Factors affecting choice of community residential care setting.

UNLABELLED: To investigate factors associated with residents' choice of type of Medicaid-funded community residential care setting in western Washington State. METHOD: Prospective cohort design including residents new to any of three setting types (264 residents entering 170 different facilities), using data from state and Medicaid databases and in-person interviews. The authors used analysis of variance and multinomial logistic regression to examine bivariate associations and estimate effects of resident and facility characteristics on choice of facility type at baseline. RESULTS: Several resident characteristics appear to be associated with choice of community residential care setting, including age, marital status, education, functional status, and reported memory and behavior problems. Facility policies differ significantly among types of facilities and also appear to be associated with choice of setting. DISCUSSION: Selection processes operate in choice of community residential care setting, with residents choosing facility type based on the fit of their needs with facility characteristics.

Randomized trial of amplification strategies.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about quality of life after the use of specific types of hearing aids, so it is difficult to determine whether technologies such as programmable circuits and directional microphones are worth the added expense. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of an assistive listening device, a nonprogrammable nondirectional microphone hearing aid, with that of a programmable directional microphone hearing aid against the absence of amplification. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Audiology clinic at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Wash. PATIENTS: Sixty veterans with bilateral moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss completed the trial. Half the veterans (n = 30) had hearing loss that the Veterans Affairs clinic determined was rated as "service connected," which meant that they were eligible for Veterans Affairs-issued hearing aids. INTERVENTION: Veterans with non-service-connected hearing loss, who were ineligible for Veterans Affairs-issued hearing aids, were randomly assigned to no amplification (control arm) or to receive an assistive listening device. Veterans with service-connected loss were randomly assigned to receive either the nonprogrammable hearing aid that is routinely issued ("conventional") or a programmable aid with a directional microphone ("programmable"). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hearing-related quality of life, self-rated communication ability, adherence to use, and willingness to pay for the amplification devices (measured 3 months after fitting). RESULTS: Clear distinctions were observed between all 4 arms. The mean improvement in hearing-related quality of life (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly) scores was small for control patients (2.2 points) and patients who received an assistive listening device (4.4 points), excellent for patients who received a conventional device (17.4 points), and substantial for patients who received a programmable device (31.1 points) (P<.001 by the analysis of variance test). Qualitative analyses of free-text diary entries, self-reported communication ability (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) scores, adherence to hearing aid use, and willingness to pay for replacement devices showed similar trends. CONCLUSIONS: A programmable hearing aid with a directional microphone had the highest level of effectiveness in the veteran population. A nonprogrammable hearing aid with an omnidirectional microphone was also effective compared with an assistive listening device or no amplification.

The association between depressive symptoms and health status in patients with chronic pulmonary disease.

This study evaluated the association between depressive symptoms and health related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with chronic pulmonary disease using both general and disease-specific HRQoL measures. A cross-sectional analysis of HRQoL measures completed by patients enrolled in the Department of Veteran Affairs Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project. 1252 patients with chronic pulmonary disease screened positive for emotional distress and returned the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-20 (SCL-20). 733 of 1252 had a score of 1.75 or greater on the SCL-20 indicating significant depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms were associated with statistically significantly worse general and pulmonary health as reflected by lower scores on all sub-scales of both the Medical Outcomes Short Form-36 and the Seattle Obstructive Lung Disease Questionnaire. In fact, 11% to 18% of the variance in physical function sub-scales was attributed to depressive symptoms alone. Patients with chronic pulmonary disease and depressive symptoms reported significantly more impaired functioning and worse health status when compared to those patients without depressive symptoms. Because there are highly effective treatments for depression, selective screening of patients with chronic pulmonary disease for depression may identify a group that could potentially benefit from treatment interventions.

Quality Enhancement Research Initiative in Mental Health.

The Veterans Administration (VA) recently introduced its Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) to facilitate the translation of best practices into usual clinical care. The Mental Health QUERI (MHQ) was charged with developing strategic plans for major depressive disorder (MDD) and schizophrenia. Twenty percent or more of VA service users are affected by 1 of these 2 disorders, disorders that often have a devastating impact on affected individuals. Despite the increasing availability of efficacious treatments for each disorder, substantial gaps remain between best practices and routine care. In this context, the MHQ identified steps critical to the success of a sustained process of rapid-cycle health care improvement for MDD and schizophrenia, including research initiatives to close gaps in knowledge of best treatment practices, demonstration projects to close gaps in practice and to expand understanding of effective strategies for implementing clinical guidelines, targeted enhancements of the VA information system, and research and dissemination initiatives to increase the availability of resources to support the accelerated incorporation of best practices into routine care. This article presents an overview of the elements in the initial MHQ strategic plans and the rationale behind them.

Inpatient geriatric evaluation and management units: organization and care patterns in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Geriatric evaluation and management units (GEMs) are designed to improve the functional health and placement of frail elderly hospital inpatients. We surveyed Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) GEMs to describe their care patterns and organization. GEMs meeting consensus standards (n = 46) varied considerably. Hospital, GEM, and patient-admission factors (e.g., hospital psychiatric mix, GEM location, proportion of GEM admissions from nursing homes) predicted length-of-stay, readmission rate, and discharge status. Ongoing monitoring may improve the effectiveness of VA GEMs systemwide.

Inpatient geriatric evaluation and management units (GEMs) in the veterans health system: diamonds in the rough?

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that inpatient geriatric evaluation and management units (GEMs), which undertake interdisciplinary diagnosis to improve the health of frail elderly patients, are effective. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) helped pioneer U.S. GEMs and mandates that every facility shall have a GEM by 1996. We conducted a population survey of VA GEMs in 1991 to assess their dissemination. METHODS: Various organizational and performance characteristics of GEMs were entered in a data base derived from a piloted questionnaire and administrative records. Basic criteria from consensus reports were used to classify and compare "standard" and "nonstandard" GEMs. The criteria covered performance of assessment, team structure, patient selection, GEM location, and treatment functions. We analyzed the effect of GEM type and other factors on length of stay and placement. Reasons for closure of GEMs inactive in 1991 were recovered, and GEMs active in 1991 but later closed are described. RESULTS: As of 1991, 41 of 73 GEMs were classified as standard, and 32 nonstandard. Standard compared to nonstandard GEMs had shorter stays (25.4 vs 69.9 days; p < .001), higher home discharge rates (63.4% vs 40%; p < .001), and lower nursing home placement rates (19.1% vs 40.3%; p < .001). Eleven hospitals had closed their programs by 1991. By 1993, 6 additional GEMs had closed; all were nonstandard in 1991. CONCLUSIONS: Most VA GEMs are organized according to basic consensus standards, and appear to be discharging most patients back to the community after reasonably short stays. However, various resource constraints are common, apparently reflected in nonstandard organization and GEM closure. Additional work is needed to monitor GEM proliferation, implementation, and performance in and out of the VA system.

Implications of the Adult Day Health Care Evaluation Study for program revision and research.

With no additional effort to revise adult day health care (ADHC) services or the types of patients who receive them, it would appear that adding an ADHC program to a VA Medical Center would not achieve the desired objectives. The authors discuss here the advantages, disadvantages, and feasibility of 2 options for program revision. The first is to target ADHC to those types of patients who may be most likely to benefit. A targeting scheme should use the most objective criteria possible and may need to be implemented as part of a case-managed package of community-based services. The second option for program revision is to reduce the costs of ADHC services. A cost model developed as a part of the study demonstrated the effect of possible revisions, including increasing enrollment, reducing staffing costs, decreasing length of stay in ADHC, and increasing substitution of ADHC for other services. These changes differ in the level of administrative support and clinician behavior change needed for their implementation. This report then concludes with a discussion of the implications of the results for implementation of VA-ADHC versus contract ADHC, and a discussion of possible directions for future research.

Data collection in the Adult Day Health Care Evaluation Study.

This report presents data collection measures and methods for the evaluation of Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Measures of patient health were survival, the Sickness Impact Profile, self-rated health, the Mini-Mental State Exam, Psychological Distress Scale, Social Support Scale, and Problem Behaviors Scale. Measures of health for the care giver were: Activities of Daily Living, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, health perceptions, Psychological Distress Scale, life satisfaction, Social Support Scale, and Caregiver Burden Scale. We also assessed patient and care giver satisfaction with the care received by the patient. Measures of health status and outcomes were assessed primarily through patient and care giver interview at study enrollment, 6 months, and 12 months. Utilization and cost both within and outside VA were assessed for hospital, ambulatory care, nursing home, ADHC, home care, pharmacy, laboratory, and other forms of health care. Sources of utilization data included VA's computerized patient database, VA medical records, patient questionnaires, care giver questionnaires, and health care providers outside VA. Costs were obtained from VA's cost accounting system, VA Central Office, VA's contracts with outside providers, and directly from outside providers. Utilization and cost were assessed for each patient for a period of 1 year after entry into the study.

Adult day health care organizational and program characteristics.

A survey of 31 adult day health care (ADHC) programs assessed the extent to which the programs were implemented as intended by the VA. The study described and compared the host communities, ADHC organizational characteristics, program characteristics, and patient use of services. Four of the centers were operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs in VA Medical Center facilities. The remaining 27 centers were community providers serving veterans on contract through four additional VA Medical Centers. Veterans Administration programs were located in larger facilities, with lower client/staff ratios and fewer hours of operation than community contract programs. Patients on the average made 45 visits to the VA-ADHC programs and 58 visits to the contract ADHC programs. The VA and contract programs were generally found to have been implemented as planned, i.e., they followed VA guidelines for staffing, space, and equipment.

Overview and patient recruitment in the Adult Day Health Care Evaluation Study.

Although Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) is increasingly prominent in the continuum of long-term care services, the results from previous studies of the effects of ADHC are mixed. The objectives of the ADHC Evaluation Study were to determine the effect of ADHC on health status, utilization, and cost of care. The first phase was a randomized controlled trial evaluating ADHC provided directly by the VA. Patients at four medical centers (n = 826) were randomly assigned to receive either ADHC or customary care, and outcomes were compared for the two groups. The second phase was a prospective cohort study evaluating ADHC provided under contract to community agencies in which patients at four additional medical centers (n = 163) were assigned to contract ADHC programs. Outcomes were compared with those of similar patients in the randomized trial. Patients and care givers were assessed at intake and 6 and 12 months after intake. To be admitted to the study, patients must have met one of the following criteria: residence in a nursing home; dependence in ambulation, dressing, or toileting; bowel incontinence; or significant cognitive impairment. Patients at intake demonstrated major impairment in function and high levels of prior use of health care services.

Effects of VA adult day health care on health outcomes and satisfaction with care.

It was hypothesized that ADHC would have a positive effect on the health of patients and their care givers and result in greater satisfaction with care than customary care. Measurement of health outcomes for patients included assessment of overall, psychological, and social health, and survival. Care giver assessment concentrated on psychosocial health. Findings indicated no difference in health outcomes between patients assigned to ADHC or their care givers and their counterparts assigned to customary care. Further analysis of subgroups found that there were 3 subgroups of patients for whom those assigned to ADHC had better outcomes (as indicated by lower Sickness Impact Profile scores) than those assigned to customary care. These subgroups included those who were 1) not married, 2) most satisfied with their social support network, and 3) not hospitalized at the time of enrollment in the study. Patients and their care givers assigned to ADHC were more satisfied with their care than those in nursing homes, but not more satisfied than those in hospital-based home care. Care givers reported significantly greater satisfaction with patient care in ADHC than did care givers of patients receiving care in nursing homes or ambulatory care clinics.

Cost of VA adult day health care programs and their effect on utilization and cost of care.

The VA-ADHC Evaluation included a detailed assessment of the cost of the VA-ADHC programs and an evaluation of their effect on patients' utilization and costs of other health care services. Although each VA-ADHC program had little variation in its program costs over the 3 years of the study, there were large variations between the programs in total costs, their costs per patient day, and in some cost components. The 3 most important factors in determining the level of program costs were: the way patients were transported to and from ADHC, the availability of space to house the program, and the staff-to-patient ratio. The total cost of health care for patients randomly assigned to VA-ADHC was significantly (15.5%) higher than those assigned to customary care. Although ADHC care did substitute for certain other forms of care (i.e., home care and clinic visits), there was not enough of a substitution effect to offset the additional costs of ADHC services.

Effects of adult day health care on utilization and cost of care for subgroups of patients.

An important goal of the Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) Evaluation Study was to identify subgroups of patients assigned to ADHC for whom the health care costs were less than, or not higher than, the costs of similar patients assigned to customary care. Patients eligible for VA services because of a severe disability that occurred during military service had significantly lower costs when assigned to ADHC compared with customary care. For several types of patients, total health care costs were not significantly higher for those assigned to ADHC compared with those assigned to customary care: patients who at study intake 1) were at highest risk of going to a nursing home, 2) had high levels of physical dysfunction as measured by the Sickness Impact Profile, 3) had multiple behavior problems, and 4) were eligible for VA services because of a less severe service-connected disability but admitted to the ADHC for treatment of that disability. Two types of patients were found to have particularly high costs when assigned to ADHC compared with customary care: patients with low levels of physical dysfunction and patients with few behavior problems. Significant differences in the relative costs of ADHC versus customary care also were found between the 4 study sites.

Effects of contract adult day health care on health outcomes and satisfaction with care.

The second phase of the ADHC Evaluation Study was designed to assess ADHC provided under contract by community ADHC programs. Outcomes for the 163 patients enrolled in this prospective cohort evaluation were compared with those of patients assigned to ADHC provided directly by VA (VA-ADHC) and customary care in the randomized trial phase of the study. In spite of identical admission criteria, contract ADHC patients were significantly different from VA-ADHC and customary care patients on several characteristics and were more impaired in health status at study intake. They were also more impaired in physical health status at 12 months, even after controlling for baseline differences. There were no significant differences in any other patient or care giver health outcomes. Contract ADHC patients were more satisfied than customary care patients in nursing homes (but not more satisfied than patients in home care), whereas VA-ADHC patients were more satisfied than those in contract ADHC. It is suggested that differences in physical function are due to differences in patient health status at intake rather than a detrimental effect of contract ADHC.

Comparison of utilization and cost among contract adult day health care, VA adult day health care, and customary care.

The contract ADHC evaluation compared the utilization and costs of patients assigned to contract ADHC with patients assigned to VA-ADHC care or customary care in the VA-ADHC evaluation. The ADHC costs per patient day were lower on average in the contract sites than in the VA-ADHC sites, although they were similar to the costs at 2 of the 4 VA-ADHCs. The contract site patients received significantly more days of ADHC care, offsetting their lower cost per day. Contract site patients had significantly fewer VA clinic visits and VA nursing home admissions than did patients in the VA-ADHC or customary care groups. Patients at the contract sites also had significantly fewer days of nursing home care than did the customary care group patients. Propensity scores based on intake characteristics were used to adjust for initial differences between the patients in the 2 evaluations. After adjustments, the total cost of care for contract ADHC patients was found to be significantly higher than the cost for customary care patients, but no significant difference was found between contract ADHC patients and VA-ADHC patients.

Summary and discussion of methods and results of the Adult Day Health Care Evaluation Study.

This article summarizes the study results and presents an evaluative summary of the implementation of study methods designed to provide guidance in the degree of confidence with which the results may be accepted and generalized to other situations. Patients who were offered VA-ADHC services in the first phase of this study had significantly higher VA health care costs on average than patients assigned to customary care, with no apparent incremental health benefit to themselves or their care givers. One can have a high level of confidence in these results. The ADHC clinical services were implemented as planned, the randomized controlled trial was implemented successfully, and such threats to validity as insufficient numbers of patients and differential attrition were not present. Certain subgroups of patients assigned to VA-ADHC had VA costs of care that were not significantly higher than those assigned to customary care, although these results must be interpreted with caution. The findings of the second phase of the study evaluating contract ADHC provide no support for choosing to provide either contract ADHC or VA-ADHC over the other. The nonrandomized design and smaller sample size suggest that inferences from the contract ADHC evaluation should be drawn with more caution than those from the VA-ADHC evaluation.

Financial management of posthospital care programs.

In this article the model estimates differences in utilization and subsequent costs of inpatient acute care, nursing home, and clinic visits as a result of patients using a posthospital care program. These estimates are compared to actual costs showing the model's robustness. The model is developed to aid in both the evaluation and the management of hospital-based postdischarge programs.

Working group recommendations: measuring outcomes of care in geriatric evaluation and management units.

Issues related to measuring outcomes of care in geriatric evaluation and management (GEM) units were identified by the outcomes working group of the GEM evaluation conference. GEM units have as a major goal the improvement or maintenance of both physical and psychosocial function. Suggested outcome measures for physical health included survival, restricted activity days, general health perceptions, comprehensive physical function, and miscellaneous specific types of functioning. In the area of psycho-social function, the working group suggested measuring cognitive function, affect/life satisfaction, social function, and satisfaction with care. The patient's caregiver (eg, spouse or child) is often an important target of GEM care, and the group suggested measuring caregiver burden, life satisfaction, and assessment of patient behavior problems. While the primary goal of GEM units is to improve health status, their effects on the utilization and cost of health care are important to decisions about wide-spread implementation and funding. The group therefore suggested a comprehensive assessment of these outcomes. Among the large array of recommended outcomes, the most important were thought to be mortality, function, and cost.