Experts recommend strategies for strengthening the use of advanced practice nurses in nursing homes.

In 2003, The John A. Hartford Foundation Institute for Geriatric Nursing, New York University Division of Nursing, convened an expert panel to explore the potential for developing recommendations for the caseloads of advanced practice nurses (APNs) in nursing homes and to provide substantive and detailed strategies to strengthen the use of APNs in nursing homes. The panel, consisting of nationally recognized experts in geriatric practice, education, research, public policy, and long-term care, developed six recommendations related to caseloads for APNs in nursing homes. The recommendations address educational preparation of APNs; average reimbursable APN visits per day; factors affecting APNs caseload parameters, including provider characteristics, practice models, resident acuity, and facility factors; changes in Medicare reimbursement to acknowledge nonbillable time spent in resident care; and technical assistance to promote a climate conducive to APN practice in nursing homes. Detailed research findings and clinical expertise underpin each recommendation. These recommendations provide practitioners, payers, regulators, and consumers with a rationale and details of current advanced practice nursing models and caseload parameters, preferred geriatric education, reimbursement strategies, and a range of technical assistance necessary to strengthen, enhance, and increase APNs' participation in the care of nursing home residents.

Hip protector compliance: a 13-month study on factors and cost in a long-term care facility.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if a high compliance rate for wearing external hip protectors could be achieved and sustained in a long-term care population. STUDY DESIGN: A 13-month prospective study of daytime use of external hip protectors in an at-risk long-term care population. SETTING: One hundred-bed not-for-profit long-term care facility. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-eight ambulatory residents having at least 1 of 4 risk factors (osteoporosis, recent fall, positive fall screen, previous fracture). INTERVENTION: The rehabilitation department coordinated an implementation program. Members of the rehabilitation team met with eligible participants, primary caregivers, families, and other support staff for educational instruction and a description of the program. The rehabilitation team assumed overall responsibility for measuring and ordering hip protectors and monitoring compliance. RESULTS: By the end of the third month, hip protector compliance averaged greater than 90% daily wear. The average number of falls per month in the hip protector group was 3.9 versus 1.3 in nonparticipants. Estimated total indirect staff time was 7.75 hours. The total cost of the study (hip protectors and indirect staff time) was 6,300 US dollars. CONCLUSIONS: High hip protector compliance is both feasible and sustainable in an at-risk long-term care population. Achieving high compliance requires an interdisciplinary approach with one department acting as a champion. The cost of protectors could be a barrier to widespread use. Facilities might be unable to cover the cost until the product is paid for by third-party payers.

Substitutive Hospital at Home for older persons: effects on costs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost of substitutive Hospital at Home care versus traditional inpatient care for older patients with community-acquired pneumonia, exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, exacerbation of congestive heart failure, or cellulitis. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized clinical trial involving 455 community-dwelling older patients in 3 Medicare managed care health systems and at a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center. METHODS: Costs were analyzed across all patients, within each of the separate health systems, and by condition. Generalized linear models controlling for confounders and using a log link and gamma family specification were used to make inferences about the statistical significance of cost differences. t Tests were used to make inferences regarding differences in follow-up utilization. RESULTS: The costs of the Hospital at Home intervention were significantly lower than those of usual acute hospital care (mean [SD], $5081 [$4427] vs $7480 [$8113]; P <.001). Laboratory and procedure expenditures were lower across all study sites and at each site individually. There were minimal significant differences in health service utilization between the study groups during the 8 weeks after the index hospitalization. As-treated analysis results were consistent with Hospital at Home costs being lower. CONCLUSIONS: Total costs seem to be lower when substitutive Hospital at Home care is available for patients with congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This result may be related to the study-based requirement for continuous nursing input. Savings may be possible, particularly for care of conditions that typically use substantial laboratory tests and procedures in traditional acute settings.

Expanding the knowledge base of resident and facility outcomes of care delivered by advanced practice nurses in long-term care: expert panel recommendations.

In 2003, a panel of nationally recognized experts in geriatric practice, education, research, public policy, and long-term care convened to examine and make recommendations about care quality and safety issues related to advanced practice nurses (APNs) in nursing home practice. This article reports on the panel recommendation that addressed expanding the evidence base of resident and facility outcomes of APN nursing home practice. A review of the small but important body of research related to nursing home APN practice suggests a positive impact on resident care and facility outcomes. Recommendations are made for critically needed research in four key areas: (a) APN nursing home practice, (b) relative value unit coding, (c) outcomes related to geropsychiatric and mental health nursing services, and (d) outcomes related to geriatric specialization. The APN role could be significantly enhanced and executed if its specific contribution to resident and facility outcomes was more clearly delineated through the recommended rigorous research.