Importance of early consideration of scaling and sustainability for aging-related care models: Case study of Hospital at Home.

For aging-related research, there is a pressing need to attend to the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based interventions. Some aging-related interventions with established effectiveness may be poorly disseminated and implemented due to behavioral, organizational, payment, or other constraints. To provide insight into the beginning to end process of translation and implementation, we present a case history of the three-decade progression of Hospital at Home (HaH) now nearing national dissemination. We summarize research at various phases with particular attention to implementation considerations. Reviewing over three decades of HaH-related research dating from initial discovery to translation and implementation, we found that the content and importance of different constructs (e.g., inner practice vs. outer environmental setting) and the choice of implementation strategies differed depending on implementation context (testing of effectiveness, scaling, or sustainability). Early effectiveness studies mostly examined implementation issues related to the intervention, the practice setting, and the individuals involved. However, explicit and early consideration of scale and sustainment was not the primary focus. For example, HaH program intake is primarily through hospital emergency departments (ED). Initial efforts would have benefited from incorporating strategies (e.g., incorporating ED leadership into program leadership) to address night and weekend admissions. Many regulatory barriers did not surface during initial considerations. Considering implementation issues late may contribute to delay in bringing discoveries to population impact. The experience with HaH suggests that scale and sustainability bear earlier consideration because barriers and facilitators to implementation are likely to be different in content and importance at different phases of implementation.

The Evolving Practice of Hospital at Home in the United States.

Hospital at Home (HaH) provides hospital-level services in the home to eligible patients who would otherwise require facility-based hospitalization. In the last two decades, studies have shown that HaH can improve patient outcomes and satisfaction and reduce hospital readmissions. Improved technology and greater experience with the model have led to expansion in the scope of patients served and services provided by the model, but dissemination in the United States has been hampered by lack of insurance coverage until recently. HaH is likely at the tipping point for wide adoption in the United States. To realize its full benefits, HaH will need to continue volume expansion to achieve culture change in clinical practice as facilitated by increased insurance coverage, technological advancements, and improved workforce expertise. It is also essential that HaH programs maintain high-quality acute hospital care, ensure that their benefits can be accessed by hard-to-reach rural populations, and continue to advance health equity.

Effects of a Rehabilitation-at-Home Program Compared to Post-acute Skilled Nursing Facility Care on Safety, Readmission, and Community Dwelling Status: A Matched Cohort Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Rehabilitation-at-Home (RaH), which provides high-frequency, multidisciplinary post-acute rehabilitative services in patients' homes. DESIGN: Comparative effectiveness analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Medicare Fee-For-Service patients who received RaH in a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Center Demonstration during 2016-2017 (N=173) or who received Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) care in 2016-2017 within the same geographic service area with similar inclusion and exclusion criteria (N=5535). METHODS: We propensity-matched RaH participants to a cohort of SNF patients using clinical and demographic characteristics with exact match on surgical and non-surgical hospitalizations. Outcomes included hospitalization within 30 days of post-acute admission, death within 30 days of post-acute discharge, length of stay, falls, use of antipsychotic medication, and discharge to community. RESULTS: The majority of RaH participants were older than or equal to 85 years (57.8%) and non-Hispanic white (72.2%) with mean hospital length of stay of 8.1 (SD 7.6) days. In propensity-matched analyses, 10.1% (95% CI: 0.5%, 19.8) and 4.2% (95% CI: 0.1%, 8.5%) fewer RaH participants experienced hospital readmission and death, respectively. RaH participants had, on average, 2.8 fewer days (95% CI 1.4, 4.3) of post-acute care; 11.4% (95% CI: 5.2%, 17.7%) fewer RaH participants experienced fall; and 25.8% (95% CI: 17.8%, 33.9%) more were discharged to the community. Use of antipsychotic medications was no different. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: RaH is a promising alternative to delivering SNF-level post-acute RaH. The program seems to be safe, readmissions are lower, and transition back to the community is improved.

'We'll Decide For You': A Patient Is Rushed At Hospital Discharge.

After hip fracture surgery, a patient is stabilized but is given only hours to choose a rehabilitation facility before discharge.

Outcomes of home-based primary care for homebound older adults: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Homebound older adults are medically complex and often have difficulty accessing outpatient medical care. Home-based primary care (HBPC) may improve care and outcomes for this population but data from randomized trials of HBPC in the United States are limited. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of HBPC versus office-based primary care for adults ages ≥65 years who reported ≥1 hospitalization in the prior 12 months and met the Medicare definition of homebound. HBPC was provided by teams consisting of a physician, nurse practitioner, nurse, and social worker. Data were collected at baseline, 6- and 12-months. Outcomes were quality of life, symptoms, satisfaction with care, hospitalizations, and emergency department (ED) visits. Recruitment was terminated early because more deaths were observed for intervention patients. RESULTS: The study enrolled 229 patients, 65.4% of planned recruitment. The mean age was 82 (9.0) years and 72.3% had dementia. Of those assigned to HBPC, 34.2% never received it. Intervention patients had greater satisfaction with care than controls (2.26, 95% CI 1.46-3.06, p < 0.0001; effect size 0.74) and lower hospitalization rates (-17.9%, 95% CI -31.0% to -1.0%; p = 0.001; number needed to treat 6, 95% CI 3-100). There were no significant differences in quality of life (1.25, 95% CI -0.39-2.89, p = 0.13), symptom burden (-1.92, 95% CI -5.22-1.37, p = 0.25) or ED visits (1.2%, 95% CI -10.5%-12.4%; p = 0.87). There were 24 (21.1%) deaths among intervention patients and 12 (10.7%) among controls (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: HBPC was associated with greater satisfaction with care and lower hospitalization rates but also more deaths compared to office-based primary care. Additional research is needed to understand the nature of the higher death rate for HBPC patients, as well as to determine the effects of HBPC on quality of life and symptom burden given the trial's early termination.

Improving the Approach to Defining, Classifying, Reporting and Monitoring Adverse Events in Seriously Ill Older Adults: Recommendations from a Multi-stakeholder Convening.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are needed to study topics relevant to older adults with serious illness. Investigators conducting clinical trials with this population are challenged by how to appropriately define, classify, report, and monitor serious and non-serious adverse events (SAEs/AEs), given that some traditionally reported AEs (pressure ulcers, delirium) and SAEs (death, hospitalization) are common in persons with serious illness, and may be consistent with their goals of care. OBJECTIVES: A multi-stakeholder group convened to establish greater clarity on and new approaches to address this critical issue. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two study investigators, members of regulatory and sponsor agencies, and patient stakeholders took part. APPROACH: The group met virtually four times and, using a collaborative approach, conducted a survey, select interviews, and reviewed regulatory guidance to collectively define the problem and identify a new approach. RESULTS: SAE/AE challenges fell into two areas: (1) definitions and classifications, including (a) implausible relationships, (b) misalignment with patient-centered care goals, and (c) well-known associations, and (2) reporting and monitoring, including (a) limited guidance, (b) inconsistent standards across regulators, and (c) Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) member knowledge gaps. Problems largely reflected practice norms rather than regulatory requirements that already support context-specific and aggregate reporting. Approaches can be improved by adopting principles that better align strategies for addressing adverse events with the type of intervention being tested, favoring routine and aggregate over expedited reporting, and prioritizing how SAE/AEs relate to patient-centered care goals. Reporting plans and decisions should follow an algorithm underpinned by these principles. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the proposed approach-and supporting it with education and better alignment with regulatory guidance and procedures-could improve the quality and efficiency of clinical trials' safety involving older adults with serious illness and other vulnerable populations.

A national qualitative study of Hospital-at-Home implementation under the CMS Acute Hospital Care at Home waiver.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the Acute Hospital Care at Home (AHCaH) waiver program in November 2020 to help expand hospital capacity to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. The AHCaH waived the 24/7 on-site nursing requirement and enabled hospitals to obtain full hospital-level diagnosis-related group (DRG) reimbursement for providing Hospital-at-Home (HaH) care. This study sought to describe AHCaH implementation processes and strategies at the national level and identify challenges and facilitators to launching or adapting a HaH to meet waiver requirements. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore barriers and facilitators of HaH implementation. The analysis was informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) implementation framework. Interviews were audio recorded for transcription and thematic coding. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We interviewed a sample of clinical leaders (N = 18; clinical/medical directors, operational and program managers) from 14 new and pre-existing U.S. HaH programs diverse by size, urbanicity, and geography. Participants were enthusiastic about the AHCaH waiver. Participants described barriers and facilitators at planning and implementation stages within three overarching themes influencing waiver program implementation: 1) institutional value and assets; 2) program components, such as electronic health records, vendors, pharmacy, and patient monitoring; and 3) patient enrollment, including eligibility and geographic limits. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of AHCaH waiver is a complex process that requires building components in compliance with the requirements to extend the hospital into the home, in coordination with internal and external partners. The study identified barriers that potential adopters and proponents should consider alongside the strategies that some organizations have found useful. Clarity regarding the waiver's future may expedite HaH model dissemination and ensure longevity of this valuable model of care delivery.

Hospital-at-Home: Multistakeholder Considerations for Program Dissemination and Scale.

Policy Points Hospital-at-Home (HaH) is a home-based alternative for acute care that has expanded significantly under COVID-19 regulatory flexibilities. The post-pandemic policy agenda for HaH will require consideration of multistakeholder perspectives, including patient, caregiver, provider, clinical operations, technology, equity, legal, quality, and payer. Key policy challenges include reaching a consensus on program standards, clarifying caregivers' issues, creating sustainable reimbursement mechanisms, and mitigating potential equity concerns. Key policy prescriptions include creating a national surveillance system for quality and safety, clarifying legal standards for care in the home, and deploying payment reforms through value-based models.

Use of hospitals in the New York City Metropolitan Region, by race: how separate? How equal in resources and quality?

BACKGROUND: Although racial and ethnic minorities disproportionately use some hospitals, hospital-based racial and ethnic composition relative to geographic region and its association with quality indicators has not been systematically analyzed. METHODS: We used four race and ethnicity categories: non-Hispanic white (NHW), non-Hispanic black (NHB), Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander/Alaskan Native/American Indian (API/AIAN), as well as a combined non-NHW category, from the 2010 (latest year publicly available) Medicare Institutional Provider & Beneficiary Summary public use file for 84 hospitals in the New York City region. We assessed the relative distribution of race and ethnicity across hospitals grouped at different geographic levels (region, county, hospital referral region [HRR], or hospital service areas [HSA]) using the dissimilarity index. Hospital characteristics included quality star ratings, essential professional services and diagnostic/treatment equipment, bed size, total expenses, and patients with dual Medicare and Medicaid enrollment. We assessed Spearman's rank correlation between hospital-based racial and ethnic composition and quality/structural measures. RESULTS: Dissimilarity Index decreases from region (range 30.3-40.1%) to county (range 13.7-23.5%), HRR (range 10.5-27.5%), and HSA (range 12.0-16.9%) levels. Hospitals with larger non-NHW patients tended to have lower hospital ratings and higher proportions of dually-enrolled patients. They were also more likely to be safety net hospitals and non-federal governmental hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: In the NYC metropolitan region, there is considerable hospital-based racial and ethnic segregation of Medicare patients among non-NHW populations, extending previous research limited to NHB. Availability of data on racial and ethnic composition of hospitals should be made publicly available for researchers and consumers.

Feasibility of the Transport PLUS intervention to improve the transitions of care for patients transported home by ambulance: a non-randomized pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The growing population of patients over the age of 65 faces particular vulnerability following discharge after hospitalization or an emergency room visit. Specific areas of concern include a high risk for falls and poor comprehension of discharge instructions. Emergency medical technicians (EMTs), who frequently transport these patients home from the hospital, are uniquely positioned to aid in mitigating transition of care risks and are both trained and utilized to do so using the Transport PLUS intervention. METHODS: Existing literature and focus groups of various stakeholders were utilized to develop two checklists: the fall safety assessment (FSA) and the discharge comprehension assessment (DCA). EMTs were trained to administer the intervention to eligible patients in the geriatric population. Using data from the checklists, follow-up phone calls, and electronic health records, we measured the presence of hazards, removal of hazards, the presence of discharge comprehension issues, and correction or reinforcement of comprehension. These results were validated during home visits by community health workers (CHWs). Feasibility outcomes included patient acceptance of the Transport PLUS intervention and accuracy of the EMT assessment. Qualitative feedback via focus groups was also obtained. Clinical outcomes measured included 3-day and 30-day readmission or ED revisit. RESULTS: One-hundred three EMTs were trained to administer the intervention and participated in 439 patient encounters. The intervention was determined to be feasible, and patients were highly amenable to the intervention, as evidenced by a 92% and 74% acceptance rate of the DCA and FSA, respectively. The majority of patients also reported that they found the intervention helpful (90%) and self-reported removing 40% of fall hazards; 85% of such changes were validated by CHWs. Readmission/revisit rates are also reported. CONCLUSIONS: The Transport PLUS intervention is a feasible, easily implemented tool in preventative community paramedicine with high levels of patient acceptance. Further study is merited to determine the effectiveness of the intervention in reducing rates of readmission or revisit. A randomized control trial has since begun utilizing the knowledge gained within this study.

Effect of the STRIDE fall injury prevention intervention on falls, fall injuries, and health-related quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Falls are common in older adults and can lead to severe injuries. The Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) trial cluster-randomized 86 primary care practices across 10 health systems to a multifactorial intervention to prevent fall injuries, delivered by registered nurses trained as falls care managers, or enhanced usual care. STRIDE enrolled 5451 community-dwelling older adults age ≥70 at increased fall injury risk. METHODS: We assessed fall-related outcomes via telephone interviews of participants (or proxies) every 4 months. At baseline, 12 and 24 months, we assessed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS. We used Poisson models to assess intervention effects on falls, fall-related fractures, fall injuries leading to hospital admission, and fall injuries leading to medical attention. We used hierarchical longitudinal linear models to assess HRQOL. RESULTS: For recurrent event models, intervention versus control incidence rate ratios were 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.00; p = 0.048) for falls, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.80-1.08; p = 0.337) for self-reported fractures, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.73-1.07; p = 0.205) for adjudicated fractures, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.77-1.07; p = 0.263) for falls leading to hospital admission, and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.89-1.06; p = 0.477) for falls leading to medical attention. Similar effect sizes (non-significant) were obtained for dichotomous outcomes (e.g., participants with ≥1 events). The difference in least square mean change over time in EQ-5D-5L (intervention minus control) was 0.009 (95% CI, -0.002 to 0.019; p = 0.106) at 12 months and 0.005 (95% CI, -0.006 to 0.015; p = 0.384) at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Across a standard set of outcomes typically reported in fall prevention studies, we observed modest improvements, one of which was statistically significant. Future work should focus on patient-, practice-, and organization-level operational strategies to increase the real-world effectiveness of interventions, and improving the ability to detect small but potentially meaningful clinical effects. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT02475850.

Cost of home hospitalization versus inpatient hospitalization inclusive of a 30-day post-acute period.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that hospital at home (HaH) care is associated with lower costs than traditional hospital care. Most prior studies were small, not U.S.-focused, or did not include post-acute costs in their analyses. Our objective was to determine if combined acute and 30-day post-acute costs of care were lower for HaH patients compared to inpatient comparisons in a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Center demonstration of HaH. METHODS: A single-center New York City retrospective observational cohort study of patients admitted to either HaH or inpatient care from September 1, 2014 through August 31, 2017. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, required inpatient admission, lived in Manhattan, and met home safety requirements. Comparison individuals met the same criteria and were included if they refused HaH care or were admitted when HaH was not available. HaH care was substitutive hospital-level care and 30-days of post-acute transitional care. Main outcomes were costs of care of the acute and post-acute 30-day episodes. We matched subjects on age, sex, and insurance and conducted regression analyses using an unadjusted model and one adjusted for several patient characteristics. RESULTS: Of 523 Medicare admission episodes, data were available for 201 episodes in the HaH arm and 101 episodes of usual care. HaH patients were older (81.6 [SD = 12.3] years vs. 74.6 [SD = 14.0], p < 0.0001) and more likely to have activities of daily living (ADL) impairments (75.4% vs. 46.5%, p < 0.0001). Unadjusted mean costs were $5054 lower for HaH episodes compared to inpatient episodes. Regression analysis with matching showed HaH costs were $5116 (95% CI -$10,262 to $30, p = 0.05) lower, and when adjusted for age, sex, insurance, diagnosis, and ADL impairments, $5977 (95% CI -$10,758 to -$1196, p = 0.01) lower. CONCLUSIONS: HaH combined with 30-day post-acute transition care was less costly than inpatient care.

Medicare-funded home-based clinical care for community-dwelling persons with dementia: An essential healthcare delivery mechanism.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, medical care has shifted from institutions into home settings-particularly among persons with dementia. Yet it is unknown how home-based clinical services currently support persons with dementia, and what factors shape access. METHODS: Using the National Health and Aging Trends Study linked to Medicare claims 2012-2017, we identified 6664 community-dwelling adults age ≥ 70 years enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare. Annual assessment of dementia status was determined via self-report, cognitive interview, and/or proxy assessment. Receipt of four types of home-based clinical care (home-based medical care (HBMC) (i.e., nurse practitioner, physician, or physician assistant visits), skilled home health care (SHHC), podiatry visits, and other types of home-based clinical services (e.g., behavioral health)) was assessed annually. We compared age-adjusted rates of home-based clinical care by dementia status and determined sociodemographic, health, and environmental characteristics associated with utilization of home-based clinical care among persons with dementia. RESULTS: Nearly half (44.4%) of persons with dementia received any home-based clinical care annually compared to only 14.4% of those without dementia. Persons with dementia received substantially more of each type of home-based clinical care than those without dementia including a 5-fold increased use of HBMC (95% CI = 3.8-6.2) and double the use of SHHC (95% CI = 2.0-2.5). In adjusted models, Hispanic/Latino persons with dementia were less likely to receive HBMC (OR = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.11-0.93). Use of HBMC, podiatry, and other home-based clinical care was significantly more likely among those living in residential care facilities, in the Northeast and in metropolitan areas. CONCLUSION: Although almost half of community-dwelling persons with dementia receive home-based clinical care, there is significant variation in utilization based on race/ethnicity and environmental context. Increased understanding as to how these factors impact utilization is necessary to reduce potential inequities in healthcare delivery among the dementia population.

Outcomes of Hospital at Home for Older Adults with and without High Levels of Social Support.

The evaluation of social support within hospital at home (HaH) programs has been limited. We performed a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort evaluation of 295 participants receiving HaH care and 212 patients undergoing traditional hospitalization from November of 2014 to August of 2017. We examined the confounding and moderating effects of instrumental and informational social support upon length of stay and 30-day rehospitalization, emergency department (ED) visit, and skilled nursing facility admission. Instrumental social support attenuated the effects of HaH upon any ED visit (base model: OR 0.61, p = 0.037; controlling for social support: OR 0.71, p = 0.15). The association of HaH with other outcomes remained unchanged. Interactions between HaH and informational or instrumental social support for all outcomes were not significant. Lack of high levels of social support had little effect on the positive outcomes of HaH care, suggesting similar benefits of HaH services for patients with lower levels of social support.

Disruptions in Care and Support for Homebound Adults in Home-Based Primary Care in New York City During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Homebound older adults are a highly vulnerable population, yet little is known about their experiences with healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. We interviewed patients in home-based primary care (HBPC) in New York City by telephone in May and June of 2020. Interviews covered social supports, household activities, self-care, and medical care, and asked participants to compare current with prepandemic experiences. Among 70 participants, 37% were Black and 32% were Hispanic. Disruptions in the home included greater difficulty accessing paid caregivers (13.9%) and food (35.3%) than before the pandemic, and unaddressed household chores (laundry, 81.4%; food preparation, 11.4%). Black study participants were more likely than White and Hispanic participants to report disruptions in accessing medical care (13 [50.0%] vs. 3 [14.3%] vs. 6 [27.3%], respectively, p = 0.02), as well as food preparation and medication taking. Black patients in HBPC are at risk of disparities in healthcare and social support during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hospital at Home services: An inventory of fee-for-service payments to inform Medicare reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: Hospital at Home (HaH) is a growing model of care with proven patient benefits. However, for the types of services required to provide an episode of HaH, full Medicare reimbursement is traditionally paid only if care is provided in inpatient facilities. DESIGN: This project identifies HaH services that could be reimbursable under Medicare to inform episodic care within fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. SETTING: All data are derived from acute services provided from the Mount Sinai HaH program between 2014 and 2017 as part of a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) demonstration program. PARTICIPANTS: The sample was limited to patients with one of the following five admitting diagnoses: urinary tract infection (n = 70), pneumonia (n = 60), cellulitis (n = 45), heart failure (n = 37), and chronic lung disease (n = 24) for a total of 236 acute episodes. MEASUREMENTS: HaH services were inventoried from three sources: electronic medical records, Medicare billing and itemized vendor billing. For each admitting diagnosis, four reimbursement scenarios were evaluated: (1) FFS Medicare without a home health episode, (2) FFS Medicare with a home health episode, (3) two-sided risk ACO with a home health episode, and (4) two-sided risk ACO without a home health episode. RESULTS: Across diagnoses, there were 1.5-1.9 MD visits and 1.5-2.7 nursing visits per episode. The Medicare FFS model without home health care had the lowest reimbursement potential ($964-$1604) per episode. The Medicare fee-for-service within ACO models with home health care had the greatest potential for reimbursement $4519-$4718. There was limited variation in costs by diagnosis. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Though existing payment models might be used to pay for many HaH acute services, significant gaps in reimbursement remain. Extending the benefits of HaH to the Medicare beneficiaries that are likely to derive the greatest benefit will require new payment models for FFS Medicare.