Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 32
Filter
1.
Med Care Res Rev ; : 10775587231168435, 2023 May 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2314685

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 vaccinations are critical for mitigating outbreaks and reducing mortality for skilled nursing facility (SNF) residents and staff, yet uptake among SNF staff varies widely and remains suboptimal. Understanding which strategies are successful for promoting staff vaccination, and examining the relationship between vaccination policies and staff retention/turnover is key for identifying best practices. We conducted repeated interviews with SNF administrators at 3-month intervals between July 2020 and December 2021 (n = 156 interviews). We found that COVID-19 vaccines were initially met with both enthusiasm and skepticism by SNF staff. Administrators reported strategies to increase staff vaccine acceptance, including incentives, one-on-one education, and less stringent personal protective equipment requirements. Federal and state vaccination mandates further promoted vaccine uptake. This combination of mandates with prioritization of the vaccine by SNFs and their leadership was successful at increasing staff vaccination acceptance, which may be critical to increase staff booster uptake from its current suboptimal levels.

2.
Vaccine ; 2023.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2301049

ABSTRACT

We examined whether the second monovalent SARS-CoV-2 mRNA booster increased antibody levels and their neutralizing activity to Omicron variants in nursing home residents (NH) residents and healthcare workers (HCW). We sampled 376 NH residents and 63 HCW after primary mRNA vaccination, first and second boosters, for antibody response and pseudovirus neutralization assay against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type (WT) (Wuhan-Hu-1) strain, Omicron BA.1 and BA.5 variants. Antibody levels and neutralizing activity progressively increased with each booster but subsequently waned over 3-6 months. NH residents, both those without and with prior infection, had a robust geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) of 8.1 (95% CI 4.4, 14.8) and 7.8 (95% CI 4.8, 12.9) respectively in Omicron-BA.1 subvariant specific neutralizing antibody levels following the second booster vaccination (p<0.001). These results support the ongoing efforts to ensure that both NH residents and HCW are up-to-date on recommended SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster doses.

3.
Health Aff (Millwood) ; 42(2): 217-226, 2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2236949

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 vaccination and regular testing of nursing home staff have been critical interventions for mitigating COVID-19 outbreaks in US nursing homes. Although implementation of testing has largely been left to nursing home organizations to coordinate, vaccination occurred through a combination of state, federal, and organization efforts. Little research has focused on structural variation in these processes. We examined whether one structural factor, the primary shift worked by staff, was associated with differences in COVID-19 testing rates and odds of vaccination, using staff-level data from a multistate sample of 294 nursing homes. In facility fixed effects analyses, we found that night-shift staff had the lowest testing rates and lowest odds of vaccination, whereas day-shift staff had the highest testing rates and odds of vaccination. These findings highlight the need to coordinate resources and communication evenly across shifts when implementing large-scale processes in nursing homes and other organizations with shift-based workforces.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Nursing Homes , Vaccination
4.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 72(4): 100-106, 2023 Jan 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2217722

ABSTRACT

Introduction of monovalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in late 2020 helped to mitigate disproportionate COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in U.S. nursing homes (1); however, reduced effectiveness of monovalent vaccines during the period of Omicron variant predominance led to recommendations for booster doses with bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that include an Omicron BA.4/BA.5 spike protein component to broaden immune response and improve vaccine effectiveness against circulating Omicron variants (2). Recent studies suggest that bivalent booster doses provide substantial additional protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19-associated disease among immunocompetent adults who previously received only monovalent vaccines (3).* The immunologic response after receipt of bivalent boosters among nursing home residents, who often mount poor immunologic responses to vaccines, remains unknown. Serial testing of anti-spike protein antibody binding and neutralizing antibody titers in serum collected from 233 long-stay nursing home residents from the time of their primary vaccination series and including any subsequent booster doses, including the bivalent vaccine, was performed. The bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine substantially increased anti-spike and neutralizing antibody titers against Omicron sublineages, including BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5, irrespective of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or previous receipt of 1 or 2 booster doses. These data, in combination with evidence of low uptake of bivalent booster vaccination among residents and staff members in nursing homes (4), support the recommendation that nursing home residents and staff members receive a bivalent COVID-19 booster dose to reduce associated morbidity and mortality (2).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Vaccines, Combined , Rhode Island , Antibody Formation , Ohio , Antibodies, Viral , Nursing Homes , Antibodies, Neutralizing
5.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(12): e2245417, 2022 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2148223

ABSTRACT

Importance: A SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster dose has been recommended for all nursing home residents. However, data on the effectiveness of an mRNA vaccine booster in preventing infection, hospitalization, and death in this vulnerable population are lacking. Objective: To evaluate the association between receipt of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine booster and prevention of infection, hospitalization, or death among nursing home residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study emulated sequentially nested target trials for vaccination using data from 2 large multistate US nursing home systems: Genesis HealthCare, a community nursing home operator (system 1) and Veterans Health Administration community living centers (VHA CLCs; system 2). The cohort included long-term (≥100 days) nursing home residents (10 949 residents from 202 community nursing homes and 4321 residents from 128 VHA CLCs) who completed a 2-dose series of an mRNA vaccine (either BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) and were eligible for a booster dose between September 22 and November 30, 2021. Residents were followed up until March 8, 2022. Exposures: Receipt of a third mRNA vaccine dose, defined as a booster dose (boosted group), or nonreceipt of a booster dose (unboosted group) on an eligible target trial date. If participants in the unboosted group received a booster dose on a later target trial date, they were included in the booster group for that target trial; thus, participants could be included in both the boosted and unboosted groups. Main Outcomes and Measures: Test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, or death was followed up to 12 weeks after booster vaccination. The primary measure of estimated vaccine effectiveness was the ratio of cumulative incidences in the boosted group vs the unboosted group at week 12, adjusted with inverse probability weights for treatment and censoring. Results: System 1 included 202 community nursing homes; among 8332 boosted residents (5325 [63.9%] female; 6685 [80.2%] White) vs 10 886 unboosted residents (6865 [63.1%] female; 8651 [79.5%] White), the median age was 78 (IQR, 68-87) years vs 78 (IQR, 68-86) years. System 2 included 128 VHA CLCs; among 3289 boosted residents (3157 [96.0%] male; 1950 [59.3%] White) vs 4317 unboosted residents (4151 [96.2%] male; 2434 [56.4%] White), the median age was 74 (IQR, 70-80) vs 74 (IQR, 69-80) years. Booster vaccination was associated with reductions in SARS-CoV-2 infections of 37.7% (95% CI, 25.4%-44.2%) in system 1 and 57.7% (95% CI, 43.5%-67.8%) in system 2. For hospitalization, reductions of 74.4% (95% CI, 44.6%-86.2%) in system 1 and 64.1% (95% CI, 41.3%-76.0%) in system 2 were observed. Estimated vaccine effectiveness for death associated with SARS-CoV-2 was 87.9% (95% CI, 75.9%-93.9%) in system 1; however, although a reduction in death was observed in system 2 (46.6%; 95% CI, -34.6% to 94.8%), this reduction was not statistically significant. A total of 45 SARS-CoV-2-associated deaths occurred in system 1 and 18 deaths occurred in system 2. For the combined end point of SARS-CoV-2-associated hospitalization or death, boosted residents in system 1 had an 80.3% (95% CI, 65.7%-88.5%) reduction, and boosted residents in system 2 had a 63.8% (95% CI, 41.4%-76.1%) reduction. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, during a period in which both the Delta and Omicron variants were circulating, SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination was associated with significant reductions in SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, and the combined end point of hospitalization or death among residents of 2 US nursing home systems. These findings suggest that administration of vaccine boosters to nursing home residents may have an important role in preventing COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Female , Male , Humans , Aged , BNT162 Vaccine , Cohort Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/prevention & control , Nursing Homes
6.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(39): 1235-1238, 2022 Sep 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2056546

ABSTRACT

Nursing home residents continue to experience significant COVID-19 morbidity and mortality (1). On March 29, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose for adults aged ≥50 years and all immunocompromised persons who had received a first booster ≥4 months earlier.* On September 1, 2022, ACIP voted to recommend bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine boosters for all persons aged ≥12 years who had completed the primary series using monovalent vaccines ≥2 months earlier (2). Data on COVID-19 booster dose vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the nursing home population are limited (3). For this analysis, academic, federal, and private partners evaluated routine care data collected from 196 U.S. community nursing homes to estimate VE of a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose among nursing home residents who had received 3 previous COVID-19 vaccine doses (2 primary series doses and 1 booster dose). Residents who received second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster doses during March 29-June 15, 2022, with follow-up through July 25, 2022, were found to have 60-day VE of 25.8% against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19 infection), 73.9% against severe COVID-19 outcomes (a combined endpoint of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations or deaths), and 89.6% against COVID-19-associated deaths alone. During this period, subvariants BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 (March-June 2022), and BA.4 and BA.5 (July 2022) of the B.1.1.529 and BA.2 (Omicron) variant were predominant. These findings suggest that among nursing home residents, second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster doses provided additional protection over first booster doses against severe COVID-19 outcomes during a time of emerging Omicron variants. Facilities should continue to ensure that nursing home residents remain up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including bivalent vaccine booster doses, to prevent severe COVID-19 outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hospitalization , Humans , Immunization, Secondary , Nursing Homes , RNA, Messenger , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccines, Combined
7.
JAMA Health Forum ; 3(7): e222363, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1971165

ABSTRACT

Importance: Several states implemented COVID-19 vaccine mandates for nursing home employees, which may have improved vaccine coverage but may have had the unintended consequence of staff departures. Objective: To assess whether state vaccine mandates for US nursing home employees are associated with staff vaccination rates and reported staff shortages. Design Setting and Participants: This cohort study performed event study analyses using National Healthcare Safety Network data from June 6, 2021, through November 14, 2021. Changes in weekly staff vaccination rates and reported staffing shortages were evaluated for nursing homes in states with mandates after the mandate announcement compared with changes in facilities in nonmandate states. An interaction between the mandates and county political leaning was considered. Data analysis was performed from February to March 2022. Exposures: Weeks after announcement of a state's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Main Outcomes and Measures: Weekly percentage of all health care staff at a nursing home who received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccine dose, and a weekly indicator of whether a nursing home reported a staffing shortage. Results: Among 38 study-eligible states, 26 had no COVID-19 vaccine mandate for nursing home employees, 4 had a mandate with a test-out option, and 8 had a mandate with no test-out option. Ten weeks or more after mandate announcement, nursing homes in states with a mandate and no test-out option experienced a 6.9 percentage point (pp) increase in staff vaccination coverage (95% CI, -0.1 to 13.9); nursing homes in mandate states with a test-out option experienced a 3.1 pp increase (95% CI, 0.5 to 5.7) compared with facilities in nonmandate states. No significant increases were detected in the frequency of reported staffing shortages after a mandate announcement in mandate states with or without test-out options. Increases in vaccination rates in states with mandates were larger in Republican-leaning counties (14.3 pp if no test-out option; 4.3 pp with option), and there was no evidence of increased staffing shortages. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that state-level vaccine mandates were associated with increased staff vaccination coverage without increases in reported staffing shortages. Vaccination increases were largest when mandates had no test-out option and were also larger in Republican-leaning counties, which had lower mean baseline vaccination rates. These findings support the use of state mandates for booster doses for nursing home employees because they may improve vaccine coverage, even in areas with greater vaccine hesitancy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Cohort Studies , Humans , Nursing Homes , Vaccination Coverage , Workforce
8.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 23(8): 1279-1282, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1895135

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antigen tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are sometimes discordant. We evaluated the discordance between antigen and PCR tests sampled in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) to assess the relationship of symptom presence, timing between tests, and the presence of a facility outbreak. DESIGN: Observational study using electronic health record data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Residents of 306 SNFs in 23 states, operated by 1 company. METHODS: We identified all rapid antigen and PCR tests conducted in study SNFs as of January 10, 2021, and classified whether symptoms were present and whether the facility was in outbreak at time of testing. We calculated the proportions of antigen tests with discordant follow-up PCR results conducted no more than 2 days after the antigen test. RESULTS: Of the 171,280 antigen tests in 34,437 SNF residents, 20,991 (12.3%) were followed by a PCR test within 2 days. A total of 1324 negative antigen tests were followed by a positive PCR result, representing 0.8% of all antigen tests and 6.3% of repeated antigen tests; while 337 positive antigen tests were followed by a negative PCR result, representing 0.2% of all antigen tests and 1.6% of repeated antigen tests. Discordance more often occurred when residents were symptomatic at time of antigen testing, during known facility outbreaks, and when the antigen test was compared with a PCR test done within 2 days vs 1 day. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Overall, discordance between SARS-CoV-2 antigen and PCR tests was low. Discordance was more common when the individual was symptomatic at time of antigen testing and during facility outbreaks. This suggests that a testing strategy which couples widespread use of antigen tests with clinical thresholds to conduct follow-up confirmatory PCR testing appears to perform well in SNFs, where timely and accurate SARS-CoV-2 case identification are critical.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Skilled Nursing Facilities
9.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 23(8): 1269-1273, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1867310

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To examine the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 during a post-acute skilled nursing facility (SNF) stay and the associated risk of death. DESIGN: Cohort study using Minimum Data Set and electronic health record data from a large multistate long-term care provider. Primary outcomes included testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the post-acute SNF stay, and death among those who tested positive. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The sample included all new admissions to the provider's 286 SNFs between January 1 and December 31, 2020. Patients known to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 at the time of admission were excluded. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality rates were measured in time intervals by month of admission. A parametric survival model with SNF random effects was used to measure the association of patient demographic factors, clinical characteristics, and month of admission, with testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: The sample included 45,094 post-acute SNF admissions. Overall, 5.7% of patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 100 days of admission, with 1.0% testing positive within 1-14 days, 1.4% within 15-30 days, and 3.4% within 31-100 days. Of all newly admitted patients, 0.8% contracted SARS-CoV-2 and died, whereas 6.7% died without known infection. Infection rates and subsequent risk of death were highest for patients admitted during the first and third US pandemic waves. Patients with greater cognitive and functional impairment had a 1.45 to 1.92 times higher risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 than patients with less impairment. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The absolute risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and death during a post-acute SNF admission was 0.8%. Those who did contract SARS-CoV-2 during their SNF stay had nearly double the rate of death as those who were not infected. Findings from this study provide context for people requiring post-acute care, and their support systems, in navigating decisions around SNF admission during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Skilled Nursing Facilities , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Humans , Incidence , SARS-CoV-2 , Subacute Care
10.
JAMA Health Forum ; 3(1): e214366, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1858124

ABSTRACT

Importance: In October 2019, Medicare changed its skilled nursing facility (SNF) reimbursement model to the Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM), which has modified financial incentives for SNFs that may relate to therapy use and health outcomes. Objective: To assess whether implementation of the PDPM was associated with changes in therapy utilization or health outcomes. Design Setting and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a regression discontinuity (RD) approach among Medicare fee-for-service postacute-care patients admitted to a Medicare-certified SNF following hip fracture between January 2018 and March 2020. Exposures: Skilled nursing facility admission after PDPM implementation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were individual and nonindividual (concurrent and group) therapy minutes per day, hospitalization within 40 days of SNF admission, SNF length of stay longer than 40 days, and discharge activities of daily living score. Results: The study cohort included 201 084 postacute-care patients (mean [SD] age, 83.8 [8.3] years; 143 830 women [71.5%]; 185 854 White patients [92.4%]); 147 711 were admitted pre-PDPM, and 53 373 were admitted post-PDPM. A decrease in individual therapy (RD estimate: -15.9 minutes per day; 95% CI, -16.9 to -14.6) and an increase in nonindividual therapy (RD estimate: 3.6 minutes per day; 95% CI, 3.4 to 3.8) were observed. Total therapy use in the first week following admission was about 12 minutes per day (95% CI, -13.3 to -11.3) (approximately 13%) lower for residents admitted post-PDPM vs pre-PDPM. No consistent and statistically significant discontinuity in hospital readmission (0.31 percentage point increase; 95% CI, -1.46 to 2.09), SNF length of stay (2.7 percentage point decrease in likelihood of staying longer than 40 days; 95% CI, -4.83 to -0.54), or functional score at discharge (0.04 point increase in activities of daily living score; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.26) was observed. Nonindividual therapy minutes were reduced to nearly zero in late March 2020, likely owing to COVID-19-related restrictions on communal activities in SNFs. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of SNF admission after PDPM implementation, a reduction of total therapy minutes was observed following the implementation of PDPM, even though PDPM was designed to be budget neutral. No significant changes in postacute outcomes were observed. Further study is needed to understand whether the PDPM is associated with successful discharge outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Skilled Nursing Facilities , Activities of Daily Living , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Medicare , United States/epidemiology
11.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 70(6): 1642-1647, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1807166

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We sought to compare rates of adverse events among nursing home residents who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose with those who had not yet received their booster. METHODS: We assessed a prospective cohort of 11,200 nursing home residents who received a primary COVID-19 mRNA vaccine series at least 6 months prior to September 22, 2021 and received a third "booster dose" between September 22, 2021 and February 2, 2022. Residents lived in 239 nursing homes operated by Genesis HealthCare, spanning 21 U.S. states. We screened electronic health records for 20 serious vaccine-related adverse events that are monitored following receipt of COVID-19 vaccination by the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink. We matched boosted and yet-to-be boosted residents during the same time period, comparing rates of events occurring 14 days after booster administration with those occurring 14 days prior to booster administration. To supplement previously reported background rates of adverse events, we report background rates of medical conditions among nursing home residents during 2020, before COVID-19 vaccines were administered in nursing homes. Events occurring in 2021-2022 were confirmed by physician chart review. We report unadjusted rates of adverse events and used a false discovery rate procedure to adjust for multiplicity of events tested. RESULTS: No adverse events were reported during the 14 days post-booster. A few adverse events occurred prior to booster (ischemic stroke: 49.4 per 100,000 residents, 95% CI: 21.2, 115.7; venous thromboembolism: 9.9 per 100,000 residents, 95% CI: 1.7, 56.0), though differences in event rates pre- versus post-booster were not statistically significant (p < 0.05) after adjusting for multiple comparisons. No significant differences were detected between post-booster vaccination rates and prior year 14-day background rates of medical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: No safety signals were detected following a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine booster dose in this large multi-state sample of nursing home residents.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , Immunization, Secondary , Nursing Homes , Prospective Studies , RNA, Messenger , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , Vaccines, Synthetic , mRNA Vaccines
12.
JAMA health forum ; 3(1), 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1738362

ABSTRACT

This cross-sectional study assesses whether implementation of the Patient Driven Payment Model is associated with changes in therapy utilization or health outcomes. Key Points Question Was the Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM), implemented in October 2019, associated with rehabilitation therapy utilization and health outcomes of patients admitted to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs)? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 201 084 patients admitted to an SNF after hip fracture between January 2018 and March 2020, those admitted post-PDPM received about 13% fewer therapy minutes than those admitted pre-PDPM, but the likelihood of rehospitalization and functional scores at discharge remained unchanged. Meaning Implementation of PDPM was associated with a reduction in the volume of therapy use without changes in subsequent hospitalization risk or discharge functional scores. Importance In October 2019, Medicare changed its skilled nursing facility (SNF) reimbursement model to the Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM), which has modified financial incentives for SNFs that may relate to therapy use and health outcomes. Objective To assess whether implementation of the PDPM was associated with changes in therapy utilization or health outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study used a regression discontinuity (RD) approach among Medicare fee-for-service postacute-care patients admitted to a Medicare-certified SNF following hip fracture between January 2018 and March 2020. Exposures Skilled nursing facility admission after PDPM implementation. Main Outcomes and Measures Main outcomes were individual and nonindividual (concurrent and group) therapy minutes per day, hospitalization within 40 days of SNF admission, SNF length of stay longer than 40 days, and discharge activities of daily living score. Results The study cohort included 201 084 postacute-care patients (mean [SD] age, 83.8 [8.3] years;143 830 women [71.5%];185 854 White patients [92.4%]);147 711 were admitted pre-PDPM, and 53 373 were admitted post-PDPM. A decrease in individual therapy (RD estimate: −15.9 minutes per day;95% CI, −16.9 to −14.6) and an increase in nonindividual therapy (RD estimate: 3.6 minutes per day;95% CI, 3.4 to 3.8) were observed. Total therapy use in the first week following admission was about 12 minutes per day (95% CI, −13.3 to −11.3) (approximately 13%) lower for residents admitted post-PDPM vs pre-PDPM. No consistent and statistically significant discontinuity in hospital readmission (0.31 percentage point increase;95% CI, −1.46 to 2.09), SNF length of stay (2.7 percentage point decrease in likelihood of staying longer than 40 days;95% CI, −4.83 to −0.54), or functional score at discharge (0.04 point increase in activities of daily living score;95% CI, −0.19 to 0.26) was observed. Nonindividual therapy minutes were reduced to nearly zero in late March 2020, likely owing to COVID-19–related restrictions on communal activities in SNFs. Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study of SNF admission after PDPM implementation, a reduction of total therapy minutes was observed following the implementation of PDPM, even though PDPM was designed to be budget neutral. No significant changes in postacute outcomes were observed. Further study is needed to understand whether the PDPM is associated with successful discharge outcomes.

13.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 70(4): 1198-1207, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1673190

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Federal minimum nurse staffing levels for skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) were proposed in 2019 U.S. Congressional bills. We estimated costs and personnel needed to meet the proposed staffing levels, and examined characteristics of SNFs not meeting these thresholds. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of 2019Q4 payroll data, the Hospital Wage Index, and other administrative data for 14,964 Medicare and Medicaid-certified SNFs. We examined characteristics of SNFs not meeting proposed minimum thresholds: 4.1 total nursing hours per resident day (HPRD); 0.75 registered nurse (RN) HPRD; 0.54 licensed practical nurse (LPN) HPRD; and 2.81 certified nursing assistant (CNA) HPRD. For SNFs falling below the thresholds, we calculated the additional HPRD needed, along with the associated full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel and salary costs. RESULTS: In 2019, 25.0% of SNFs met the minimum 4.1 total nursing HPRD, while 31.0%, 84.5%, and 10.7% met the RN, LPN, and CNA thresholds, respectively. Only 5.0% met all four categories. In adjusted analyses, factors most strongly associated with SNFs not meeting the proposed minimums were: higher Medicaid census, larger bed size, for-profit ownership, higher county SNF competition; and, for RNs specifically, higher community poverty and lower Medicare census. Rural SNFs were less likely to meet all categories and this was explained primarily by county SNF competition. We estimate that achieving the proposed federal minimums across SNFs nationwide would require an estimated additional 35,804 RN, 3509 LPN, and 116,929 CNA FTEs at $7.25 billion annually in salary costs based on current wage rates and prepandemic resident census levels. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving proposed minimum nurse staffing levels in SNFs will require substantial financial investment in the workforce and targeted support of low-resource facilities. Extensive recruitment and retention efforts are needed to overcome supply constraints, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Skilled Nursing Facilities , Aged , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Medicare , Pandemics , United States , Workforce
14.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 70(2): 429-438, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1483908

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, a large nursing home chain implemented a policy to temporarily hold potentially unnecessary medications. We describe rates of held and discontinued medications after a temporary hold policy of potentially unnecessary or nonessential medications. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study uses electronic health record (EHR) data on 3247 residents of 64 nursing homes operated by a multistate long-term care provider. Medications were documented in the electronic medication administration record. Overall medication held and discontinued incidences are reported. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling is used to determine individual probabilities for medication discontinuation within each facility. RESULTS: In total, 3247 residents had 5297 nonessential medications held. Multivitamins were most likely to be held, followed by histamine-2 receptor antagonists, antihistamines, and statins. At the end of the hold policy, 2897 of 5297 (54%) were permanently discontinued, including probiotics (73%), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (66%), antihistamines (64%), and statins (45%). Demographics, cognitive and functional impairment were similar between residents with medications who were discontinued versus continued. For most medications, more than 50% of the variance in whether medications were discontinued was explained by facility rather than resident-level factors. CONCLUSION: A temporary medication hold policy implemented during the CoVID-19 pandemic led to the deprescribing of a plurality of 'nonessential' medications. This type of organization-wide initiative may be an effective mechanism for altering future prescribing behaviors to reduce the use of unnecessary medications.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Deprescriptions , Nursing Homes , Aged , Female , Health Policy , Humans , Long-Term Care , Male , Nursing Homes/trends , Potentially Inappropriate Medication List/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , United States
16.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 69(10): 2766-2777, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1434765

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has taken a disproportionate toll on long-term care facility residents and staff. Our objective was to review the empirical evidence on facility characteristics associated with COVID-19 cases and deaths. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: Long-term care facilities (nursing homes and assisted living communities). PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six empirical studies of factors associated with COVID-19 cases and deaths in long-term care facilities published between January 1, 2020 and June 15, 2021. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes included the probability of at least one case or death (or other defined threshold); numbers of cases and deaths, measured variably. RESULTS: Larger, more rigorous studies were fairly consistent in their assessment of risk factors for COVID-19 outcomes in long-term care facilities. Larger bed size and location in an area with high COVID-19 prevalence were the strongest and most consistent predictors of facilities having more COVID-19 cases and deaths. Outcomes varied by facility racial composition, differences that were partially explained by facility size and community COVID-19 prevalence. More staff members were associated with a higher probability of any outbreak; however, in facilities with known cases, higher staffing was associated with fewer deaths. Other characteristics, such as Nursing Home Compare 5-star ratings, ownership, and prior infection control citations, did not have consistent associations with COVID-19 outcomes. CONCLUSION: Given the importance of community COVID-19 prevalence and facility size, studies that failed to control for these factors were likely confounded. Better control of community COVID-19 spread would have been critical for mitigating much of the morbidity and mortality long-term care residents and staff experienced during the pandemic. Traditional quality measures such as Nursing Home Compare 5-Star ratings and past deficiencies were not consistent indicators of pandemic preparedness, likely because COVID-19 presented a novel problem requiring extensive adaptation by both long-term care providers and policymakers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Homes for the Aged/organization & administration , Long-Term Care , Nursing Homes/organization & administration , Risk Adjustment , Skilled Nursing Facilities/organization & administration , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/prevention & control , Civil Defense/organization & administration , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Long-Term Care/methods , Long-Term Care/trends , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , SARS-CoV-2
17.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(9): e2123696, 2021 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1400715
19.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 22(11): 2228-2232, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1373104

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To compare rates of adverse events following Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination among nursing home residents with and without previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 20,918 nursing home residents who received the first dose of messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine from December 18, 2020, through February 14, 2021, in 284 facilities within Genesis Healthcare, a large nursing home provider spanning 24 US states. METHODS: We screened the electronic health record for adverse events, classified by the Brighton Collaboration, occurring within 15 days of a resident's first COVID-19 vaccine dose. All events were confirmed by physician chart review. To obtain risk ratios, multilevel logistic regression model that accounted for clustering (variability) across nursing homes was implemented. To balance the probability of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (previous positive test or diagnosis by the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification) more than 20 days before vaccination, we used inverse probability weighting. To adjust for multiplicity of adverse events tested, we used a false discovery rate procedure. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences existed between those without (n = 13,163) and with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection [symptomatic (n = 5617) and asymptomatic (n = 2138)] for all baseline characteristics assessed. Only 1 adverse event was reported among those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (asymptomatic), venous thromboembolism [46.8 per 100,000 residents 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.3-264.5], which was not significantly different from the rate reported for those without previous infection (30.4 per 100,000 95% CI 11.8-78.1). Several other adverse events were observed for those with no previous infection, but were not statistically significantly higher than those reported with previous infection after adjustments for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Although reactogenicity increases with preexisting immunity, we did not find that vaccination among those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in higher rates of adverse events than those without previous infection. This study stresses the importance of monitoring novel vaccines for adverse events in this vulnerable population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Nursing Homes , Prospective Studies , RNA, Messenger , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
20.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 70(1): 8-18, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1373834

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Limited COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among healthcare assistants (HCAs) may adversely impact older adults, who are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 infections. Our study objective was to evaluate the perceptions of COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy in a sample of frontline HCAs, overall and by race and ethnicity. METHODS: An online survey was conducted from December 2020 to January 2021 through national e-mail listserv and private Facebook page for the National Association of Health Care Assistants. Responses from 155 HCAs, including certified nursing assistants, home health aides, certified medical assistants, and certified medication technicians, were included. A 27-item survey asked questions about experiences and perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines, including how confident they were that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and adequately tested in people of color. Multivariable regression was used to identify associations with confidence in COVID-19 vaccines. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 155 completed responses. Among respondents, 23.9% were black and 8.4% Latino/a. Most respondents worked in the nursing home setting (53.5%), followed by hospitals (12.9%), assisted living (11.6%), and home care (10.3%). Respondents expressed low levels of confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, with fewer than 40% expressing at least moderate confidence in safety (38.1%), effectiveness (31.0%), or adequate testing in people of color (27.1%). Non-white respondents reported lower levels of confidence in adequate testing of vaccines compared to white respondents. In bivariate and adjusted models, respondents who gave more favorable scores of organizational leadership at their workplace expressed greater confidence in COVID-19 vaccines. CONCLUSION: Frontline HCAs reported low confidence in COVID-19 vaccines. Stronger organizational leadership in the workplace appears to be an important factor in influencing HCA's willingness to be vaccinated. Action is needed to enhance COVID-19 vaccine uptake in this important population with employers playing an important role to build vaccine confidence and trust among employees.


Subject(s)
Allied Health Personnel/psychology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Ethnicity/statistics & numerical data , Perception , Racial Groups/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Assisted Living Facilities/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Internet , Male , Middle Aged , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Hesitancy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL