Cross-setting Comparison of Risk Factors for Pressure Injuries Acquired in Post-Acute Care.

GENERAL PURPOSE: To provide information on the association between risk factors and the development of new or worsened stage 2 to 4 pressure injuries (PIs) in patients in long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant will:1. Compare the unadjusted PI incidence in SNF, IRF, and LTCH populations.2. Explain the extent to which the clinical risk factors of functional limitation (bed mobility), bowel incontinence, diabetes/peripheral vascular disease/peripheral arterial disease, and low body mass index are associated with new or worsened stage 2 to 4 PIs across the SNF, IRF, and LTCH populations.3. Compare the incidence of new or worsened stage 2 to 4 PI development in SNF, IRF, and LTCH populations associated with high body mass index, urinary incontinence, dual urinary and bowel incontinence, and advanced age.

To compare the incidence of new or worsened pressure injuries (PIs) and associated risk factors for their development in inpatient post-acute care settings: long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). The authors investigated Medicare Part A SNF resident stays and LTCH patient stays that ended between October 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016 and IRF patient stays that ended between October 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. They calculated the incidence of new or worsened PIs using the specifications of the National Quality Forum-endorsed PI quality measure #0678: Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers that are New or Worsened . The incidences of new or worsened stages 2 through 4 PIs varied across settings: 1.23% in SNFs, 1.56% in IRFs, and 3.07% in LTCHs. Seven risk factors were positively and consistently associated with new or worsened PIs across settings: limited bed mobility, bowel incontinence, low body mass index, diabetes/peripheral vascular disease/peripheral arterial disease, advanced age, urinary incontinence, and dual urinary and bowel incontinence. These findings provide empirical support for the alignment of risk factors for the PI quality measures across post-acute care settings.

The IMPACT Act of 2014: Standardizing patient assessment data to support care coordination, quality outcomes, and interoperability.

The Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (IMPACT Act) addressed the need for uniform, clinical, and demographic data in post-acute care (PAC) settings. Structured, uniform data enables potential interoperable data exchange, quality comparisons across PAC provider types, and the capacity to explore a Medicare unified PAC payment system. Standardized patient assessment data elements were developed for clinical domains such as cognitive function and mental status, special services, treatments, and interventions, and medical conditions and comorbidities to create a common language that can be used to bolster a patient's needs and goals to improve clinical outcomes. Clinical care, decision making, and care planning were at the center of all decisions made to standardize specific data elements. In addition, all standardized data were mapped to nationally accepted vocabulary standards to support electronic health information exchange. The standardized patient assessment data elements present the foundation for uniform language across the PAC continuum to promote a greater quality of care for every patient.

PROMIS Global Health: Feasibility in home health.

PURPOSE: This feasibility study assessed if the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) 10-item Global Health Survey (PROMIS-10) could be a reliable and valid patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for a population of cognitively intact home health (HH) patients. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) along with their measurement contractor, Abt Associates, held a field test (2016-2017) to test the feasibility of the PROMIS-10 in in the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS). Home Health clinician data collectors (registered nurses and physical therapists) were trained to complete the PROMIS-10 along with procedures to facilitate patient self-administration of PROMIS-10. These clinicians provided feedback about their experiences at a focus group at the end of data collection. RESULTS: 213 HH patients comprised the field test sample, 150 of whom completed PROMIS-10 surveys. Clinicians reported they found the PROMIS-10 relevant and acceptable for their HH patients, and noted the surveys provided insight into patients' views of their health. The PROMIS-10 measured the full range of patient-reported health and was sensitive to change between admission and discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirmed that the PROMIS-10 can be implemented in the HH setting, opening the door for consideration for implementing the PROMIS-10 in post-acute care (PAC) settings. This study is a first step toward establishing an assessment that captures the patient's voice and could be reported by the CMS PAC quality reporting programs.

COVID-19 in the Long-Term Care Setting: The CMS Perspective.

Safeguarding the health and promoting the well-being and quality of life of the most vulnerable and fragile citizens is a top priority for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). In response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, numerous regulatory policies and 1,135 waivers of federal requirements have been implemented by CMS to give long-term care providers and professionals flexibility to meet the demands of resident and patient care needs during this public health emergency. Goals for these policies and waivers are increasing capacity, enhancing workforce and capability, improving oversight and transparency, preventing COVID-19 transmission, and reducing provider burden. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1366-1369, 2020.

Examining Social Risk Factors in a Pressure Ulcer Quality Measure for Three Post-Acute Care Settings.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and explore relationships between social demographic factors and incidence or worsening of pressure ulcer scores among post-acute care (PAC) settings. DESIGN: The authors present the incidence of new or worsening pressure ulcers stratified by self-reported patient race and sex. Investigators used logistic regression modeling to examine relative risk of developing new or worsened pressure ulcers by sociodemographic status and multiple regression modeling to estimate the relative contribution of facility-level factors on rates of new or worsening pressure ulcers. SETTING: Three PAC settings: long-term care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and skilled nursing facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare Part A residents and patients with complete stays in PAC facilities during 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The incidence of new or worsened pressure ulcers as calculated using the specifications of the National Quality Forum-endorsed pressure ulcer quality measure #0678. MAIN RESULTS: The sample included 1,566,847 resident stays in 14,822 skilled nursing facilities, 478,292 patient stays in 1,132 inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and 121,834 patient stays in 397 long-term care hospitals. Significant differences in new or worsened pressure ulcer incidence rates by sociodemographic factors were found in all three settings. Black race, male sex, and advanced age were significant predictors of new or worsened ulcers, although controlling for health conditions reduced the racial disparity. The authors noted significant differences among facilities based on ownership type, urban/rural location, and sociodemographic makeup of facilities' residents/patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of disparities in the incidence of new or worsened pressure ulcers across PAC settings, suggesting publicly available quality data may be used to identify and ameliorate these problems.

Evaluating Hospital Readmission Rates After Discharge From Inpatient Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: To examine facility-level rates of all-cause, unplanned hospital readmissions for 30 days after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). DESIGN: Observational design. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (N=567,850 patient-stays). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome is all-cause, unplanned hospital readmission rates for IRFs. We adapted previous risk-adjustment and statistical approaches used for acute care hospitals to develop a hierarchical logistic regression model that estimates a risk-standardized readmission rate for each IRF. The IRF risk-adjustment model takes into account patient demographic characteristics, hospital diagnoses and procedure codes, function at IRF admission, comorbidities, and prior hospital utilization. We presented national distributions of observed and risk-standardized readmission rates and estimated confidence intervals to make statistical comparisons relative to the national mean. We also analyzed the number of days from IRF discharge until hospital readmission. RESULTS: The national observed hospital readmission rate by 30 days postdischarge from IRFs was 13.1%. The mean unadjusted readmission rate for IRFs was 12.4%±3.5%, and the mean risk-standardized readmission rate was 13.1%±0.8%. The C-statistic for our risk-adjustment model was .70. Nearly three-quarters of IRFs (73.4%) had readmission rates that were significantly different from the mean. The mean number of days to readmission was 13.0±8.6 days and varied by rehabilitation diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the ability to assess 30-day, all-cause hospital readmission rates postdischarge from IRFs and the ability to discriminate between IRFs with higher- and lower-than-average hospital readmission rates.

Nationwide Quality of Hospice Care: Findings From the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospice Quality Reporting Program.

CONTEXT: With increasing use of the Medicare hospice benefit, policymakers recognize the need for quality measurement to assure that terminally ill patients receive high-quality care and have the information they need when selecting a hospice. Toward these goals, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has been collecting standardized patient-level quality data via the Hospice Item Set (HIS) since July 1, 2014. OBJECTIVE: This article presents a first look at the national hospice HIS quality data. METHODS: We calculated seven quality measures using the HIS data. These measures are endorsed by the National Quality Forum and focus on important care processes hospice providers are required to perform at admission, including discussion of patient preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments, care for spiritual and existential concerns, and symptom management (pain, opioid-induced constipation, and dyspnea). RESULTS: Our sample included 1,218,786 hospice patients discharged from 3922 hospices from October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015. More than 90% of patients received screenings and assessments captured by six of the seven quality measures. The only exception was pain assessment, for which the national mean score was 78.2%. A small number of hospices (156, 4.0%) had perfect scores for all seven quality measures. CONCLUSIONS: Most hospices conduct critical assessments and discuss treatment preferences with patients at admission, although few hospices have perfect scores.

Functional electrical stimulation (FES) may modify the poor prognosis of stroke survivors with severe motor loss of the upper extremity: a preliminary study.

OBJECTIVES: This nonblinded, block-randomized clinical trial tested the hypothesis that task-oriented functional electrical stimulation (FES) can enhance the recovery of upper-extremity volitional motor control and functional ability in patients with poor prognosis. DESIGN: Ischemic stroke survivors (FES + exercise group, n = 13, 17.4 +/- 7.6 days after stroke, and exercise-only group n = 13, 23.8 +/- 10.9 days after stroke) trained with task-specific exercises, 30 min, twice each day. The FES group practiced the exercises combined with FES that enabled opening and closing of the paretic hand and continued with FES without exercises for up to 90 mins of additional time twice a day. Both groups trained for 12 wks. Volitional motor control (modified Fugl-Meyer [mF-M]), hand function (Box & Blocks [B&B], and Jebsen-Taylor light object lift [J-T]) were video recorded for both upper extremities at baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 wks. RESULTS: Mean mF-M score of the FES group (24 +/- 13.7) was significantly better (P = 0.05) at 12 wks compared with the control group that scored 14.2 +/- 10.6 points. The B&B mean score did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.058) in favor of the FES group (10.5 +/- 2.4 blocks) over the control group (2.5 +/- 4.9 blocks). The J-T task time did not differ between groups. Eight (FES) compared with three (control) patients regained the ability to transfer five or more blocks (P = 0.051), and six (FES) compared with two (control) completed the J-T task in 30 sec or less after 12 wks of training (P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: FES + exercise as used in this preliminary study is likely to minimize motor loss, but it may not significantly enhance the ability to use the upper extremity after ischemic stroke. Anecdotally, more patients may regain some functional ability after training with FES compared with training without FES. Patients with severe motor loss may require prolonged task-specific FES training.

Functional electrical stimulation enhancement of upper extremity functional recovery during stroke rehabilitation: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To test if functional electrical stimulation (FES) can enhance the recovery of upper extremity function during early stroke rehabilitation. METHODS: Open-label block-randomized trial, begun during inpatient rehabilitation and continued at the patients' home. Patients were assigned to either FES combined with task-specific upper extremity rehabilitation (n = 7) or a control group that received task-specific therapy alone (n = 8) over 12 weeks. Outcome measures . Hand function (Box & Blocks, B & B; Jebsen-Taylor light object lift, J-T) and motor control (modified Fugl-Meyer, mF-M) were video-recorded for both upper extremities at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. RESULTS: B&B mean score at 12 weeks favored (P = .049) the FES group (42.3 +/- 16.6 blocks) over the control group (26.3 +/- 11.0 blocks). The FES group J-T task was 6.7 +/- 2.9 seconds and faster (P = .049) than the 11.8 +/- 5.4 seconds of the control group. Mean mF-M score of the FES group at 12 weeks was 49.3 +/- 5.1 points out of 54, compared to the control group that scored 40.6 +/- 8.2 points (P = .042). All patients regained hand function. CONCLUSION: Upper extremity task-oriented training that begins soon after stroke that incorporates FES may improve upper extremity functional use in patients with mild/moderate paresis more than task-oriented training without FES.

Stroke rehabilitation in Switzerland versus the United States: a preliminary comparison.

This article compares the structure and process of rehabilitation for stroke patients at 2 internationally recognized rehabilitation hospitals, Klinik Valens ("Valens") in Switzerland and the William Donald Schaeffer Rehabilitation Hospital at Kernan ("Kernan") in the United States. Although the patient mix, structure, and process of rehabilitation were similar in many regards, there were some important differences. Most notably, on average, patients at the U.S. hospital were discharged from rehabilitation at approximately the same day poststroke that rehabilitation began in Switzerland. Patients remained in an inpatient setting an average of 40 days longer in Switzerland (for the combination of acute care and rehabilitation) and had significantly higher levels of functioning at discharge when compared to their U.S. counterparts. The authors' findings suggest that Europe may offer opportunities for rehabilitation research that would be difficult to duplicate in the United States and highlight policy-relevant questions for future studies aimed at developing efficient managed care systems for stroke survivors.