SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses to the Ancestral SARS-CoV-2 Strain and Omicron BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 Variants in Nursing Home Residents After Receipt of Bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine - Ohio and Rhode Island, September-November 2022.

Introduction of monovalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in late 2020 helped to mitigate disproportionate COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in U.S. nursing homes (1); however, reduced effectiveness of monovalent vaccines during the period of Omicron variant predominance led to recommendations for booster doses with bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that include an Omicron BA.4/BA.5 spike protein component to broaden immune response and improve vaccine effectiveness against circulating Omicron variants (2). Recent studies suggest that bivalent booster doses provide substantial additional protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19-associated disease among immunocompetent adults who previously received only monovalent vaccines (3).* The immunologic response after receipt of bivalent boosters among nursing home residents, who often mount poor immunologic responses to vaccines, remains unknown. Serial testing of anti-spike protein antibody binding and neutralizing antibody titers in serum collected from 233 long-stay nursing home residents from the time of their primary vaccination series and including any subsequent booster doses, including the bivalent vaccine, was performed. The bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine substantially increased anti-spike and neutralizing antibody titers against Omicron sublineages, including BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5, irrespective of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or previous receipt of 1 or 2 booster doses. These data, in combination with evidence of low uptake of bivalent booster vaccination among residents and staff members in nursing homes (4), support the recommendation that nursing home residents and staff members receive a bivalent COVID-19 booster dose to reduce associated morbidity and mortality (2).

Spillover effect of the Patient Drive Payment Model on skilled nursing facility therapy delivery among Medicare Advantage enrollees.

In a multi-payer health care system, economic theory suggests that different payers can impose spillover effects on one another. This study aimed to evaluate the spillover effect of the Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM) on Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees, despite it being designed for Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries. We applied a regression discontinuity approach by comparing therapy utilization before and after the implementation of PDPM in October 2019 focusing on patients newly admitted to skilled nursing facilities. The results showed that both TM and MA enrollees experienced a decrease in individual therapy minutes and an increase in non-individual therapy minutes. The estimated reduction in total therapy use was 9 min per day for TM enrollees and 3 min per day for MA enrollees. The effect of PDPM on MA beneficiaries varied depending on the level of MA penetration, with the smallest effect in facilities with the highest MA penetration quartile. In summary, the PDPM had directionally similar effects on therapy utilization for both TM and MA enrollees, but the magnitudes were smaller for MA beneficiaries. These results suggest that policy changes intended for TM beneficiaries may spillover to MA enrollees and should be assessed accordingly.

Advanced practice clinician care and end-of-life outcomes for community- and nursing home-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with dementia.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) often face burdensome end-of-life care transfers. Advanced practice clinicians (APCs)-which include nurse practitioners and physician assistants-increasingly provide primary care to this population. To fill current gaps in the literature, we measured the association between APC involvement in end-of-life care versus hospice utilization and hospitalization for older adults with ADRD. METHODS: Using Medicare data, we identified nursing home- (N=517,490) and community-dwelling (N=322,461) beneficiaries with ADRD who died between 2016 and 2018. We employed propensity score-weighted regression methods to examine the association between different levels of APC care during their final 9 months of life versus hospice utilization and hospitalization during their final month. RESULTS: For both nursing home- and community-dwelling beneficiaries, higher APC care involvement associated with lower hospitalization rates and higher hospice rates. DISCUSSION: APCs are an important group of providers delivering end-of-life primary care to individuals with ADRD. HIGHLIGHTS: For both nursing home- and community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD, adjusted hospitalization rates were lower and hospice rates were higher for individuals with higher proportions of APC care involvement during their final 9 months of life. Associations between APC care involvement and both adjusted hospitalization rates and adjusted hospice rates persisted when accounting for primary care visit volume.

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.

Rural-urban differences in diagnostic incidence and prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding rural-urban variation in the diagnostic incidence and prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) will inform policies to improve timely diagnosis and access to supportive services for older adults in rural communities. METHODS: Using 2008 to 2015 national claims data for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries (roughly 170 million person-years), we computed unadjusted and adjusted diagnostic incidence and prevalence estimates for ADRD in metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural counties, and examined differences in survival rates. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted ADRD diagnostic incidence was higher in rural versus metropolitan counties despite lower prevalence. Among beneficiaries diagnosed with ADRD in 2008, metropolitan county residents experienced longer survival compared to residents in rural and micropolitan counties. DISCUSSION: These data suggest that older adults in rural communities may be underdiagnosed with ADRD, and/or diagnosed at later stages of dementia. Further work is needed to develop strategies to reduce this disparity.

Association of Diagnosis Coding With Differences in Risk-Adjusted Short-term Mortality Between Critical Access and Non-Critical Access Hospitals.

Importance: Critical access hospitals (CAHs) provide care to rural communities. Increasing mortality rates have been reported for CAHs relative to non-CAHs. Because Medicare reimburses CAHs at cost, CAHs may report fewer diagnoses than non-CAHs, which may affect risk-adjusted comparisons of outcomes. Objective: To assess serial differences in risk-adjusted mortality rates between CAHs and non-CAHs after accounting for differences in diagnosis coding. Design, Setting, and Participants: Serial cross-sectional study of rural Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries admitted to US CAHs and non-CAHs for pneumonia, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, arrhythmia, urinary tract infection, septicemia, and stroke from 2007 to 2017. The final date of follow-up was December 31, 2017. Exposure: Admission to a CAH vs non-CAH. Main Outcomes and Measures: Discharge diagnosis count including trends from 2010 to 2011 when Medicare expanded the allowable number of billing codes for hospitalizations, and combined in-hospital and 30-day postdischarge mortality adjusted for demographics, primary diagnosis, preexisting conditions, and with vs without further adjustment for Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) score to understand the contribution of in-hospital secondary diagnoses. Results: There were 4 094 720 hospitalizations (17% CAH) for 2 850 194 unique Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 76.3 [11.7] years; 55.5% women). Patients in CAHs were older (median age, 80.1 vs 76.8 years) and more likely to be female (58% vs 55%). In 2010, the adjusted mean discharge diagnosis count was 7.52 for CAHs vs 8.53 for non-CAHs (difference, -0.99 [95% CI, -1.08 to -0.90]; P < .001). In 2011, the CAH vs non-CAH difference in diagnoses coded increased (P < .001 for interaction between CAH and year) to 9.27 vs 12.23 (difference, -2.96 [95% CI, -3.19 to -2.73]; P < .001). Adjusted mortality rates from the model with HCC were 13.52% for CAHs vs 11.44% for non-CAHs (percentage point difference, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.74 to 2.42]; P < .001) in 2007 and increased to 15.97% vs 12.46% (difference, 3.52 [95% CI, 3.09 to 3.94]; P < .001) in 2017 (P < .001 for interaction). Adjusted mortality rates from the model without HCC were not significantly different between CAHs and non-CAHs in all years except 2007 (12.19% vs 11.74%; difference, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.79]; P = .008) and 2010 (12.71% vs 12.28%; difference, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.77]; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: For rural Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized from 2007 to 2017, CAHs submitted significantly fewer hospital diagnosis codes than non-CAHs, and short-term mortality rates adjusted for preexisting conditions but not in-hospital comorbidity measures were not significantly different by hospital type in most years. The findings suggest that short-term mortality outcomes at CAHs may not differ from those of non-CAHs after accounting for different coding practices for in-hospital comorbidities.

Nursing home work environment, care quality, registered nurse burnout and job dissatisfaction.

The objective of this cross-sectional study was to examine the relationships between work environment, care quality, registered nurse (RN) burnout, and job dissatisfaction in nursing homes. We linked 2015 RN4CAST-US nurse survey data with LTCfocus and Nursing Home Compare. The sample included 245 Medicare and Medicaid-certified nursing homes in four states, and 674 of their RN employees. Nursing homes with good vs. poor work environments, had 1.8% fewer residents with pressure ulcers (p = .02) and 16 fewer hospitalizations per 100 residents per year (p = .05). They also had lower antipsychotic use, but the difference was not statistically significant. RNs were one-tenth as likely to report job dissatisfaction (p < .001) and one-eighth as likely to exhibit burnout (p < .001) when employed in good vs. poor work environments. These results suggest that the work environment is an important area to target for interventions to improve care quality and nurse retention in nursing homes.

Changes in Nursing Staff Levels and Injury-Related Emergency Department Visits among Assisted Living Residents with Alzheimers Disease and Related Dementias.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between changes in nursing staff-hours per resident-day and injury-related emergency department (ED) visits among assisted living (AL) residents with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We leveraged a data set of AL community characteristics in Ohio linked to Medicare claims data from 2007 to 2015. METHODS: We estimated Poisson models examining the relationships of personal care aide, registered nurse (RN), licensed practical nurse (LPN), and total nursing hours with injury-related ED visits. Models were adjusted for resident characteristics (ie, age, race, sex, dual eligibility, presence and number of chronic conditions), AL community characteristics (percentage of residents on Medicaid, average resident acuity), year fixed effects, and assisted living fixed effects. We examined all injury-related ED visits and injury-related ED visits resulting in hospital admission as separate outcomes. RESULTS: The sample included 122,700 person-months, representing 12,144 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD within 455 different AL communities in Ohio between 2007 and 2015. Median total nursing hours increased from 1.34 in 2007 to 1.69 in 2015. In the fully adjusted model, an increase in 1 RN-hour per resident-day was associated with a decrease in the risk of any injury-related ED visit (incidence rate ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.36-0.96), representing a 53% decrease. Changes in RN-hours were not associated with injury-related inpatient hospitalizations. Changes in total nursing, LPN, and personal care aide hours were not associated with changes in the risk of injury-related ED visits or inpatient hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Increases in RN staffing hours were associated with reduced injury-related ED use among AL residents with ADRD. RNs provide surveillance and care oversight that may help mitigate injury risk, and they are able to physically assess residents at the time of a fall and/or injury, which can preempt unnecessary ED transfers.

Rethinking Infection Control: Nursing Home Administrator Experiences during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To examine nursing home administrator perspectives of infection control practices in nursing homes at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and characterize lessons learned. DESIGN: Descriptive qualitative study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Administrators from 40 nursing homes across 8 diverse health care markets in the United States. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted via telephone or Zoom with nursing home administrators. Interviews were repeated at 3-month intervals, for a total of 4 interviews per participant between July 2020 and December 2021 (n = 156). Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts used modified grounded theory and thematic analysis to identify overarching themes. RESULTS: Three major themes emerged reflecting administrator experiences managing infection control practices and nursing home operations at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. First, administrators reported that the more stringent infection control protocols implemented to manage and mitigate COVID-19 at their facilities increased awareness and understanding of the importance of infection control; second, administrators reported incorporating higher standards of infection control practices into facility-level policies, emergency preparedness plans, and staff training; and third, administrators said they and their executive leadership were reevaluating and upgrading their facilities' physical structures and operational processes for better infection control infrastructure in preparation for future pandemics or other public health crises. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Insights from this study's findings suggest important next steps for restructuring and improving nursing home infection control protocols and practices in preparation for future pandemics and public health emergencies. Nursing homes need comprehensive, standardized infection control training and upgrading of physical structures to improve ventilation and facilitate isolation practices when needed. Furthermore, nursing home emergency preparedness plans need better integration with local, state, and federal agencies to ensure effective communication, proper resource tracking and allocation, and coordinated, rapid response during future public health crises.

Differences in setting of initial dementia diagnosis among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Accurate and timely diagnosis of dementia is necessary to allow affected individuals to make informed decisions and access appropriate resources. When dementia goes undetected until a hospitalization or nursing home stay, this could reflect delayed diagnosis or misdiagnosis, and may reflect underlying disparities in healthcare access. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used 2012-2020 Medicare claims and other administrative data to examine variation in setting of dementia diagnosis among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with an initial claims-based dementia diagnosis in 2016. We used multinomial logistic regression to evaluate the association of person and geographic factors with diagnosis location, and Cox proportional hazards regression to examine 4-year survival relative to diagnosis location. RESULTS: Among 754,204 Medicare beneficiaries newly diagnosed with dementia in 2016, 60.3% were diagnosed in the community, 17.2% in hospitals, and 22.5% in nursing homes. Adjusted 4-year survival rates were significantly lower among those diagnosed in hospitals [-16.1 percentage points (95% CI: -17.0, -15.1)] and nursing homes [-16.8 percentage points (95% CI: -17.7, -15.9)], compared to those diagnosed in the community. Community-diagnosed beneficiaries were more often female, younger, Asian or Pacific Islander, Native American or Alaskan Native, Hispanic, had fewer baseline hospitalizations and higher homecare use, and resided in wealthier ZIP codes. Rural beneficiaries were more likely to be diagnosed in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Many older adults are diagnosed with dementia in a hospital or nursing home. These individuals have significantly lower survival than those diagnosed in the community, which may indicate diagnosis during an acute illness or care transition, or at a later disease stage, all of which are suboptimal. These results highlight the need for improved dementia screening in the general population, particularly for individuals in rural areas and communities with higher social deprivation.

Nurse Practitioner Care, Scope of Practice, and End-of-Life Outcomes for Nursing Home Residents With Dementia.

Importance: Nursing home residents with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) often receive burdensome care at the end of life. Nurse practitioners (NPs) provide an increasing share of primary care in nursing homes, but how NP care is associated with end-of-life outcomes for this population is unknown. Objectives: To examine the association of NP care with end-of-life outcomes for nursing home residents with ADRD and assess whether these associations differ according to state-level NP scope of practice regulations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study using fee-for-service Medicare claims included 334 618 US nursing home residents with ADRD who died between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from April 6, 2015, to December 31, 2018. Exposures: Share of nursing home primary care visits by NPs, classified as minimal (<10% of visits), moderate (10%-50% of visits), and extensive (>50% of visits). State NP scope of practice regulations were classified as full vs restrictive in 2 domains: practice authority (authorization to practice and prescribe independently) and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) authority (authorization to sign DNR orders). Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalization within the last 30 days of life and death with hospice. Linear probability models with hospital referral region fixed effects controlling for resident characteristics, visit volume, and geographic factors were used to estimate whether the associations between NP care and outcomes varied across states with different scope of practice regulations. Results: Among 334 618 nursing home decedents (mean [SD] age at death, 86.6 [8.2] years; 69.3% female), 40.5% received minimal NP care, 21.4% received moderate NP care, and 38.0% received extensive NP care. Adjusted hospitalization rates were lower for residents with extensive NP care (31.6% [95% CI, 31.4%-31.9%]) vs minimal NP care (32.3% [95% CI, 32.1%-32.6%]), whereas adjusted hospice rates were higher for residents with extensive (55.6% [95% CI, 55.3%-55.9%]) vs minimal (53.6% [95% CI, 53.3%-53.8%]) NP care. However, there was significant variation by state scope of practice. For example, in full practice authority states, adjusted hospice rates were 2.88 percentage points higher (95% CI, 1.99-3.77; P < .001) for residents with extensive vs minimal NP care, but the difference between these same groups was 1.77 percentage points (95% CI, 1.32-2.23; P < .001) in restricted practice states. Hospitalization rates were 1.76 percentage points lower (95% CI, -2.52 to -1.00; P < .001) for decedents with extensive vs minimal NP care in full practice authority states, but the difference between these same groups in restricted practice states was only 0.43 percentage points (95% CI, -0.84 to -0.01; P < .04). Similar patterns were observed in analyses focused on DNR authority. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that NPs appear to be important care providers during the end-of-life period for many nursing home residents with ADRD and that regulations governing NP scope of practice may have implications for end-of-life hospitalizations and hospice use in this population.

Durability of immunity and clinical protection in nursing home residents following bivalent SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Bivalent SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were developed to counter increasing susceptibility to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. We evaluated the durability of immunity and protection following first bivalent vaccination among nursing home residents. METHODS: We evaluated anti-spike and neutralization titers from blood in 653 community nursing home residents before and after each monovalent booster, and a bivalent vaccine. Concurrent clinical outcomes were evaluated using electronic health record data from a separate cohort of 3783 residents of Veterans Affairs (VA) nursing homes who had received at least the primary series monovalent vaccination. Using target trial emulation, we compared VA residents who did and did not receive the bivalent vaccine to measure vaccine effectiveness against infection, hospitalization, and death. FINDINGS: In the community cohort, Omicron BA.5 neutralization activity rose after each monovalent and bivalent booster vaccination regardless of prior infection history. Titers declined over time but six months post-bivalent vaccination, BA.5 neutralization persisted at detectable levels in 75% of infection-naive and 98% of prior-infected individuals. In the VA nursing home cohort, bivalent vaccine added effectiveness to monovalent booster vaccination by 18.5% for infection (95% confidence interval (CI) -5.6, 34.0%), and 29.2% for hospitalization or death (95% CI -14.2, 56.2%) over five months. INTERPRETATION: The level of protection declined after bivalent vaccination over a 6 month period and may open a window of added vulnerability before the next updated vaccine becomes available, suggesting a subset of nursing home residents may benefit from an additional vaccination booster. FUNDING: CDC, NIH, VHA.

Broad immunogenicity to prior SARS-CoV-2 strains and JN.1 variant elicited by XBB.1.5 vaccination in nursing home residents.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has reduced hospitalization and mortality for nursing home residents (NHRs) but emerging variants and waning immunity challenge vaccine effectiveness. This study assesses the immunogenicity of the most recent XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine to variant strains among NHRs. Participants were subset of a longitudinal study of consented NHRs and Healthcare workers (HCWs) who have received serial blood draws to assess immunogenicity with each SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose. We report data on participants who received the XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine post-FDA approval in Fall 2023. NHRs were categorized by whether they had an interval SARS-CoV-2 infection between their first bivalent vaccine dose and their XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccination. The sample included 61 NHRs [median age 76 (IQR 68-86), 51% female] and 28 HCWs [median age 45 (IQR 31-58), 46% female). After XBB.1.5 vaccination, a robust geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in XBB.1.5-specific neutralizing antibody titers was observed:17.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.3, 32.4) and NHRs with interval infection and 11.3 (95% CI 5, 25.4) in those without and 13.6 (95% CI 8.4,22) in HCWs. For JN.1-specific titers, GMFRs were 14.9 (95% CI 7.9, 28) and 6.5 (95% CI 3.3, 13.1) in NHRs with and without interval infection, and 11.4 (95% CI 6.2, 20.9) in HCWs. NHRs with interval SARS-CoV-2 infection had higher titers across all analyzed strains analyzed. The XBB.1.5 vaccine significantly elevates Omicron-specific neutralizing antibody titers to XBB.1.5 and JN.1 strains in both NHRs and HCWs with more pronounced in those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 since bivalent vaccination.

Broad immunogenicity to prior SARS-CoV-2 strains and JN.1 variant elicited by XBB.1.5 vaccination in nursing home residents.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has reduced hospitalization and mortality for nursing home residents (NHRs). However, emerging variants coupled with waning immunity, immunosenescence, and variability of vaccine efficacy undermine vaccine effectiveness. We therefore need to update our understanding of the immunogenicity of the most recent XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine to variant strains among NHRs. Methods: The current study focuses on a subset of participants from a longitudinal study of consented NHRs and HCWs who have received serial blood draws to assess immunogenicity with each SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose. We report data on participants who received the XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine after FDA approval in Fall 2023. NHRs were classified based on whether they had an interval SARS-CoV-2 infection between their first bivalent vaccine dose and their XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccination. Results: The sample included 61 NHRs [median age 76 (IQR 68-86), 51% female] and 28 HCWs [median age 45 (IQR 31-58), 46% female). Following XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccination, there was a robust geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in XBB.1.5-specific neutralizing antibody titers of 17.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.3, 32.4) and 11.3 (95% CI 5, 25.4) in NHRs with and without interval infection, respectively. The GMFR in HCWs was 13.6 (95% CI 8.4,22). Similarly, we noted a robust GMFR in JN.1-specific neutralizing antibody titers of 14.9 (95% CI 7.9, 28) and 6.5 (95% CI 3.3, 13.1) among NHRs with and without interval infection, and a GMFR of 11.4 (95% CI 6.2, 20.9) in HCWs. NHRs with interval SARS-CoV-2 infection had higher neutralizing antibody titers across all analyzed strains following XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccination, compared to NHRs without interval infection. Conclusion: The XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine significantly elevates Omicron-specific neutralizing antibody titers to XBB.1.5 and JN.1 strains in both NHRs and HCWs. This response was more pronounced in individuals known to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 since bivalent vaccination. Impact Statement: All authors certify that this work entitled " Broad immunogenicity to prior strains and JN.1 variant elicited by XBB.1.5 vaccination in nursing home residents " is novel. It shows that the XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine significantly elevates Omicron-specific neutralizing antibody titers in both nursing home residents and healthcare workers to XBB and BA.28.6/JN.1 strains. This work is important since JN.1 increased from less than 0.1% to 94% of COVID-19 cases from October 2023 to February 2024 in the US. This information is timely given the CDC's latest recommendation that adults age 65 and older receive a Spring 2024 XBB booster. Since the XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine produces compelling immunogenicity to the most prevalent circulating JN.1 strain in nursing home residents, our findings add important support and rationale to encourage vaccine uptake. Key Points: Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants together with waning immunity, immunosenescence, and variable vaccine efficacy reduce SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness in nursing home residents.XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccination elicited robust response in both XBB.1.5 and JN.1 neutralizing antibodies in nursing home residents and healthcare workers, although the absolute titers to JN.1 were less than titers to XBB.1.5Why does this paper matter? Among nursing home residents, the XBB.1.5 monovalent SARS-CoV-2 vaccine produces compelling immunogenicity to the JN.1 strain, which represents 94% of all COVID-19 cases in the U.S. as of February 2024.

Injury-related emergency department use among assisted living residents with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

BACKGROUND: Injuries are a leading cause of emergency department (ED) visits among older adults, and individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) may be at particular risk. We compared injury-related ED use among assisted living (AL) residents with and without ADRD and assessed differences in the risk of injury-related ED visits among individuals with ADRD residing in ALs with memory care designation versus general AL. METHODS: Using Medicare claims, we identified a cohort of fee-for-service beneficiaries who lived in AL in 2018 and resided in one of 20 states with site-specific information on memory care designation (n = 116,754). Outcomes included all injury-related ED visits and injury-related ED visits resulting in hospitalization in the calendar year 2018. We fit multilevel models of the association between ADRD and outcomes, adjusting for resident demographic characteristics and chronic conditions, license type characteristics, and AL characteristics, with random intercepts at the AL and license type levels. Among residents with ADRD, we examined whether memory care licensure was associated with injury-related ED visits. RESULTS: The adjusted risk of injury-related ED use during the year was 20.1% (95% CI: 19.6%, 20.6%) for residents with ADRD compared to 16.1% for residents without ADRD (95% CI: 15.7%, 16.5%; p < 0.001). The adjusted risk of injury-related ED use ending in hospitalization was 4.9% (95% CI: 4.6%, 5.1%) for AL residents with ADRD and 3.9% for residents without ADRD (95% CI: 3.8%, 4.1%; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in injury-related ED visits between residents with ADRD in ALs with memory care designation and residents in general AL. CONCLUSIONS: Injury-related ED visits are common among AL residents with ADRD and residents in memory care, but residents in memory care AL experienced similar risks of injury as those in general AL. Further research should identify modifiable factors that can prevent injury among AL residents with ADRD.

COVID-19 Vaccination Among Skilled Nursing Facility Staff: Challenges and Strategies Identified by Administrators.

COVID-19 vaccinations are critical for mitigating outbreaks and reducing mortality for skilled nursing facility (SNF) residents and staff, yet uptake among SNF staff varies widely and remains suboptimal. Understanding which strategies are successful for promoting staff vaccination, and examining the relationship between vaccination policies and staff retention/turnover is key for identifying best practices. We conducted repeated interviews with SNF administrators at 3-month intervals between July 2020 and December 2021 (n = 156 interviews). We found that COVID-19 vaccines were initially met with both enthusiasm and skepticism by SNF staff. Administrators reported strategies to increase staff vaccine acceptance, including incentives, one-on-one education, and less stringent personal protective equipment requirements. Federal and state vaccination mandates further promoted vaccine uptake. This combination of mandates with prioritization of the vaccine by SNFs and their leadership was successful at increasing staff vaccination acceptance, which may be critical to increase staff booster uptake from its current suboptimal levels.

Differences In Nursing Home Staff COVID-19 Testing Rates And Odds Of Vaccination Across Work Shifts.

COVID-19 vaccination and regular testing of nursing home staff have been critical interventions for mitigating COVID-19 outbreaks in US nursing homes. Although implementation of testing has largely been left to nursing home organizations to coordinate, vaccination occurred through a combination of state, federal, and organization efforts. Little research has focused on structural variation in these processes. We examined whether one structural factor, the primary shift worked by staff, was associated with differences in COVID-19 testing rates and odds of vaccination, using staff-level data from a multistate sample of 294 nursing homes. In facility fixed effects analyses, we found that night-shift staff had the lowest testing rates and lowest odds of vaccination, whereas day-shift staff had the highest testing rates and odds of vaccination. These findings highlight the need to coordinate resources and communication evenly across shifts when implementing large-scale processes in nursing homes and other organizations with shift-based workforces.