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.

Do Medicare Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Patients' Self-Care and Mobility Outcomes Vary by Dual Eligibility Status, Race and Ethnicity, Rural Residence, Socioeconomic Status, and Living Alone?

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) patients' risk-adjusted functional outcomes varied with five social drivers of health: Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility status, race and ethnicity, rural residence, socioeconomic status (SES), and living alone. DESIGN: This cohort study examined unadjusted and adjusted mobility and self-care change scores during IRF stays for 428,710 Medicare patients with and without social drivers of health. Regression models isolated the mean marginal effect of each of the five social factors on mobility and self-care change scores after adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Patients with full dual status had slightly lower risk-adjusted mobility and self-care improvement (-4.5% and -3.3%, respectively) compared to patients without dual status. Patients who identified as Black, Asian and Native Hawaiian had self-care marginal effects that were slightly lower (-4.8%, -4.1% and -3.7%, respectively) than patients who were White. Patients living in lower SES neighborhoods and patients who lived alone had slightly higher mobility and self-care improvement scores. Risk-adjusted marginal differences in improvement scores for patients with and without these social factors were small and did not meet the meaningfully different criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, IRF patients' risk-adjusted functional outcomes did not vary meaningfully by dual eligibility status, race or ethnicity, rural residence, SES or living alone.

Trends in the Characteristics and Outcomes of Older Medicare Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury Treated in Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities: 2013 to 2018.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of older (65+) Medicare beneficiaries with traumatic brain injury (TBI) treated in inpatient rehabilitation facilities between 2013 and 2018. DESIGN: Descriptive study using IRF Patient Assessment Instrument (IRF-PAI) data reporting trends of the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and outcomes of inpatient rehabilitation facilities Medicare patients with TBI. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation facilities in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 99,804 older Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage patients with TBI (N=99,804). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Length of stay, self-care, and mobility functional outcomes, discharge destination. RESULTS: The number of older Medicare beneficiaries with TBI treated in inpatient rehabilitation facilities increased from 14,657 in 2013 to 18,791 in 2018, an increase of 28.2%. In addition to this overall increase in patients, we also found the percentage of men increased slightly (52.9% to 54.8%), there was a higher percentage of patients with tier 3 comorbidities, there was a decrease in the variability of length of stay, there was slightly more self-care and mobility improvement and a slightly higher percentage of patients discharged to the community (67.8% in 2013 and 71.6% in 2018). Newer standardized data showed that prior to the injury, more than one-third used a walker and more than three-quarters had a history of recent falls. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2013 and 2018, the number of Medicare beneficiaries with TBI treated in IRFs increased by approximately 28%. The characteristics of IRF older patients with TBI changed between 2013 and 2018 toward a slightly higher proportion of men, more comorbidities, and a higher percentage being discharged home after inpatient rehabilitation.

Reliability and Validity of the Minimum Data Set 3.0 Standardized Self-Care and Mobility Data Elements Among Long-Stay Nursing Home Residents.

PURPOSE: To assess the reliability and validity of a subset of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Section GG data elements (i.e., standardized self-care, mobility) among 147 long-stay nursing home residents in seven nursing homes in five states. METHOD: Trained clinicians assessed residents' functional abilities using select Section GG items and Section G activities of daily living items. We examined the reliability and construct validity of the data using Cronbach's alpha, correlations between Section G and Section GG items, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Rasch measurement analysis. RESULTS: We observed acceptable internal consistency values for all (0.98), self-care (0.93), and mobility (0.98) standardized items. Correlations between conceptually related Section G and Section GG items ranged from -0.53 to -0.84. CFA findings found acceptable values for all fit indices. Rasch analysis showed most items had acceptable fit statistics, except for the easiest and most difficult activities. CONCLUSION: These findings establish the feasibility of data collection, internal consistency reliability, and construct validity of the selected Section GG items among long-stay nursing home residents. Use of the same standardized data elements in post-acute and long-term care populations can support improved coding of function and enhance our understanding of resident functioning. [Research in Gerontological Nursing, 17(2), 57-64.].

Characteristics and Outcomes of Medicare Patients Treated in Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities: 2013-2018.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of Medicare patients treated in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) in 2013 through 2018. DESIGN: A descriptive study was conducted. METHODS: A total of 2,907,046 IRF Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage patient stays that ended in 2013 through 2018 were analyzed. RESULTS: The number of Medicare patients treated in IRFs increased by about 9%, from 466,092 in 2013 to 509,475 in 2018. Although IRF patients' age and racial/ethnic composition remained similar across the years, there was a shift in patients' primary rehabilitation diagnosis, with more patients with stroke, neurological conditions, traumatic and nontraumatic brain injury, fewer patients with orthopedic conditions, and fewer coded as having medically complex conditions. Across the years, the percentage of patients discharged to the community was between 73.0% and 74.4%. CLINICAL RELEVANCE TO THE PRACTICE OF REHABILITATION NURSING: Rehabilitation nurses should have training and expertise in the management of patients with stroke and neurological conditions to provide high-quality IRF care. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2013 and 2018, the number of Medicare patients treated in IRFs increased overall. There were more patients with stroke and neurological conditions and fewer patients with orthopedic conditions. Changes to IRF and other post-acute care policies, Medicaid expansion, and alternative payment programs may partially be driving these changes.

Reliability and Validity of the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Discharge Mobility and Self-Care Quality Measures.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the reliability and validity of the publicly reported facility-level quality measures Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) Discharge Mobility Score for Medical Rehabilitation Patients ("Discharge mobility score") and IRF Discharge Self-Care Score for Medical Rehabilitation Patients ("Discharge self-care score"). DESIGN: Observational study using standardized patient assessment data to examine facility-level split-half reliability and construct validity of quality measure scores. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All IRFs (n = 1117) in the United States with at least 20 Medicare stays. Facility-level quality measure scores were calculated from 2017 data on 428,192 Medicare (fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage) IRF patient stays. METHODS: Using clinician-reported assessment data, we calculated facility-level mobility and self-care quality measure scores and examined reliability of these scores using split-half analysis and Pearson product-moment correlations, Spearman rank correlations, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,1). We examined construct validity of these scores by comparing facility-level quality measure scores by facility stroke disease-specific certification status. RESULTS: Reported as percentages meeting or exceeding expectations, IRF quality measure scores ranged from 8.3% to 90.1% for mobility and 9.0% to 90.3% for self-care. IRF scores, when split in half to examine reliability, showed strong, positive correlations for the mobility (Pearson = 0.898, Spearman = 0.898, ICC = 0.898) and self-care (Pearson = 0.886, Spearman = 0.874, ICC = 0.886) scores. When stratified by provider volume, ICCs remained strong. Construct validity analyses showed IRFs with stroke disease-specific certification had higher mean and median scores than IRFs without certification, and a greater proportion of IRFs that were certified had higher scores. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our results support the reliability and construct validity of the IRF quality measures Discharge mobility and Discharge self-care scores. Reported as percentages meeting or exceeding expectations, these quality measures are designed to be more consumer-friendly compared to change scores.

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.

Validation of the Standardized Function Data Elements among Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility Residents.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the distribution of admission and discharge functional abilities among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a skilled nursing facility (SNF) stay. Further, to assess the validity of the standardized discharge self-care and mobility data by examining their association to community discharge. DESIGN: Observational study of SNF Medicare fee-for-service residents' self-care and mobility scores at admission and discharge. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries with Medicare Part A SNF stays in 2017 from 15,127 Medicare-certified SNFs. METHODS: We calculated self-care and mobility score frequencies and percentages at admission and discharge to describe the functional abilities of SNF residents; we examined discharge scores by percentage discharge to the community to evaluate item construct validity. RESULTS: Between admission and discharge, SNF resident scores showed overall improvements in function for all self-care and most mobility activities. For example, between admission and discharge the percentage of residents independent with toileting hygiene and sit to lying increased from 3.7% and 8.2%, to 25.3% and 32.7%, respectively. For all but 2 data elements, residents with lower functional abilities had a lower percentage of being discharged into the community, and the percentage of residents discharged into the community increased as residents performed functional activities of self-care and mobility at higher score ratings. There was a consistent monotonic relationship between residents' discharge self-care and mobility scores and community discharge rates for all but 2 data elements. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our study found measurable improvements for each self-care and mobility function item for SNF Medicare Part A resident stays in 2017. The results also demonstrated a positive association between higher discharge self-care and mobility scores and higher discharge to community rates. These findings support the validity of the data elements in measuring functional abilities among SNF Medicare Part A residents.

Change in Mobility Quality Measure for Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities: Exclusion Criteria and the Risk Adjustment Model.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the exclusion criteria and updated risk adjustment model developed for the Change in Mobility quality measure in the inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) quality reporting program. Facility-level quality measures focused on patient outcomes usually require risk adjustment to account for varied admission characteristics of patients across facilities. DESIGN: This cohort study analyzed admission demographic and clinical factors associated with mobility change scores using the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Patient Assessment Instrument (IRF-PAI) data for Medicare patients discharged from IRFs in calendar year 2017. SETTING: A total of 1129 IRFs in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 493,209 (N=493, 209) Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage IRF patient stays discharged in calendar year 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mobility change scores using admission and discharge standardized assessment data from the IRF-PAI. RESULTS: Approximately 53% of patients in the study were female, 67% were aged 65-84 years, and nearly 80% were White. In the final risk adjustment model, 105 covariates were included, explaining 20% of variance in mobility change scores. Key risk adjusters included IRF primary diagnosis group, prior indoor ambulation functioning, age older than 90 years, and 14 of the comorbidities. The model showed good calibration across the range of deciles of predicted IRF mobility change scores; the ratio of the average expected to observed change scores ranged from 0.93-1.03, with all but 1 within ±0.03. CONCLUSIONS: The updated risk adjustment model uses IRF patients' demographic and clinical characteristics to predict their mobility change scores. The exclusion criteria and resulting risk model are used to calculate the risk adjusted Change in Mobility quality measure scores, enabling comparisons of Change in Mobility scores across IRFs.

Change in Self-Care Quality Measure for Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities: Exclusion Criteria and Risk-Adjustment Model.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the exclusion criteria and risk-adjustment model developed for the quality measure Change in Self-Care. The exclusion criteria and risk adjustment model are used to calculate Change in Self-Care scores, allowing scores to be compared across inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). DESIGN: This national cohort study examined admission demographic and clinical factors associated with IRF patients' self-care change scores using standardized self-care data for Medicare patients discharged in calendar year 2017. SETTING: A total of 1129 IRFs in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 493,209 (N=493,209) Medicare Fee-for-Service and Medicare Advantage IRF patient stays INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-care change scores using admission and discharge standardized assessment data elements from the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility-Patient Assessment Instrument. RESULTS: Approximately 53% of patients were female, and 67% were between 65 and 84 years old. The final risk-adjustment model contained 93 clinically relevant risk adjusters and explained 23.1% of variance in self-care change scores. Risk adjusters that had the greatest effect on change scores and included IRF primary diagnosis group (ie, binary risk adjusters representing 13 diagnoses), prior self-care functioning, and age older than 90 years. When split by deciles of expected scores, the ratio of the average expected and observed change scores was within 2% of 1.0 across 8 groups and within 8% at the extremes, showing good predictive accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The risk adjustment model quantifies the relationship between IRF patients' demographic and clinical characteristics and their self-care score changes. The exclusion criteria and model are used to risk-adjust the IRF Change in Self-Care quality measure.

Standardized assessment of medication reconciliation in post-acute care.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation (MR) facilitates safety during transitions of care, which occur frequently across post-acute care (PAC) settings. Under the intent of the IMPACT Act of 2014, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services contracted with the RAND Corporation to develop and test standardized assessment data elements (SADEs) that assess the MR process. METHODS: We employed an iterative process that incorporated stakeholder input and three rounds of testing to identify, refine, and evaluate MR SADEs. Testing took place in 186 PAC sites (57 home health agencies, 28 inpatient rehabilitation facilities, 28 long-term care hospitals, and 73 skilled nursing facilities). There were 2951 patients in the final test. Novel MR SADEs, based on the Joint Commission's framework, were refined. The final SADEs assessed whether: patient was taking high-risk medications; an indication was noted for each medication class; discrepancies were identified; patient or family/caregiver was involved in addressing discrepancies; discrepancies were communicated to physician (or designee) within 24 h; recommended physician actions regarding discrepancies were implemented within 24 h after physician response; and the reconciled list was communicated to patient, prescriber, and/or pharmacy. Two assessors per facility collected data for each patient. Analyses described completion time, data missingness, and interrater reliability, as well as feedback on assessor burden. RESULTS: Time to complete the MR SADEs was 3.2 min. Missing data were <5%. Interrater reliability was moderate to high (κ: 0.42 [whether a reconciled list was communicated to prescribers] to 0.89 [identifying patients taking hypoglycemics]). For identifying high-risk medication classes, interrater reliability was high (κ: 0.72-0.89). There were minimal differences by setting. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first set of MR SADEs that have been assessed across the PAC settings. Results demonstrate feasibility, based on missing data and completion time, and moderate to strong reliability, based on interrater comparisons, of assessing MR.

Who receives post-acute care? Characteristics of national population and field test sample.

BACKGROUND: Each year millions of Medicare beneficiaries in the United States receive post-acute care (PAC) in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), and home health agencies (HHA). We describe, overall and by PAC setting, the national population of facilities and patients, evaluate the representativeness of a national field test sample, and describe patient characteristics in the national field test sample. METHODS: We analyzed the 2016 Provider of Service file, 2016 patient assessment data reported by PAC providers to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid, and data collected from PAC providers participating in a national field test. National data included 27,234 PAC settings and 5,033,820 beneficiaries receiving PAC. The national field test sample consisted of 143 facilities across 14 markets with 25-30 patients sampled from each facility (n = 3669). We describe PAC facility and patient characteristics for both the national and field test sample. RESULTS: Nationally, PAC facilities were more likely for-profit versus not for-profit, have an average nurse-to-bed ratio between 1:10 to 1:1 (lowest in SNFs) and be in metropolitan versus other areas. PAC patients were more likely to be white, female, and 75-89 years of age; heart failure as a primary medical condition tended to be more common than stroke or sepsis. There was limited variability across setting types. In the national field test, patients in LTCHs demonstrated a greater likelihood of cognitive impairment, positive depression screening, bowel and bladder appliance use, higher rates of medication drug classes taken, and use of therapeutic diets and IV medications. CONCLUSION: The national field test facility and patient samples were fairly representative of the national population overall and across settings with a few exceptions. Moreover, differences according to PAC setting on patient characteristics in the national field test aligned with general differences in patient populations.

Development and testing of a standardized pain interview assessment for use in post-acute care.

OBJECTIVES: Pain is highly prevalent among patients in post-acute care (PAC) settings and can affect quality of life, treatment outcomes, and transitions in care. Routine, accurate assessment of pain across settings is important for pain management and care planning; however, existing PAC assessment instruments do not assess patient pain in a standardized manner. METHODS: We developed and tested a set of pain interview data elements for use across PAC settings (skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, long term care hospitals, home health agencies) as part of a larger effort undertaken by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop standardized assessment data elements to meet the requirements of the IMPACT Act of 2014. The interview assessed six pain constructs: presence; frequency; interference with sleep; interference with rehabilitation therapies [if applicable]; interference with daily activities; worst pain; and pain relief from treatments/medications). A total of 3031 PAC patients at 143 PAC settings (across 14 U.S. geographic/metropolitan areas in 10 states) participated in a national field test of standardized data elements from November 2017 to August 2018. We assessed item response distributions, time to complete interviews, inter-assessor agreement, and, for a subset of patients, change in responses between admission and discharge assessments. We also conducted focus groups with nurse assessors about their experiences administering the items. RESULTS: For patients reporting any pain, average time to complete the pain interview was 3.1 min (SD = 1.3), and interrater reliability was excellent for all data elements (kappa range: 0.95-0.99). Findings were similar across types of PAC settings. Qualitative data from nurses emphasized ease of administration and high perceived clinical utility. CONCLUSION: Findings provide support for feasibility of implementing a standardized pain interview assessment in PAC settings. This tool can support tracking of patient needs across settings and interoperability of data in electronic medical records.

Standardized assessment of cognitive function of post-acute care patients.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of cognitive function in post-acute care (PAC) settings is important for understanding an individual's condition and care needs, developing better person-directed care plans, predicting resource needs and understanding case mix. Therefore, we tested the feasibility and reliability of cognitive function assessments, including the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), Confusion Assessment Method (CAM©), Expression and Understanding, and Behavioral Signs and Symptoms for patients in PAC under the intent of the IMPACT Act of 2014. METHODS: We conducted a national test of assessments of four standardized cognitive function data elements among patients in PAC. One hundred and forty-three PAC settings (57 home health agencies, 28 inpatient rehabilitation facilities, 28 long-term care hospitals, and 73 Skilled Nursing Facilities) across 14 U.S. markets from November 2017 to August 2018. At least one of four cognitive function data elements were assessed in 3026 patients. We assessed descriptive statistics, percent of missing data, time to complete, and interrater reliability between paired research nurse and facility staff assessors, and assessor feedback. RESULTS: The BIMS, CAM©, Expression and Understanding, and Behavioral Signs and Symptoms demonstrated low rates of missing data (less than 2%), high percent agreement, and substantial support from assessors. The prevalence of Behavioral Signs and Symptoms was low in our sample of PAC settings. CONCLUSION: Findings provide support for feasibility of implementing standardized assessment of all our cognitive function data elements for patients in PAC settings. The BIMS and CAM© were adopted into federal Quality Reporting Programs in the fiscal year/calendar year 2020 final rules. Future work could consider implementing additional cognitive items that assess areas not covered by the BIMS and CAM©.

Standardized assessment of cognitive function, mood, and pain among patients who are unable to communicate.

BACKGROUND: Assessments of patients have sought to increase the patient voice through direct patient interviews and performance-based testing. However, some patients in post-acute care (PAC) are unable to communicate and cannot participate in interviews or structured cognitive tests. Therefore, we tested the feasibility and reliability of observational assessments of cognitive function, mood, and pain for patients who are unable to communicate in PAC settings. METHODS: We conducted a national test of observational assessments of cognitive function, mood, and pain in 143 PAC facilities (57 home health agencies, 28 Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities, 28 Long-Term Care Hospitals, and 73 Skilled Nursing Facilities) across 14 U.S. markets from November 2017 to August 2018. For the 548 patients identified as unable to make themselves understood, we assessed descriptive statistics, percent of missing data, time to complete, and inter-rater reliability (IRR) between paired research nurse and facility staff assessors. RESULTS: Most sampled non-communicative patients were administered all three observational assessments. Among assessed patients, overall missing data was high for some items within the Staff Assessment for Mental Status (2.9% to 33.5%) and Staff Assessment of Patient Mood (12.4% to 44.3%), but not the Observational Assessment of Pain or Distress (0.0% to 4.4%). Average time to complete the data elements ranged from 2.4 to 3.5 min and IRR was good to excellent for all items (kappa range: 0.74-0.98). CONCLUSION: The three observational data elements had acceptable reliability. Although results revealed varying feasibility, there was support for feasibility overall in terms of implementing a standardized observational assessment of pain for patients in PAC settings. Additional work is needed for the Staff Assessment for Mental Status and the Staff Assessment of Patient Mood to improve the observable nature of these data elements and enhance instructions and training for standardizing the assessments.

Developing standardized patient assessment data elements for Medicare post-acute care assessments.

BACKGROUND: To support interoperability and care planning across provider types, the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (IMPACT Act) requires the submission of standardized patient assessment data using the assessment instruments provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS was tasked with developing standardized assessment data elements (SADEs) within clinical categories named in the IMPACT Act. METHOD: We used environmental scans, subject matter expert, and stakeholder input to identify candidate SADEs; tested candidate data elements in alpha testing; revised SADEs and training protocols based on alpha analyses and stakeholder feedback; tested SADEs across post-acute care (PAC) settings in a national field test that included 3121 patients across 143 home health agencies, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, long-term care hospitals, and skilled nursing facilities in 14 markets across the United States; and analyzed data and stakeholder input from national testing. Field testing measured the time required for assessment, percent completion, and inter-rater reliability. We analyzed qualitative feedback from stakeholder focus groups and technical expert panels. We also obtained survey and focus group feedback from data collectors. RESULTS: We developed a mixed-method, multi-stakeholder procedure to identify and gather input on SADE for cross-setting use. This process yielded feasible and reliable SADEs for PAC settings that assess pain, cognitive status, mood, and medication reconciliation. The success of this work depended on working iteratively with diverse stakeholders and providing qualitative as well as quantitative evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The procedures applied in this project for developing and adopting SADEs for PAC, as well as the challenges and strategies to overcome challenges, should be considered in future item and quality measure development.