The pandemic of viral infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 that causes COVID‐19 disease has put the nursing home industry in crisis. The combination of a vulnerable ...population that manifests nonspecific and atypical presentations of COVID‐19, staffing shortages due to viral infection, inadequate resources for and availability of rapid, accurate testing and personal protective equipment, and lack of effective treatments for COVID‐19 among nursing home residents have created a “perfect storm” in our countryʼs nursing homes. This perfect storm will continue as society begins to reopen, resulting in more infections among nursing home staff and clinicians who acquire the virus outside of work, remain asymptomatic, and unknowingly perpetuate the spread of the virus in their workplaces. Because of the elements of the perfect storm, nursing homes are like a tinderbox, and it only takes one person to start a fire that could cause many deaths in a single facility. Several public health interventions and health policy strategies, adequate resources, and focused clinical quality improvement initiatives can help calm the storm. The saddest part of this perfect storm is that many years of inaction on the part of policy makers contributed to its impact. We now have an opportunity to improve nursing homes to protect residents and their caregivers ahead of the next storm. It is time to reimagine how we pay for and regulate nursing home care to achieve this goal. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:2153–2162, 2020.
This Special Article comments on the article by White et al. in this issue.
Margaret McGregor and colleagues consider Bradford Hill's framework for examining causation in observational research for the association between nursing home care quality and for-profit ownership.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
AbstractObjectivesTo determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a multifactorial fall prevention programme compared with usual care in long term care homes.DesignMulticentre, parallel, cluster ...randomised controlled trial.SettingLong term care homes in the UK, registered to care for older people or those with dementia.Participants1657 consenting residents and 84 care homes. 39 were randomised to the intervention group and 45 were randomised to usual care.InterventionsGuide to Action for Care Homes (GtACH): a multifactorial fall prevention programme or usual care.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome measure was fall rate at 91-180 days after randomisation. The economic evaluation measured health related quality of life using quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the five domain five level version of the EuroQoL index (EQ-5D-5L) or proxy version (EQ-5D-5L-P) and the Dementia Quality of Life utility measure (DEMQOL-U), which were self-completed by competent residents and by a care home staff member proxy (DEMQOL-P-U) for all residents (in case the ability to complete changed during the study) until 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcome measures were falls at 1-90, 181-270, and 271-360 days after randomisation, Barthel index score, and the Physical Activity Measure-Residential Care Homes (PAM-RC) score at 91, 180, 270, and 360 days after randomisation.ResultsMean age of residents was 85 years. 32% were men. GtACH training was delivered to 1051/1480 staff (71%). Primary outcome data were available for 630 participants in the GtACH group and 712 in the usual care group. The unadjusted incidence rate ratio for falls between 91 and 180 days was 0.57 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.71, P<0.001) in favour of the GtACH programme (GtACH: six falls/1000 residents v usual care: 10 falls/1000). Barthel activities of daily living indices and PAM-RC scores were similar between groups at all time points. The incremental cost was £108 (95% confidence interval −£271.06 to 487.58), incremental QALYs gained for EQ-5D-5L-P was 0.024 (95% confidence interval 0.004 to 0.044) and for DEMQOL-P-U was 0.005 (−0.019 to 0.03). The incremental costs per EQ-5D-5L-P and DEMQOL-P-U based QALY were £4544 and £20 889, respectively.ConclusionsThe GtACH programme was associated with a reduction in fall rate and cost effectiveness, without a decrease in activity or increase in dependency.Trial registrationISRCTN34353836.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected care home residents internationally, with 19–72% of COVID-19 deaths occurring in care homes. COVID-19 presents atypically in care home ...residents and up to 56% of residents may test positive whilst pre-symptomatic. In this article, we provide a commentary on challenges and dilemmas identified in the response to COVID-19 for care homes and their residents. We highlight the low sensitivity of polymerase chain reaction testing and the difficulties this poses for blanket screening and isolation of residents. We discuss quarantine of residents and the potential harms associated with this. Personal protective equipment supply for care homes during the pandemic has been suboptimal and we suggest that better integration of procurement and supply is required. Advance care planning has been challenged by the pandemic and there is a need to for healthcare staff to provide support to care homes with this. Finally, we discuss measures to implement augmented care in care homes, including treatment with oxygen and subcutaneous fluids, and the frameworks which will be required if these are to be sustainable. All of these challenges must be met by healthcare, social care and government agencies if care home residents and staff are to be physically and psychologically supported during this time of crisis for care homes.
COVID-19 in nursing homes Fallon, A; Dukelow, T; Kennelly, S P ...
QJM : An International Journal of Medicine,
06/2020, Letnik:
113, Številka:
6
Journal Article
Objective: To compare the outcomes and costs of clustered domestic and standard Australian models of residential aged care.
Design: Cross‐sectional retrospective analysis of linked health service ...data, January 2015 – February 2016.
Setting: 17 aged care facilities in four Australian states providing clustered (four) or standard Australian (13) models of residential aged care.
Participants: People with or without cognitive impairment residing in a residential aged care facility (RACF) for at least 12 months, not in palliative care, with a family member willing to participate on their behalf if required. 901 residents were eligible; 541 consented to participation (24% self‐consent, 76% proxy consent).
Main outcome measures: Quality of life (measured with EQ‐5D‐5L); medical service use; health and residential care costs.
Results: After adjusting for patient‐ and facility‐level factors, individuals residing in clustered models of care had better quality of life (adjusted mean EQ‐5D‐5L score difference, 0.107; 95% CI, 0.028–0.186; P = 0.008), lower hospitalisation rates (adjusted rate ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13–0.79; P = 0.010), and lower emergency department presentation rates (adjusted rate ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14–0.53; P < 0.001) than residents of standard care facilities. Unadjusted facility running costs were similar for the two models, but, after adjusting for resident‐ and facility‐related factors, it was estimated that overall there is a saving of $12 962 (2016 values; 95% CI, $11 092–14 831) per person per year in residential care costs.
Conclusions: Clustered domestic models of residential care are associated with better quality of life and fewer hospitalisations for residents, without increasing whole of system costs.
There has been a radical transformation in the provision of adult residential and nursing home care in England over the past four decades. Up to the 1980s, over 80% of adult residential care was ...provided by the public sector, but today public sector facilities account for only 8% of the available places, with the rest being provided by a mixture of for-profit firms (74%) and non-profit charities (18%). The public sector's role is often now that of purchaser (paying the fees of people unable to afford them) and regulator. While the idea that private companies may play a bigger role in the future provision of health care is highly contentious in the UK, the transformation of the residential and nursing home care has attracted little comment. Concerns about the quality of care do emerge from time to time, often stimulated by high profile media investigations, scandals or criminal prosecutions, but there is little or no evidence about whether or not the transformation of the sector from largely public to private provision has had a beneficial effect on those who need the service. This study asks whether there are differences in the quality of care provided by public, non-profit or for-profit facilities in England. We use data on care quality for over 15,000 homes that are provided by the industry regulator in England: the Care Quality Commission (CQC). These data are the results of inspections carried out between April 2011 and October 2015. Controlling for a range of facility characteristics such as age and size, proportional odds logistic regression showed that for-profit facilities have lower CQC quality ratings than public and non-profit providers over a range of measures, including safety, effectiveness, respect, meeting needs and leadership. We discuss the implications of these results for the ongoing debates about the role of for-profit providers of health and social care.
•Study of quality of care homes for adults in England.•Care is delivered by public, not-for-profit and for-profit providers.•Quality of care is significantly lower among for-profit providers.•Non-profit providers have the highest quality.•Differences in quality are relatively small, so regulation may be effective.
Abstract
Objectives
As the U.S. population ages, the prevalence of disability and functional limitations, and demand for long-term services and supports (LTSS), will increase. This study identified ...the distribution of older adults across different residential settings, and how their health characteristics have changed over time.
Methods
A cross-sectional analysis of older adults residing in traditional housing, community-based residential facilities (CBRFs), and nursing facilities using 3 data sources: the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS), 2008 and 2013; the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), 2008 and 2014; and the National Health and Aging Trends Study, 2011 and 2015. We calculated the age-standardized prevalence of older adults by setting, functional limitations, and comorbidities and tested for health characteristics changes relative to the baseline year (2002).
Results
The proportion of older adults in traditional housing increased over time, relative to baseline (p < .05), while the proportion of older adults in CBRFs was unchanged. The proportion of nursing facility residents declined from 2002 to 2013 in the MCBS (p < .05). The prevalence of dementia and functional limitations among traditional housing residents increased, relative to the baseline year in the HRS and MCBS (p < .05).
Discussion
The proportion of older adults residing in traditional housing is increasing, while the nursing facility population is decreasing. This change may not be due to better health; rather, older adults may be relying on noninstitutional LTSS.
Abstract The association between nursing home (NH) characteristics and residents’ quality of life (QOL) has not been systematically reviewed. This study synthesizes published evidence about the ...association between NH ownership, affiliation, location, chain membership, percentage of private rooms, facility size, and staffing with residents’ QOL. We searched Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scirus for primary studies published between 1960 and March 31, 2012. We critically appraised risk of bias according to study design, QOL measurements, and adjustment for residents’ characteristics. We analyzed the statistical and clinical significance, direction and magnitude of the association. From 1117 citations retrieved, we found one longitudinal quasi-experimental and 10 cross-sectional eligible studies. Variability in the NH characteristics reported and QOL measurements precluded meta-analysis. Studies with low and medium risk of bias (ROB) suggested that nonprofit NHs resulted in better QOL for residents. The low ROB study indicated that in certain QOL domains, rural facilities and facilities with a higher percentage of private rooms were associated with better self-reported resident QOL. All low and medium ROB studies found that RN, LVN/LPN and total nursing staff had no significant relationship with QOL. One longitudinal quasi-experimental study indicated that the Green House with individualized care had better QOL than conventional NHs. The available evidence does not permit strong conclusions about the association between NH characteristics and residents’ QOL. The evidence does, however, raise questions about whether NH structure alone can improve residents’ QOL and how residents’ QOL should be measured and improved.
PDF
