Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 21
Filter
1.
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.

2.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 70(4): 1198-1207, 2022 Apr.
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
3.
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
5.
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
6.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(9): e2123696, 2021 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1400715
8.
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 , Perception , /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
9.
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
11.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 22(9): 1853-1855.e1, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1322175

ABSTRACT

Vaccines are critical to protect both nursing home residents and staff from COVID-19, but some staff have expressed reservations about being vaccinated. In this brief report, we describe interventions that Genesis HealthCare-one of the largest US long-term care providers-implemented after recognizing midway through vaccinations that racial and ethnic disparities existed in vaccine uptake among employees, with black and Hispanic employees having significantly lower rates of vaccination than their peers. Specifically, Genesis engaged its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Committee to identify ways to augment its already comprehensive vaccine education campaign in order to build confidence among employees from minority communities. Interventions implemented beginning in late January 2021 included adding DEI representatives to information sessions to facilitate culturally sensitive discussions; holding information sessions at all times of day and night, and inviting employees' family members to join; increasing availability of multilingual educational materials; and featuring DEI representatives in social media campaigns. Between the end of January and beginning of March 2021, we observed statistically significant improvements in the likelihood of black and Hispanic employees being vaccinated relative to white employees, calculated as the relative risk of vaccination, suggesting a reduction in vaccination disparity. Whether these trends are directly related to the organization's efforts, or rather reflect individuals needing longer to become comfortable with the vaccines, is difficult to discern in the absence of a formal pragmatic trial. Still, these findings support the continuation of targeted educational and engagement efforts to improve vaccine uptake among staff, and the critical need to ensure that nursing homes have ongoing access to vaccine supply to continue their vaccination programs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Nursing Homes , SARS-CoV-2 , Trust , United States , Vaccination
12.
Vaccine ; 39(29): 3844-3851, 2021 06 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1253724

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The devastating impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic prompted the development and emergency use authorization of two mRNA vaccines in early 2020. Vaccine trials excluded nursing home (NH) residents, limiting adverse event data that directly apply to this population. METHODS: To prospectively monitor for potential adverse events associated with vaccination, we used Electronic Health Record (EHR) data from Genesis HealthCare, the largest NH provider in the United States. EHR data on vaccinations and pre-specified adverse events were updated daily and monitored for signal detection among residents of 147 facilities who received the first dose of vaccine between December 18, 2020 and January 3, 2021. For comparison, unvaccinated residents during the same time period were included from 137 facilities that started vaccinating at least 15 days after the vaccinating-facilities. RESULTS: As of January 3, 2021, 8553 NH residents had received one dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and by February 20, 2021, 8371 residents had received their second dose of vaccine; 11,072 were included in the unvaccinated comparator group. No significant associations were noted for neurologic outcomes, anaphylaxis, or cardiac events. CONCLUSIONS: No major safety problems were detected following the first or second dose of the vaccine to prevent COVID-19 in the study cohort from December 18, 2020 through March 7, 2021.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Nursing Homes , RNA, Messenger , SARS-CoV-2 , United States , Vaccination
13.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 69(8): 2063-2069, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1189734

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of incident SARS-CoV-2 infection and 30-day hospitalization or death among residents with confirmed infection in nursing homes with earlier versus later SARS-CoV-2 vaccine clinics. DESIGN: Matched pairs analysis of nursing homes that had their initial vaccine clinics between December 18, 2020, and January 2, 2021, versus between January 3, 2021, and January 18, 2021. Matched facilities had their initial vaccine clinics between 12 and 16 days apart. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and eighty nursing homes in 21 states owned and operated by the largest long-term care provider in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: Incident SARS-CoV-2 infections per 100 at-risk residents per week; hospital transfers and/or deaths per 100 residents with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection per day, averaged over a week. RESULTS: The early vaccinated group included 136 facilities with 12,157 residents; the late vaccinated group included 144 facilities with 13,221 residents. After 1 week, early vaccinated facilities had a predicted 2.5 fewer incident SARS-CoV-2 infections per 100 at-risk residents per week (95% CI: 1.2-4.0) compared with what would have been expected based on the experience of the late vaccinated facilities. The rates remained significantly lower for several weeks. Cumulatively over 5 weeks, the predicted reduction in new infections was 5.2 cases per 100 at-risk residents (95% CI: 3.2-7.3). By 5 to 8 weeks post-vaccine clinic, early vaccinated facilities had a predicted 1.1 to 3.8 fewer hospitalizations and/or deaths per 100 infected residents per day, averaged by week than expected based on late vaccinated facilities' experience for a cumulative on average difference of 5 events per 100 infected residents per day. CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 vaccines seem to have accelerated the rate of decline of incident infections, morbidity, and mortality in this large multi-state nursing home population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination
14.
Health Affairs ; 40(4):655-663, 2021.
Article in English | Academic Search Complete | ID: covidwho-1167123

ABSTRACT

Improved therapeutics and supportive care in hospitals have helped reduce mortality from COVID-19. However, there is limited evidence as to whether nursing home residents, who account for a disproportionate share of COVID-19 deaths and are often managed conservatively in the nursing home instead of being admitted to the hospital, have experienced similar mortality reductions. In this study we examined changes in thirty-day mortality rates between March and November 2020 among 12,271 nursing home residents with COVID-19. We found that adjusted mortality rates significantly declined from a high of 20.9 percent in early April to 11.2 percent in early November. Mortality risk declined for residents with both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections and for residents with both high and low clinical complexity. The mechanisms driving these trends are not entirely understood, but they may include improved clinical management within nursing homes, improved personal protective equipment supply and use, and genetic changes in the virus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Health Affairs is the property of Project HOPE/HEALTH AFFAIRS and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

15.
Health Aff (Millwood) ; 40(4): 655-663, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1127805

ABSTRACT

Improved therapeutics and supportive care in hospitals have helped reduce mortality from COVID-19. However, there is limited evidence as to whether nursing home residents, who account for a disproportionate share of COVID-19 deaths and are often managed conservatively in the nursing home instead of being admitted to the hospital, have experienced similar mortality reductions. In this study we examined changes in thirty-day mortality rates between March and November 2020 among 12,271 nursing home residents with COVID-19. We found that adjusted mortality rates significantly declined from a high of 20.9 percent in early April to 11.2 percent in early November. Mortality risk declined for residents with both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections and for residents with both high and low clinical complexity. The mechanisms driving these trends are not entirely understood, but they may include improved clinical management within nursing homes, improved personal protective equipment supply and use, and genetic changes in the virus.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Nursing Homes , Humans , Personal Protective Equipment , Skilled Nursing Facilities
16.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 69(7): 1722-1728, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066719

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Skilled Nursing Facilities , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Asymptomatic Infections/epidemiology , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/statistics & numerical data , Early Diagnosis , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Female , Health Services Needs and Demand , Humans , Male , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Skilled Nursing Facilities/standards , Skilled Nursing Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Symptom Assessment/methods , Symptom Assessment/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology
17.
JAMA Intern Med ; 181(4): 439-448, 2021 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1006405

ABSTRACT

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely affected nursing homes. Vulnerable nursing home residents are at high risk for adverse outcomes, but improved understanding is needed to identify risk factors for mortality among nursing home residents. Objective: To identify risk factors for 30-day all-cause mortality among US nursing home residents with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted at 351 US nursing homes among 5256 nursing home residents with COVID-19-related symptoms who had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction testing between March 16 and September 15, 2020. Exposures: Resident-level characteristics, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, symptoms, chronic conditions, and physical and cognitive function. Main Outcomes and Measures: Death due to any cause within 30 days of the first positive SARS-CoV-2 test result. Results: The study included 5256 nursing home residents (3185 women [61%]; median age, 79 years [interquartile range, 69-88 years]; and 3741 White residents [71%], 909 Black residents [17%], and 586 individuals of other races/ethnicities [11%]) with COVID-19. Compared with residents aged 75 to 79 years, the odds of death were 1.46 (95% CI, 1.14-1.86) times higher for residents aged 80 to 84 years, 1.59 (95% CI, 1.25-2.03) times higher for residents aged 85 to 89 years, and 2.14 (95% CI, 1.70-2.69) times higher for residents aged 90 years or older. Women had lower risk for 30-day mortality than men (odds ratio [OR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.60-0.80]). Two comorbidities were associated with mortality: diabetes (OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.05-1.40]) and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.33 [95%, 1.11-1.61]). Fever (OR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.41-1.96]), shortness of breath (OR, 2.52 [95% CI, 2.00-3.16]), tachycardia (OR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.04-1.64]), and hypoxia (OR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.68-2.50]) were also associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality. Compared with cognitively intact residents, the odds of death among residents with moderate cognitive impairment were 2.09 (95% CI, 1.68-2.59) times higher, and the odds of death among residents with severe cognitive impairment were 2.79 (95% CI, 2.14-3.66) times higher. Compared with residents with no or limited impairment in physical function, the odds of death among residents with moderate impairment were 1.49 (95% CI, 1.18-1.88) times higher, and the odds of death among residents with severe impairment were 1.64 (95% CI, 1.30-2.08) times higher. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of US nursing home residents with COVID-19, increased age, male sex, and impaired cognitive and physical function were independently associated with mortality. Understanding these risk factors can aid in the development of clinical prediction models of mortality in this population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Nursing Homes , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , Cohort Studies , Female , Health Status , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Risk Factors , Sensitivity and Specificity , Sex Factors , Survival Rate , United States
18.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 22(1): 199-203, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-977126

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an unprecedented challenge for nursing homes, where staff have faced rapidly evolving circumstances to care for a vulnerable resident population. Our objective was to document the experiences of these front-line health care professionals during the pandemic. DESIGN: Electronic survey of long-term care staff. This report summarizes qualitative data from open-ended questions for the subset of respondents working in nursing homes. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 152 nursing home staff from 32 states, including direct-care staff and administrators. METHODS: From May 11 through June 4, 2020, we used social media and professional networks to disseminate an electronic survey with closed- and open-ended questions to a convenience sample of long-term care staff. Four investigators identified themes from qualitative responses for staff working in nursing homes. RESULTS: Respondents described ongoing constraints on testing and continued reliance on crisis standards for extended use and reuse of personal protective equipment. Administrators discussed the burden of tracking and implementing sometimes confusing or contradictory guidance from numerous agencies. Direct-care staff expressed fears of infecting themselves and their families, and expressed sincere empathy and concern for their residents. They described experiencing burnout due to increased workloads, staffing shortages, and the emotional burden of caring for residents facing significant isolation, illness, and death. Respondents cited the presence or lack of organizational communication and teamwork as important factors influencing their ability to work under challenging circumstances. They also described the demoralizing impact of negative media coverage of nursing homes, contrasting this with the heroic public recognition given to hospital staff. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Nursing home staff described working under complex and stressful circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic. These challenges have added significant burden to an already strained and vulnerable workforce and are likely to contribute to increased burnout, turnover, and staff shortages in the long term.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional/psychology , COVID-19/nursing , Nurse's Role , Nurse-Patient Relations , Nursing Homes/organization & administration , Nursing Staff/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Male , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Personnel Turnover
20.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 68(10): 2167-2173, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-648533

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To identify county and facility factors associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreaks in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study linking county SARS-CoV-2 prevalence data, administrative data, state reports of SNF outbreaks, and data from Genesis HealthCare, a large multistate provider of post-acute and long-term care. State data are reported as of April 21, 2020; Genesis data are reported as of May 4, 2020. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The Genesis sample consisted of 341 SNFs in 25 states, including a subset of 64 SNFs that underwent universal testing of all residents. The non-Genesis sample included all other SNFs (n = 3,016) in the 12 states where Genesis operates that released the names of SNFs with outbreaks. MEASUREMENTS: For Genesis and non-Genesis SNFs: any outbreak (one or more residents testing positive for SARS-CoV-2). For Genesis SNFs only: number of confirmed cases, SNF case fatality rate, and prevalence after universal testing. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen (34.6%) Genesis SNFs and 640 (21.2%) non-Genesis SNFs had outbreaks. A difference in county prevalence of 1,000 cases per 100,000 (1%) was associated with a 33.6 percentage point (95% confidence interval (CI) = 9.6-57.7 percentage point; P = .008) difference in the probability of an outbreak for Genesis and non-Genesis SNFs combined, and a difference of 12.5 cases per facility (95% CI = 4.4-20.8 cases; P = .003) for Genesis SNFs. A 10-bed difference in facility size was associated with a 0.9 percentage point (95% CI = 0.6-1.2 percentage point; P < .001) difference in the probability of outbreak. We found no consistent relationship between Nursing Home Compare Five-Star ratings or past infection control deficiency citations and probability or severity of outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: Larger SNFs and SNFs in areas of high SARS-CoV-2 prevalence are at high risk for outbreaks and must have access to universal testing to detect cases, implement mitigation strategies, and prevent further potentially avoidable cases and related complications. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:2167-2173, 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Skilled Nursing Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/transmission , Case-Control Studies , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Infection Control/standards , Nursing Staff/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Prevalence , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Skilled Nursing Facilities/organization & administration , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL