Assessment of Regional Nursing Home Preparedness for and Regulatory Responsiveness to Wildfire Risk in the Western US.

Importance: It is uncertain whether emergency preparedness and regulatory oversight for US nursing homes are aligned with local wildfire risk. Objective: To evaluate the likelihood that nursing homes at elevated risk of wildfire exposure meet US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) emergency preparedness standards and to compare the time to reinspection by exposure status. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of nursing homes in the continental western US from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2019, was conducted using cross-sectional and survival analyses. The prevalence of high-risk facilities within 5 km of areas at or exceeding the 85th percentile of nationalized wildfire risk across areas overseen by 4 CMS regional offices (New Mexico, Mountain West, Pacific/Southwest, and Pacific Northwest) was determined. Critical emergency preparedness deficiencies cited during CMS Life Safety Code Inspections were identified. Data analysis was performed from October 10 to December 12, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome classified whether facilities were cited for at least 1 critical emergency preparedness deficiency during the observation window. Regionally stratified generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate associations between risk status and the presence and number of deficiencies, adjusted for nursing home characteristics. For the subset of facilities with deficiencies, differences in restricted mean survival time to reinspection were evaluated. Results: Of the 2218 nursing homes in this study, 1219 (55.0%) were exposed to elevated wildfire risk. The Pacific/Southwest had the highest percentage of both exposed (680 of 870 [78.2%]) and unexposed (359 of 486 [73.9%]) facilities with 1 or more deficiencies. The Mountain West had the largest difference in the percentage of exposed (87 of 215 [40.5%]) vs unexposed (47 of 193 [24.4%]) facilities with 1 or more deficiencies. Exposed facilities in the Pacific Northwest had the greatest mean (SD) number of deficiencies (4.3 [5.4]). Exposure was associated with the presence of deficiencies in the Mountain West (odds ratio [OR], 2.12 [95% CI, 1.50-3.01]) and the presence (OR, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.55-2.18]) and number (rate ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.06-1.83]) of deficiencies in the Pacific Northwest. Exposed Mountain West facilities with deficiencies were reinspected later, on average, than unexposed facilities (adjusted restricted mean survival time difference, 91.2 days [95% CI, 30.6-151.8 days]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, regional heterogeneity in nursing home emergency preparedness for and regulatory responsiveness to local wildfire risk was observed. These findings suggest that there may be opportunities to improve the responsiveness of nursing homes to and regulatory oversight of surrounding wildfire risk.

Evaluating California nursing homes' emergency preparedness for wildfire exposure.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between the risk of exposure to environmental hazards and the emergency preparedness of nursing homes is not well-understood. This study evaluates the association between wildfire exposure risk and nursing home emergency preparedness. METHODS: From a sample of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) certified nursing homes in California, we determined the prevalence of "exposed" facilities that were located within 5 km of a wildfire risk area, as informed by a field-tested model. Among the 1182 nursing homes, we identified emergency preparedness deficiencies from January 2017 to December 2019. We estimated associations between exposure and emergency preparedness deficiencies using unadjusted and adjusted generalized estimating equations with logistic and negative binomial distributions. RESULTS: A greater percentage of the 495 exposed facilities had at least one emergency preparedness deficiency than the 687 unexposed facilities (83.9% vs 76.9%). The mean (3.6 vs 3.2) and median (3 vs 2) numbers of emergency preparedness deficiencies were also greater for exposed facilities. In both the unadjusted and adjusted analyses, exposure to wildfire risk was significantly associated with the likelihood of at least one emergency preparedness deficiency (adjusted odds ratio 1.52, p-value 0.007). There was a positive but not statistically significant association between exposure and the number of emergency preparedness deficiencies assigned to a nursing home (adjusted rate ratio 1.12, p-value 0.062). These results were consistent in analyses that used more stringent distance- and severity-thresholds to define exposure status. CONCLUSION: California nursing homes at heightened risk of exposure to wildfires have poorer emergency preparedness than unexposed facilities. These findings suggest that nursing home management and staff may be unaware of important environmental risks to which their facilities are exposed. Improved integration of nursing homes into community disaster planning may better align facility preparedness with surrounding wildfire risk.