Comfort Measures Orders and Hospital Transfers: Insights From the OPTIMISTIC Demonstration Project.

CONTEXT: Nursing facility residents and their families may identify "comfort measures" as their overall goal of care, yet some hospital transfers still occur. OBJECTIVES: Describe nursing facility residents with comfort measures and their hospital transfers. METHODS: Mixed methods, including root cause analyses of transfers by registered nurses and interviews with a subset of health care providers and family members involved in transfers. Participants were residents in 19 central Indiana facilities with comfort measures orders who experienced unplanned transfers to the hospital between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016. Project demographic and clinical characteristics of the residents were obtained from the Minimum Data Set 3.0. Interviews were conducted with stakeholders involved in transfer decisions. Participants were prompted to reflect on reasons for the transfer and outcomes. Interviews were transcribed and coded using qualitative descriptive methods. RESULTS: Residents with comfort measures orders (n = 177) experienced 204 transfers. Most events were assessed as unavoidable (77%). Communication among staff, or between staff and the resident/family, primary care provider, or hospital was the most frequently noted area needing improvement (59.5%). In interviews, participants (n = 11) highlighted multiple issues, including judgments about whether decisions were "good" or "bad," and factors that were important to decision-making, including communication, nursing facility capabilities, clinical situation, and goals of care. CONCLUSION: Most transfers of residents with comfort measures orders were considered unavoidable. Nonetheless, we identified several opportunities for improving care processes, including communication and addressing acute changes in status.

Improving Nursing Facility Care Through an Innovative Payment Demonstration Project: Optimizing Patient Transfers, Impacting Medical Quality, and Improving Symptoms: Transforming Institutional Care Phase 2.

Optimizing Patient Transfers, Impacting Medical Quality, and Improving Symptoms: Transforming Institutional Care (OPTIMISTIC) is a 2-phase Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovations demonstration project now testing a novel Medicare Part B payment model for nursing facilities and practitioners in 40 Indiana nursing facilities. The new payment codes are intended to promote high-quality care in place for acutely ill long-stay residents. The focus of the initiative is to reduce hospitalizations through the diagnosis and on-site management of 6 common acute clinical conditions (linked to a majority of potentially avoidable hospitalizations of nursing facility residents): pneumonia, urinary tract infection, skin infection, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, and dehydration. This article describes the OPTIMISTIC Phase 2 model design, nursing facility and practitioner recruitment and training, and early experiences implementing new Medicare payment codes for nursing facilities and practitioners. Lessons learned from the OPTIMISTIC experience may be useful to others engaged in multicomponent quality improvement initiatives.

Quality of Hospice Care at Home Versus in an Assisted Living Facility or Nursing Home.

OBJECTIVES: To describe differences in perceived quality of hospice care for individuals living at home or in a nursing home (NH) or assisted living facility (ALF) through analysis of after-death surveys of family members. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using hospice medical record data and Family Evaluation of Hospice Care (FEHC) survey data. SETTING: Large, national hospice provider. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals who died while receiving routine hospice care and family caregivers who completed after-death quality-of-care surveys. MEASUREMENTS: Survey results for 7,510 individuals were analyzed using analysis of variance and chi-square tests. Logistic regression was used to assess relationship between location of care and overall service quality. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 27%; 34.5% of families of individuals in ALFs in hospice, 27.4% of those at home, and 22.9% of those in NHs returned the survey (P < .001). Differences in return rate according to primary diagnosis were significant, although differences were not large. Most (84.3%) respondents reported that hospice referral had occurred at the right time, and 63.4% rated service quality as excellent. Hospice care in the NH was less likely to be perceived as excellent. CONCLUSION: There were significant differences in characteristics of individuals whose family members did and did not return surveys, which has implications for use of after-death surveys to evaluate hospice quality. Lower perceived quality of hospice care in NHs may be related to general dissatisfaction with receiving care in this setting. Survey results have the potential to set priorities for quality improvement, choice of provider, and potentially reimbursement. Underlying causes of differences of perceived quality in different settings of care should be examined.