Cross-setting Comparison of Risk Factors for Pressure Injuries Acquired in Post-Acute Care.

GENERAL PURPOSE: To provide information on the association between risk factors and the development of new or worsened stage 2 to 4 pressure injuries (PIs) in patients in long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant will:1. Compare the unadjusted PI incidence in SNF, IRF, and LTCH populations.2. Explain the extent to which the clinical risk factors of functional limitation (bed mobility), bowel incontinence, diabetes/peripheral vascular disease/peripheral arterial disease, and low body mass index are associated with new or worsened stage 2 to 4 PIs across the SNF, IRF, and LTCH populations.3. Compare the incidence of new or worsened stage 2 to 4 PI development in SNF, IRF, and LTCH populations associated with high body mass index, urinary incontinence, dual urinary and bowel incontinence, and advanced age.

To compare the incidence of new or worsened pressure injuries (PIs) and associated risk factors for their development in inpatient post-acute care settings: long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). The authors investigated Medicare Part A SNF resident stays and LTCH patient stays that ended between October 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016 and IRF patient stays that ended between October 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. They calculated the incidence of new or worsened PIs using the specifications of the National Quality Forum-endorsed PI quality measure #0678: Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers that are New or Worsened . The incidences of new or worsened stages 2 through 4 PIs varied across settings: 1.23% in SNFs, 1.56% in IRFs, and 3.07% in LTCHs. Seven risk factors were positively and consistently associated with new or worsened PIs across settings: limited bed mobility, bowel incontinence, low body mass index, diabetes/peripheral vascular disease/peripheral arterial disease, advanced age, urinary incontinence, and dual urinary and bowel incontinence. These findings provide empirical support for the alignment of risk factors for the PI quality measures across post-acute care settings.

Examining Social Risk Factors in a Pressure Ulcer Quality Measure for Three Post-Acute Care Settings.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and explore relationships between social demographic factors and incidence or worsening of pressure ulcer scores among post-acute care (PAC) settings. DESIGN: The authors present the incidence of new or worsening pressure ulcers stratified by self-reported patient race and sex. Investigators used logistic regression modeling to examine relative risk of developing new or worsened pressure ulcers by sociodemographic status and multiple regression modeling to estimate the relative contribution of facility-level factors on rates of new or worsening pressure ulcers. SETTING: Three PAC settings: long-term care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and skilled nursing facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare Part A residents and patients with complete stays in PAC facilities during 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The incidence of new or worsened pressure ulcers as calculated using the specifications of the National Quality Forum-endorsed pressure ulcer quality measure #0678. MAIN RESULTS: The sample included 1,566,847 resident stays in 14,822 skilled nursing facilities, 478,292 patient stays in 1,132 inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and 121,834 patient stays in 397 long-term care hospitals. Significant differences in new or worsened pressure ulcer incidence rates by sociodemographic factors were found in all three settings. Black race, male sex, and advanced age were significant predictors of new or worsened ulcers, although controlling for health conditions reduced the racial disparity. The authors noted significant differences among facilities based on ownership type, urban/rural location, and sociodemographic makeup of facilities' residents/patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of disparities in the incidence of new or worsened pressure ulcers across PAC settings, suggesting publicly available quality data may be used to identify and ameliorate these problems.

Cross-setting Comparison of Risk Factors for Pressure Injuries Acquired in Post-Acute Care.

GENERAL PURPOSE: To provide information on the association between risk factors and the development of new or worsened stage 2 to 4 pressure injuries (PIs) in patients in long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant will:1. Compare the unadjusted PI incidence in SNF, IRF, and LTCH populations.2. Explain the extent to which the clinical risk factors of functional limitation (bed mobility), bowel incontinence, diabetes/peripheral vascular disease/peripheral arterial disease, and low body mass index are associated with new or worsened stage 2 to 4 PIs across the SNF, IRF, and LTCH populations.3. Compare the incidence of new or worsened stage 2 to 4 PI development in SNF, IRF, and LTCH populations associated with high body mass index, urinary incontinence, dual urinary and bowel incontinence, and advanced age.

Operational Characteristics of Central Cancer Registries that Support the Generation of High-Quality Surveillance Data.

Objectives: We aim to assess external and internal attributes and operations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) central cancer registries by their consistency in meeting national data quality standards. Methods: The NPCR 2017 Program Evaluation Instrument (PEI) data were used to assess registry operational attributes, including adoption of electronic reporting, compliance with reporting, staffing, and software used among 46 NPCR registries. These factors were stratified by (1) registries that met the NPCR 12-month standards for all years 2014-2017; (2) registries that met the NPCR 12-month standards at least once in 2014-2017 and met the NPCR 24-month standards for all years 2014-2017; and (3) registries that did not meet the NPCR 24-month standards for all years 2014-2017. Statistical tests helped identify significant differences among registries that consistently, sometimes, or seldom/never achieved data standards. Results: Registries that always met the standards had a higher level of electronic reporting and a higher compliance with reporting among hospitals than registries that sometimes or seldom/never met the standards. Although not a statistically significant finding, the same registries also had a higher proportion of staffing positions filled, a higher proportion of certified tumor registrars, and more quality assurance and information technology staff. Conclusions: This information may be used to understand the importance of various factors and characteristics, including the adoption of electronic reporting, that may be associated with a registry's ability to consistently meet NPCR standards. The findings may be helpful in identifying best practices for processing high-quality cancer data.

Factors Affecting the Adoption of Electronic Data Reporting and Outcomes Among Selected Central Cancer Registries of the National Program of Cancer Registries.

PURPOSE: The CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries has expanded the use of electronic reporting to collect more timely information on newly diagnosed cancers. The adoption, implementation, and use of electronic reporting vary significantly among central cancer registries. We identify factors affecting the adoption of electronic reporting among these registries. METHODS: Directors and data managers of nine National Program of Cancer Registries took part in separate 1-hour telephone interviews in early 2019. Directors were asked about their registry's key data quality goals; staffing, resources, and tools used to aid processes; their definition and self-perception of electronic reporting adoption; key helpers and challenges; and cost and sustainability implications for adoption of electronic reporting. Data managers were asked about specific data collection processes, software applications, electronic reporting adoption and self-perception, information technology infrastructure, and helpers and challenges to data collection and processing, data quality, and sustainability of approach. RESULTS: Larger registries identified organizational capacity and technical expertise as key aides. Other help for implementing electronic reporting processes came from partnerships, funding availability, management support, legislation, and access to an interstate data exchange. Common challenges among lower adopters included lack of capacity at both registry and data source levels, insufficient staffing, and a lack of information technology or technical support. Other challenges consisted of automation and interoperability of software, volume of cases received, state political environment, and quality of data received. CONCLUSION: Feedback from the formative evaluation yielded several useful solutions that can guide implementation of electronic reporting and help refine the technical assistance provided to registries. Our findings may help guide future process and economic evaluations of electronic reporting and identify best practices to strengthen registry operations.