Factors Affecting Post-trial Sustainment or De-implementation of Study Interventions: A Narrative Review.

In contrast to traditional randomized controlled trials, embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) are conducted within healthcare settings with real-world patient populations. ePCTs are intentionally designed to align with health system priorities leveraging existing healthcare system infrastructure and resources to ease intervention implementation and increase the likelihood that effective interventions translate into routine practice following the trial. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), supports the conduct of large-scale ePCT Demonstration Projects that address major public health issues within healthcare systems. The Collaboratory has a unique opportunity to draw on the Demonstration Project experiences to generate lessons learned related to ePCTs and the dissemination and implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs. In this article, we use case studies from six completed Demonstration Projects to summarize the Collaboratory's experience with post-trial interpretation of results, and implications for sustainment (or de-implementation) of tested interventions. We highlight three key lessons learned. First, ineffective interventions (i.e., ePCT is null for the primary outcome) may be sustained if they have other measured benefits (e.g., secondary outcome or subgroup) or even perceived benefits (e.g., staff like the intervention). Second, effective interventions-even those solicited by the health system and/or designed with significant health system partner buy-in-may not be sustained if they require significant resources. Third, alignment with policy incentives is essential for achieving sustainment and scale-up of effective interventions. Our experiences point to several recommendations to aid in considering post-trial sustainment or de-implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs: (1) include secondary outcome measures that are salient to health system partners; (2) collect all appropriate data to allow for post hoc analysis of subgroups; (3) collect experience data from clinicians and staff; (4) engage policy-makers before starting the trial.

Using Structured Observations to Evaluate the Effects of a Personalized Music Intervention on Agitated Behaviors and Mood in Nursing Home Residents With Dementia: Results From an Embedded, Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to determine if a personalized music intervention reduced the frequency of agitated behaviors as measured by structured observations of nursing home (NH) residents with dementia. DESIGN: The design was a parallel, cluster-randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: The setting was 54 NH (27 intervention, 27 control) from four geographically-diverse, multifacility NH corporations. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were 976 NH residents (483 intervention, 493 control) with Alzheimer's disease or related dementias (66% with moderate to severe symptoms); average age 80.3 years (SD: 12.3) and 25.1% were Black. INTERVENTION: The intervention was individuals' preferred music delivered via a personalized music device. MEASUREMENT: The measurement tool was the Agitated Behavior Mapping Instrument, which captures the frequency of 13 agitated behaviors and five mood states during 3-minute observations. RESULTS: The results show that no verbally agitated behaviors were reported in a higher proportion of observations among residents in NHs randomized to receive the intervention compared to similar residents in NHs randomized to usual care (marginal interaction effect (MIE): 0.061, 95% CI: 0.028-0.061). Residents in NHs randomized to receive the intervention were also more likely to be observed experiencing pleasure compared to residents in usual care NHs (MIE: 0.038; 95% CI: 0.008-0.073)). There was no significant effect of the intervention on physically agitated behaviors, anger, fear, alertness, or sadness. CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions are that personalized music may be effective at reducing verbally-agitated behaviors. Using structured observations to measure behaviors may avoid biases of staff-reported measures.

Comparative safety of tramadol and other opioids following total hip and knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Tramadol is increasingly used to treat acute postoperative pain among older adults following total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA). However, tramadol has a complex pharmacology and may be no safer than full opioid agonists. We compared the safety of tramadol, oxycodone, and hydrocodone among opioid-naïve older adults following elective THA/TKA. METHODS: This retrospective cohort included Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries ≥ 65 years with elective THA/TKA between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2015, 12 months of continuous Parts A and B enrollment, 6 months of continuous Part D enrollment, and no opioid use in the 6 months prior to THA/TKA. Participants initiated single-opioid therapy with tramadol, oxycodone, or hydrocodone within 7 days of discharge from THA/TKA hospitalization, regardless of concurrently administered nonopioid analgesics. Outcomes of interest included all-cause hospitalizations or emergency department visits (serious adverse events (SAEs)) and a composite of 10 surgical- and opioid-related SAEs within 90-days of THA/TKA. The intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) hazard ratios (HRs) for tramadol versus other opioids were estimated using inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighted pooled logistic regression models. RESULTS: The study population included 2,697 tramadol, 11,407 oxycodone, and 14,665 hydrocodone initiators. Compared to oxycodone, tramadol increased the rate of all-cause SAEs in ITT analyses only (ITT HR 1.19, 95%CLs, 1.02, 1.41; PP HR 1.05, 95%CLs, 0.86, 1.29). Rates of composite SAEs were not significant across comparisons. Compared to hydrocodone, tramadol increased the rate of all-cause SAEs in the ITT and PP analyses (ITT HR 1.40, 95%CLs, 1.10, 1.76; PP HR 1.34, 95%CLs, 1.03, 1.75), but rates of composite SAEs were not significant across comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative tramadol was associated with increased rates of all-cause SAEs, but not composite SAEs, compared to oxycodone and hydrocodone. Tramadol does not appear to have a superior safety profile and should not be preferentially prescribed to opioid-naïve older adults following THA/TKA.

Impact of skilled nursing facility quality on Medicare beneficiaries with dementia: Evidence from vacancies.

INTRODUCTION: People living with dementia are less likely to be admitted to high-rated nursing homes than people without dementia, despite their increased care needs. We investigated the effect of admission to nursing homes with higher staffing ratings on adverse outcomes for individuals with and without dementia post-hospitalization. METHODS: Among Traditional Medicare beneficiaries discharged to nursing homes between 2011 and 2017, we examined the relationship between facility staffing star-ratings and short-term readmission and mortality using an instrumental variables approach to account for selection bias. The instrumental variables were the number of nearby vacant beds in high-rated facilities. RESULTS: Admission to a higher-rated nursing home lowered post-discharge mortality risk at 90 days and reduced 30- and 90-day readmission. Point estimates were larger for people with dementia. DISCUSSION: Findings underscore the need for enhancing direct care staffing in nursing homes and addressing access disparities, particularly for individuals with dementia who benefit significantly from high-quality care. HIGHLIGHTS: We assessed how admission to nursing homes with higher staffing ratings impacted outcomes for individuals with and without dementia by exploiting variation in local bed vacancies as a source of quasi-random assignment. For both persons with and without dementia, adjusted short-term mortality and readmission rates were lower among those discharged to nursing homes with higher staffing ratings. Effects were larger for persons with dementia, indicating welfare loss from inequitable access to higher-rated nursing homes. Increasing staffing in nursing homes and reducing disparities for persons with dementia is essential for enhancing both equity and value.

Pragmatic Clinical Trials for Dementia Care: Experience from the First 5 Years of the IMPACT Collaboratory.

The IMPACT Collaboratory is a national infrastructure and resource dedicated to transforming dementia care in real-world environments for millions of Americans and their care partners, using embedded pragmatic clinical trials. This new approach of applied clinical research holds the promise of accelerating the science of dementia care, improving relevancy of interventions to real-world partners, promoting health equity, and closing the gaps between research, everyday clinical practice, and lived experiences of people living with dementia and their care partners.

Potentially More Out of Reach: Public Reporting Exacerbates Inequities in Home Health Access.

Policy Points Public reporting is associated with both mitigating and exacerbating inequities in high-quality home health agency use for marginalized groups. Ensuring equitable access to home health requires taking a closer look at potentially inequitable policies to ensure that these policies are not inadvertently exacerbating disparities as home health public reporting potentially does. Targeted federal, state, and local interventions should focus on raising awareness about the five-star quality ratings among marginalized populations for whom inequities have been exacerbated. CONTEXT: Literature suggests that public reporting of quality may have the unintended consequence of exacerbating disparities in access to high-quality, long-term care for older adults. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of the home health five-star ratings on changes in high-quality home health agency use by race, ethnicity, income status, and place-based factors. METHODS: We use data from the Outcome and Assessment Information Set, Medicare Enrollment Files, Care Compare, and American Community Survey to estimate differential access to high-quality home health agencies between July 2014 and June 2017. To estimate the impact of the home health five-star rating introduction on the use of high-quality home health agencies, we use a longitudinal observational pretest-posttest design. FINDINGS: After the introduction of the home health five-star ratings in 2016, we found that adjusted rates of high-quality home health agency use increased for all home health patients, except for Hispanic/Latine and Asian American/Pacific Islander patients. Additionally, we found that the disparity in high-quality home health agency use between low-income and higher-income home health patients was exacerbated after the introduction of the five-star quality ratings. We also observed that patients within predominantly Hispanic/Latine neighborhoods had a significant decrease in their use of high-quality home health agencies, whereas patients in predominantly White and integrated neighborhoods had a significant increase in high-quality home health agency use. Other neighborhoods experience a nonsignificant change in high-quality home health agency use. CONCLUSIONS: Policymakers should be aware of the potential unintended consequences for implementing home health public reporting, specifically for Hispanic/Latine, Asian American/Pacific Islander, and low-income home health patients, as well as patients residing in predominantly Hispanic/Latine neighborhoods. Targeted interventions should focus on raising awareness around the five-star ratings.

Assessing the representativeness of cluster randomized trials: Evidence from two large pragmatic trials in United States nursing homes.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: When the randomized clusters in a cluster randomized trial are selected based on characteristics that influence treatment effectiveness, results from the trial may not be directly applicable to the target population. We used data from two large nursing home-based pragmatic cluster randomized trials to compare nursing home and resident characteristics in randomized facilities to eligible non-randomized and ineligible facilities. METHODS: We linked data from the high-dose influenza vaccine trial and the Music & Memory Pragmatic TRIal for Nursing Home Residents with ALzheimer's Disease (METRICaL) to nursing home assessments and Medicare fee-for-service claims. The target population for the high-dose trial comprised Medicare-certified nursing homes; the target population for the METRICaL trial comprised nursing homes in one of four US-based nursing home chains. We used standardized mean differences to compare facility and individual characteristics across the three groups and logistic regression to model the probability of nursing home trial participation. RESULTS: In the high-dose trial, 4476 (29%) of the 15,502 nursing homes in the target population were eligible for the trial, of which 818 (18%) were randomized. Of the 1,361,122 residents, 91,179 (6.7%) were residents of randomized facilities, 463,703 (34.0%) of eligible non-randomized facilities, and 806,205 (59.3%) of ineligible facilities. In the METRICaL trial, 160 (59%) of the 270 nursing homes in the target population were eligible for the trial, of which 80 (50%) were randomized. Of the 20,262 residents, 973 (34.4%) were residents of randomized facilities, 7431 (36.7%) of eligible non-randomized facilities, and 5858 (28.9%) of ineligible facilities. In the high-dose trial, randomized facilities differed from eligible non-randomized and ineligible facilities by the number of beds (132.5 vs 145.9 and 91.9, respectively), for-profit status (91.8% vs 66.8% and 68.8%), belonging to a nursing home chain (85.8% vs 49.9% and 54.7%), and presence of a special care unit (19.8% vs 25.9% and 14.4%). In the METRICaL trial randomized facilities differed from eligible non-randomized and ineligible facilities by the number of beds (103.7 vs 110.5 and 67.0), resource-poor status (4.6% vs 10.0% and 18.8%), and presence of a special care unit (26.3% vs 33.8% and 10.9%). In both trials, the characteristics of residents in randomized facilities were similar across the three groups. CONCLUSION: In both trials, facility-level characteristics of randomized nursing homes differed considerably from those of eligible non-randomized and ineligible facilities, while there was little difference in resident-level characteristics across the three groups. Investigators should assess the characteristics of clusters that participate in cluster randomized trials, not just the individuals within the clusters, when examining the applicability of trial results beyond participating clusters.

Unmet Needs and Associated Factors among Community-living Older People with Disability in China: 2005-2014.

Based on the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey from 2005 to 2014, this study estimated the prevalence and examined risk factors of under-met needs and completely unmet needs for assistance in activities of daily living (ADLs) among community-living older people with disability in China. As of 2014, over 50% of community-living Chinese elders with disability experienced under-met needs, and nearly 5% had completely unmet needs. From 2005 to 2014, the proportion with completely unmet needs doubled for all disabled elders. Significant risk factors of under-met needs included lower per capita annual household income, more ADL limitations, living alone, and fewer living children, and those of completely unmet needs included less ADL limitations and living alone. More policy attention should be paid to address the gap between long-term care services for older persons with severe disability and supportive services for those who are relatively healthy, toward ultimately establishing a care continuum for the elderly at all stages of their life course. In addition, family care for elders with severe functional impairments should be supplemented by professional long-term care services to best meet their needs.

Effectiveness of a Second COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose Against Infection, Hospitalization, or Death Among Nursing Home Residents - 19 States, March 29-July 25, 2022.

Nursing home residents continue to experience significant COVID-19 morbidity and mortality (1). On March 29, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose for adults aged ≥50 years and all immunocompromised persons who had received a first booster ≥4 months earlier.* On September 1, 2022, ACIP voted to recommend bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine boosters for all persons aged ≥12 years who had completed the primary series using monovalent vaccines ≥2 months earlier (2). Data on COVID-19 booster dose vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the nursing home population are limited (3). For this analysis, academic, federal, and private partners evaluated routine care data collected from 196 U.S. community nursing homes to estimate VE of a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose among nursing home residents who had received 3 previous COVID-19 vaccine doses (2 primary series doses and 1 booster dose). Residents who received second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster doses during March 29-June 15, 2022, with follow-up through July 25, 2022, were found to have 60-day VE of 25.8% against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19 infection), 73.9% against severe COVID-19 outcomes (a combined endpoint of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations or deaths), and 89.6% against COVID-19-associated deaths alone. During this period, subvariants BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 (March-June 2022), and BA.4 and BA.5 (July 2022) of the B.1.1.529 and BA.2 (Omicron) variant were predominant. These findings suggest that among nursing home residents, second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster doses provided additional protection over first booster doses against severe COVID-19 outcomes during a time of emerging Omicron variants. Facilities should continue to ensure that nursing home residents remain up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including bivalent vaccine booster doses, to prevent severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Effect of advance care planning video on do-not-hospitalize orders for nursing home residents with advanced illness.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effect of an Advance Care Planning (ACP) Video Program on documented Do-Not-Hospitalize (DNH) orders among nursing home (NH) residents with advanced illness. METHODS: Secondary analysis on a subset of NHs enrolled in a cluster-randomized controlled trial (41 NHs in treatment arm implemented the ACP Video Program: 69 NHs in control arm employed usual ACP practices). Participants included long (> 100 days) and short (≤ 100 days) stay residents with advanced illness (advanced dementia or cardiopulmonary disease (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or congestive heart failure)) in NHs from March 1, 2016 to May 31, 2018 without a documented Do-Not-Hospitalize (DNH) order at baseline. Logistic regression with covariate adjustments was used to estimate the impact of the resident being in a treatment versus control NH on: the proportion of residents with new DNH orders during follow-up; and the proportion of residents with any hospitalization during follow-up. Clustering at the facility-level was addressed using hierarchical models. RESULTS: The cohort included 6,117 residents with advanced illness (mean age (SD) = 82.8 (8.4) years, 65% female). Among long-stay residents (n = 3,902), 9.3% (SE, 2.2; 95% CI 5.0-13.6) and 4.2% (SE, 1.1; 95% CI 2.1-6.3) acquired a new DNH order in the treatment and control arms, respectively (average marginal effect, (AME) 5.0; SE, 2.4; 95% CI, 0.3-9.8). Among short-stay residents with advanced illness (n = 2,215), 8.0% (SE, 1.6; 95% CI 4.6-11.3) and 3.5% (SE 1.0; 95% CI 1.5-5.5) acquired a new DNH order in the treatment and control arms, respectively (AME 4.4; SE, 2.0; 95% CI, 0.5-8.3). Proportion of residents with any hospitalizations did not differ between arms in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, an ACP Video Program intervention increased documented DNH orders among NH residents with advanced disease but did not significantly reduce hospitalizations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02612688 .

Pragmatic trials in long-term care: Challenges, opportunities, recommendations.

Randomized controlled trials are considered the most rigorous research design in efficacy and effectiveness research; however, such trials present numerous challenges that limit their applicability in real-world settings. As a consequence, pragmatic trials are increasingly viewed as a research design that overcomes some of these barriers with the potential to produce data that are more reproducible. Although pragmatic methodology in long-term care is receiving increasing attention as an approach to improve successful dissemination and implementation, pragmatic trials present complexities of their own. To address these complexities and related issues, experts with experience conducting pragmatic trials, developing nursing home policy, participating in advocacy efforts, and providing clinical care in long-term care settings participated in a virtual consensus conference funded by the National Institute on Aging in Spring 2021. Participants recommended 4 cross-cutting principles key to dissemination and implementation of pragmatic trial interventions: (1) engage stakeholders, (2) ensure diversity and inclusion, (3) assess organizational strain and readiness, and (4) learn from adaptations. Specifically related to implementation, participants provided 2 recommendations: (1) integrate interventions into existing workflows and (2) maintain agility and responsiveness. Finally, participants had 3 recommendations specific to dissemination: (1) package the message for the audience, (2) engage diverse audiences, and (3) apply dissemination and diffusion tools. Participants emphasized that implementation processes must be grounded in the perspectives of the people who will ultimately be responsible for implementing the intervention once it is proven to be effective. In addition, messaging must speak to long-term care staff and all others who have a stake in its outcomes. Although our understanding of dissemination and implementation strategies remains underdeveloped, this article is designed to guide long-term care researchers and community providers who are increasingly aware of the need for pragmatism in disseminating and implementing evidence-based care interventions.

Influencing Factors Associated with Implementation of INTERACT (Interventions to Reduce Acute Care Transfers) in VA Community Living Centers (CLCs) Using the Consolidated Framework.

Our objective was to identify the influencing factors associated with the implementation of the INTERACT (Interventions to Reduce Acute Care Transfers) Quality Improvement program within a national healthcare system. INTERACT focuses on early identification and management of changes in residents' condition leading to a reduction in potentially preventable hospital transfers. The Consolidated Framework was used to evaluate implementation data from eight VA Community Living Centers. Qualitative implementation data suggest two influencing Consolidated Framework domains had a strong influence: 1) key attributes of the intervention (e.g., adaptability or complexity) and 2) internal organizational factors (e.g., culture or compatibility). Using the Consolidated Framework can assist future adaptations to this and other complex quality improvement initiatives.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in 30-Day Mortality for Heart Failure and Pneumonia in the Veterans Health Administration Using Claims-based, Clinical, and Social Risk-adjustment Variables.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have identified lower mortality in Black Veterans compared with White Veterans after hospitalization for common medical conditions, but these studies adjusted for comorbid conditions identified in administrative claims. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to compare mortality for non-Hispanic White (hereafter, "White"), non-Hispanic Black (hereafter, "Black"), and Hispanic Veterans hospitalized for heart failure (HF) and pneumonia and determine whether observed mortality differences varied according to whether claims-based comorbid conditions and/or clinical variables were included in risk-adjustment models. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was an observational study. SUBJECTS: The study cohort included 143,520 admissions for HF and 127,782 admissions for pneumonia for Veterans hospitalized in 132 Veterans Health Administration (VA) Medical Centers between January 2009 and September 2015. MEASURES: The primary independent variable was racial/ethnic group (ie, Black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White), and the outcome was all-cause mortality 30 days following admission. To compare mortality by race/ethnicity, we used logistic regression models that included different combinations of claims-based, clinical, and sociodemographic variables. For each model, we estimated the average marginal effect (AME) for Black and Hispanic Veterans relative to White Veterans. RESULTS: Among the 143,520 (127,782) hospitalizations for HF (pneumonia), the average patient age was 71.6 (70.9) years and 98.4% (97.1%) were male. The unadjusted 30-day mortality rates for HF (pneumonia) were 7.2% (11.0%) for White, 4.1% (10.4%) for Black and 8.4% (16.9%) for Hispanic Veterans. Relative to White Veterans, when only claims-based variables were used for risk adjustment, the AME (95% confidence interval) for the HF [pneumonia] cohort was -2.17 (-2.45, -1.89) [0.08 (-0.41, 0.58)] for Black Veterans and 1.32 (0.49, 2.15) [4.51 (3.65, 5.38)] for Hispanic Veterans. When clinical variables were incorporated in addition to claims-based ones, the AME, relative to White Veterans, for the HF [pneumonia] cohort was -1.57 (-1.88, -1.27) [-0.83 (-1.31, -0.36)] for Black Veterans and 1.50 (0.71, 2.30) [3.30 (2.49, 4.11)] for Hispanic Veterans. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with White Veterans, Black Veterans had lower mortality, and Hispanic Veterans had higher mortality for HF and pneumonia. The inclusion of clinical variables into risk-adjustment models impacted the magnitude of racial/ethnic differences in mortality following hospitalization. Future studies examining racial/ethnic disparities should consider including clinical variables for risk adjustment.

The Relationship Between Medicare Advantage Star Ratings and Enrollee Experience.

BACKGROUND: Medicare Advantage plans, private managed care plans that enrolled 34% of Medicare beneficiaries in 2019, received $6 billion in annual bonus payments on the basis of their performance on a 5-star rating system. Little is known, however, as to the extent these ratings adequately capture enrollee experience. OBJECTIVES: To measure the effect of exposure to higher rated Medicare Advantage contracts on enrollee experience. DESIGN: An instrumental variables analysis using MA contract consolidation as an exogenous shock to the quality of plan enrollees are exposed to. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 345,897 MA enrollees enrolled in non-consolidated contracts and 21,405 enrollees who were consolidated. MAIN MEASURES: The primary exposure was enrollee star rating, instrumented using contract consolidation. The primary outcomes were enrollee self-reported experience measures. KEY RESULTS: There were no significant effects on increased star ratings on 23 of 27 outcomes. A one-star increase in contract star rating leads to a 5.4 percentage point increase in reporting that pain does not interfere with daily activities (95%CI 2.4, 8.4), and a 4.4 percentage reduction in the likelihood that a physician would talk to the enrollee about physical activity (95%CI: -7.8, -1.1, all p<0.05). A one-star increase in contract star rating led to an 8.4 percentage point reduction in achieving the top score on the received needed information index (95%CI: -16.4, -0.4), and a 1.8 percentage point reduction in responding with the lowest score for the overall rating of care (95%CI: -3.5, -0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to a higher rated MA contract did not appreciably increase enrollee experience. Policymakers should consider reassessing how these ratings and associated bonus payments are currently calculated.

Poor clinical outcomes associated with suboptimal antibiotic treatment among older long-term care facility residents with urinary tract infection: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic use is associated with several antibiotic-related harms in vulnerable, older long-term care (LTC) residents. Suboptimal antibiotic use may also be associated with harms but has not yet been investigated. The aim of this work was to compare rates of poor clinical outcomes among LTC residents with UTI receiving suboptimal versus optimal antibiotic treatment. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among residents with an incident urinary tract infection (UTI) treated in Veterans Affairs LTC units (2013-2018). Potentially suboptimal antibiotic treatment was defined as use of a suboptimal initial antibiotic drug choice, dose frequency, and/or excessive treatment duration. The primary outcome was time to a composite measure of poor clinical outcome, defined as UTI recurrence, acute care hospitalization/emergency department visit, adverse drug event, Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), or death within 30 days of antibiotic discontinuation. Shared frailty Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to compare the time-to-event between suboptimal and optimal treatment. RESULTS: Among 19,701 LTC residents with an incident UTI, 64.6% received potentially suboptimal antibiotic treatment and 35.4% experienced a poor clinical outcome. In adjusted analyses, potentially suboptimal antibiotic treatment was associated with a small increased hazard of poor clinical outcome (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11) as compared with optimal treatment, driven by an increased hazard of CDI (aHR 1.94, 95% CI 1.54-2.44). CONCLUSION: In this national cohort study, suboptimal antibiotic treatment was associated with a 6% increased risk of the composite measure of poor clinical outcomes, in particular, a 94% increased risk of CDI. Beyond the decision to use antibiotics, clinicians should also consider the potential harms of suboptimal treatment choices with regards to drug type, dose frequency, and duration used.

Readmission Reduction Strategies for Patients Discharged to Skilled Nursing Facilities: A Case Study From 2 Hospital Systems in 1 City.

BACKGROUND: Some hospitals seek integration with skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) to reduce readmissions while others focus more on patients discharged home. PURPOSE: Our objective was to understand different approaches for readmission reduction for patients discharged to SNFs based on contrasting strategies from 2 competing hospital systems. METHODS: Employing a case study methodology, we compared 1 hospital system that integrated with SNFs to a competing system that did not. We compared interview data from clinical and administrative staff and publicly reported rehospitalization rate changes from the 2 systems. RESULTS: Analysis of integrating hospital system interviews noted providing patients detailed discharge information and educating SNF staff regarding care protocols. Integrated hospital system all-cause readmission rates declined by nearly 1 percentage point more than the nonintegrated hospital system (coefficient, -0.008; 95% confidence interval, -0.003 to -0.012) between 2014 and 2017. CONCLUSION: As hospitals explore care transition improvements to SNFs, developing more embedded relationships highlights one approach to improve value.

Geographic Variation in Pneumonia and Influenza in Long-Term Care Facilities: A National Study.

There is large county-level geographic variation in pneumonia and influenza hospitalizations among short-stay and long-stay long-term care facility residents in the United States. Long-term care facilities in counties in the Southern and Midwestern regions had the highest rates of pneumonia and influenza from 2013 to 2015. Future research should identify reasons for these geographic differences.

Real-world use and survival outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors in older adults with non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding the characteristics and survival outcomes of older adults with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who receive immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine oncology practice. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, we identified 1256 patients aged ≥65 years who were diagnosed with pathologically confirmed stage I to stage IV NSCLC between 2002 and 2015 and initiated nivolumab or pembrolizumab in 2016. We examined patient characteristics and overall survival from the time of immune checkpoint inhibitor initiation through December 31, 2017. RESULTS: The median patient age at the time of immune checkpoint inhibitor initiatiton was 75.3 years (interquartile range, 8.5). A substantial percentage of patients were initially diagnosed with stage IV disease (42.6%) and had ≥2 comorbid conditions (48.7%). Using a claims-based proxy, 11.5% of patients had poor performance status and 12.6% had a history of autoimmune conditions. The median overall survival after initiation of immune checkpoint inhibitor was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.5-10.5 months). The 1-year survival rate was 43.0% (95% CI, 40.2-45.7%). In multivariable analyses, multiple comorbid conditions, squamous histology, a history of nonplatinum doublet systemic therapy, recent radiotherapy, and a shorter time from initial diagnosis to treatment initiation were found to be statistically significantly associated with an increased hazard of death. Demographics, poor performance status, and prior autoimmune conditions were not significantly associated with the hazard of death. CONCLUSIONS: Many older adults with NSCLC who initiated immune checkpoint inhibitors had multiple comorbidities, a history of autoimmune disease, or poor performance status. Factors associated with poor prognosis among patients with advanced NSCLC were also associated with worse survival in older adults treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Willingness to Undergo a Risky Treatment to Improve Cognition Among Persons With Cognitive Impairment Who Received an Amyloid PET Scan.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate determinants of willingness to accept a treatment to return memory to normal among persons with cognitive impairment who received an amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) scan and their care partner and discordance in risk taking. METHODS: Using data from CARE-IDEAS (n=1872 dyads), a supplement of the Imaging Dementia-Evidence for Amyloid Scanning study, we predicted scan recipient's willingness to accept a risky treatment, the risk care partners believed their care recipient would accept, and discordance in these perceptions. RESULTS: Scan recipients were willing to accept a treatment with a 27.94% (SD=34.36) risk of death. Care partners believed their care recipient would accept a 29.68% (SD=33.74) risk of death; thus, overestimating risk acceptance by 1.74 (SD=41.88) percentage points. A positive amyloid PET scan was associated with willingness to accept greater risk. Poorer functioning of the care recipient was associated with care partners believing their care recipient would accept more risk. The amyloid PET scan result was not significantly associated with discordance, but poorer functioning of the care recipient resulted in care partners overestimating risk. CONCLUSIONS: Scan recipients were willing to accept a treatment with a high risk of death. Discordance was affected by scan recipient's having poorer functioning.

Hospital Readmission Rates in Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare: A Retrospective Population-Based Analysis.

Background: Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program reports risk-standardized readmission rates for traditional Medicare but not Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Objective: To compare readmission rates between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Design: Retrospective cohort study linking the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file with the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS). Setting: 4748 U.S. acute care hospitals. Patients: Patients aged 65 years or older hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (n = 841 613), congestive heart failure (CHF) (n = 1 458 652), or pneumonia (n = 2 020 365) between 2011 and 2014. Measurements: 30-day readmissions. Results: Among admissions for AMI, CHF, and pneumonia identified in MedPAR, 29.2%, 38.0%, and 37.2%, respectively, did not have a corresponding record in HEDIS. Of these, 18.9% for AMI, 23.7% for CHF, and 18.3% for pneumonia resulted in a readmission that was identified in MedPAR. However, among index admissions appearing in HEDIS, 14.4% for AMI, 18.4% for CHF, and 13.9% for pneumonia resulted in a readmission. Patients in Medicare Advantage had lower unadjusted readmission rates than those in traditional Medicare for all 3 conditions (16.6% vs. 17.1% for AMI, 21.4% vs. 21.7% for CHF, and 16.3% vs. 16.4% for pneumonia). However, after standardization, patients in Medicare Advantage had higher readmission rates than patients in traditional Medicare for AMI (17.2% vs. 16.9%; difference, 0.3 percentage point [95% CI, 0.1 to 0.5 percentage point]), CHF (21.7% vs. 21.4%; difference, 0.3 percentage point [CI, 0.2 to 0.5 percentage point]), and pneumonia (16.5% vs. 16.0%; difference, 0.5 percentage point [95% CI, 0.4 to 0.6 percentage point]). Rate differences increased between 2011 and 2014. Limitation: Potential unobserved differences between populations. Conclusion: The HEDIS data underreported hospital admissions for 3 common medical conditions, and readmission rates were higher among patients with underreported admissions. Medicare Advantage beneficiaries had higher risk-adjusted 30-day readmission rates than traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Aging.