intervals: 22-96%); Q3 vs. Q1: 48% (17-89%); Q4 vs. Q1: 66% (30-211%). After accounting for pandemic-related population shifts, a significant difference was observed only in Q4 ZCTAs: 37% (7-76%). INTERPRETATION: By increasing house-bound mixing across older and younger age groups, city-wide lockdown mandates imposed during the growth of COVID-19 cases may have inadvertently, but transiently, contributed to increased transmission in multigenerational households.

Elevated SARS-CoV-2 in peripheral blood and increased COVID-19 severity in American Indians/Alaska Natives.

Epidemiological data across the United States show health disparities in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality by race/ethnicity. While the association between elevated SARS-CoV-2 viral loads (VLs) (i.e. upper respiratory tract (URT) and peripheral blood (PB)) and increased COVID-19 severity has been reported, data remain largely unavailable for some disproportionately impacted racial/ethnic groups, particularly for American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations. As such, we determined the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 VL dynamics and disease severity in a diverse cohort of hospitalized patients. Results presented here are for study participants (n = 94, ages 21-88 years) enrolled in a prospective observational study between May and October 2020 who had SARS-CoV-2 viral clades 20A, C, and G. Based on self-reported race/ethnicity and sample size distribution, the cohort was stratified into two groups: (AI/AN, n = 43) and all other races/ethnicities combined (non-AI/AN, n = 51). SARS-CoV-2 VLs were quantified in the URT and PB on days 0-3, 6, 9, and 14. The strongest predictor of severe COVID-19 in the study population was the mean VL in PB (OR = 3.34; P = 2.00 × 10-4). The AI/AN group had the following: (1) comparable co-morbidities and admission laboratory values, yet more severe COVID-19 (OR = 4.81; P = 0.014); (2) a 2.1 longer duration of hospital stay (P = 0.023); and (3) higher initial and cumulative PB VLs during severe disease (P = 0.025). Moreover, self-reported race/ethnicity as AI/AN was the strongest predictor of elevated PB VLs (ß = 1.08; P = 6.00 × 10-4) and detection of SARS-CoV-2 in PB (hazard ratio = 3.58; P = 0.004). The findings presented here suggest a strong relationship between PB VL (magnitude and frequency) and severe COVID-19, particularly for the AI/AN group.

Defining the Role and Value of Physicians Who Primarily Practice in Nursing Homes: Perspectives of Nursing Home Physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the perceptions of physicians with expertise in nursing home care on the value of physicians who primarily practice in nursing homes, often referred to as "SNFists," with the goal of enriching our understanding of specialization in nursing home care. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Virtual interviews conducted January 18-29, 2021. Participants included 35 physicians across the United States, who currently or previously served as medical directors or attending physicians in nursing homes. METHODS: Interviews were conducted virtually on Zoom and professionally transcribed. Outcomes were themes resulting from thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants had a mean 19.5 (SD = 11.3) years of experience working in nursing homes; 17 (48.6%) were female; the most common medical specializations were geriatrics (18; 51.4%), family medicine (8; 22.9%), internal medicine (7; 20.0%), physiatry (1; 2.9%), and pulmonology (1; 2.9%). Ten (28.6%) participants were SNFists. We identified 6 themes emphasized by participants: (1) An unclear definition and loose qualifications for SNFists may affect the quality of care; (2) Specific competencies are needed to be a "good SNFist"; (3) SNFists are distinguished by their unique practice approach and often provide services that are unbillable or underreimbursed; (4) SNFists achieve better outcomes, but opinions varied on performance measures; (5) SNFists may contribute to discontinuity of care; (6) SNFists remained in nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There is a strong consensus among physicians with expertise in nursing home care that SNFists provide higher quality care for residents than other physicians. However, a uniform definition of a SNFist based on competencies in addition to standardized performance measures are needed. Unbillable and underreimbursed services create disincentives to physicians becoming SNFists. Policy makers may consider modifying Medicare reimbursements to incentivize more physicians to specialize in nursing home care.

Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients with End-Stage Kidney Disease on Hemodialysis.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may have a negative effect on the mental and social health of patients with ESKD on chronic in-center hemodialysis (HD), who have a high burden of psychologic symptoms at baseline and unavoidable treatment-related COVID exposures. The goal of our study was to assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psychosocial health of patients on chronic in-center HD. Methods: Participants enrolled in the ongoing Technology Assisted Collaborative Care (TACcare) trial in Western Pennsylvania and New Mexico were approached for participation in a phone survey in May 2020. Data on the pandemic's effects on participants' physical and mental health, symptoms (such as anxiety, mood, loneliness, sleep, and stress), and food and housing security were collected. Results: Surveys were completed by 49 participants (mean age 56 years; 53% men, 18% Black, 20% American Indian, and 22% Hispanic). Almost 80% of participants reported being moderately to extremely worried about the pandemic's effects on their mental/emotional health and interpersonal relationships. More than 85% of the participants were worried about obtaining their dialysis treatments due to infection risk from close contact in the dialysis facility or during transportation. Despite this, 82% of participants reported being not at all/slightly interested in trying home dialysis as an alternative option. Overall, 27% of the participants had clinical levels of depressive symptoms but only 12% had anxiety meeting clinical criteria. About 33% of participants reported poor sleep quality over the last month. Perceived stress was high in about 30% of participants and 85% felt overwhelmed by difficulties with COVID-19, although 41% felt that things were fairly/very often going their way. Conclusions: Our study provides preliminary insights into the psychosocial distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic among a diverse cohort of patients receiving chronic HD who are participating in an ongoing clinical trial.

Comparative Performance of Private Equity-Owned US Nursing Homes During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: It is not known whether nursing homes with private equity (PE) ownership have performed better or worse than other nursing homes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Objective: To evaluate the comparative performance of PE-owned nursing homes on COVID-19 outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of 11 470 US nursing homes used the Nursing Home COVID-19 Public File from May 17, 2020, to July 2, 2020, to compare outcomes of PE-owned nursing homes with for-profit, nonprofit, and government-owned homes, adjusting for facility characteristics. Exposure: Nursing home ownership status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported number of COVID-19 cases and deaths and deaths by any cause per 1000 residents; possessing 1-week supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE); staffing shortages. Results: Of 11 470 nursing homes, 7793 (67.9%) were for-profit; 2523 (22.0%), nonprofit; 511 (5.3%), government-owned; and 543 (4.7%), PE-owned; with mean (SD) COVID-19 cases per 1000 residents of 88.3 [2.1], 67.0 [3.8], 39.8 [7.6] and 110.8 [8.1], respectively. Mean (SD) COVID-19 deaths per 1000 residents were 61.9 [1.6], 66.4 [3.0], 56.2 [7.3], and 78.9 [5.9], respectively; mean deaths by any cause per 1000 residents were 78.1 [1.3], 91.5 [2.2], 67.6 [4.5], and 87.9 [4.8], respectively. In adjusted analyses, government-owned homes had 35.5 (95% CI, -69.2 to -1.8; P = .03) fewer COVID-19 cases per 1000 residents than PE-owned nursing homes. Cases in PE-owned nursing homes were not statistically different compared with for-profit and nonprofit facilities; nor were there statistically significant differences in COVID-19 deaths or deaths by any cause between PE-owned nursing homes and for-profit, nonprofit, and government-owned facilities. For-profit, nonprofit, and government-owned nursing homes were 10.5% (9.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.8 to 16.3 percentage points; P = .006), 15.0% (13.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.5 to 20.6 percentage points; P < .001), and 17.0% (14.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 6.5 to 23.0 percentage points; P < .001), respectively, more likely to have at least a 1-week supply of N95 masks than PE-owned nursing homes. They were 24.3% (21.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 11.8 to 30.8 percentage points; P < .001), 30.7% (27.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 17.7 to 36.2 percentage points; P < .001), and 29.2% (25.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 16.1 to 35.3 percentage points; P < .001) more likely to have a 1-week supply of medical gowns than PE-owned nursing homes. Government nursing homes were more likely to have a shortage of nurses (6.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.0 to 13.9 percentage points; P = .049) than PE-owned nursing homes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, PE-owned nursing homes performed comparably on staffing levels, resident cases, and deaths with nursing homes with other types of ownership, although their shortages of PPE may warrant monitoring.