Unmet health-related needs of community-dwelling older adults during COVID-19 lockdown in a diverse urban cohort.

BACKGROUND: Shelter-in-place orders during the COVID-19 pandemic created unmet health-related and access-related needs among older adults. We sought to understand the prevalence of these needs among community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of pandemic-related outreach calls to older adults between March and July 2020 at four urban, primary care clinics: a home-based practice, a safety net adult medicine clinic, an academic geriatrics practice, and a safety net clinic for adults living with HIV. Participants included those 60 or older at three sites, and those 65 or older with a chronic health condition at the fourth. We describe unmet health-related needs (the need for medication refills, medical supplies, or food) and access-related needs (ability to perform a telehealth visit, need for a call back from the primary care provider). We performed bivariate and multivariate analyses to examine the association between unmet needs and demographics, medical conditions, and healthcare utilization. RESULTS: Sixty-two percent of people had at least one unmet need. Twenty-six percent had at least one unmet health-related need; 14.0% needed medication refills, 12.5% needed medical supplies, and 3.0% had food insecurity. Among access-related needs, 33% were not ready for video visits, and 36.4% asked for a return call from their provider. Prevalence of any unmet health-related need was the highest among Asian versus White (36.4% vs. 19.1%) and in the highest versus lowest poverty zip codes (30.8% vs. 18.2%). Those with diabetes and COPD had higher unmet health-related needs than those without, and there was no change in healthcare utilization. CONCLUSIONS: During COVID, we found that disruptions in access to services created unmet needs among older adults, particularly for those who self-identified as Asian. We must foreground the needs of this older population group in the response to future public health crises.

Can the Safety Net be Age-Friendly? How to Address Its Important Role in Caring for Older Adults with Geriatric Conditions.

The safety net, a collection of public hospitals, federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), and publicly funded community-based healthcare entities, provides essential care to middle-aged and older adults with geriatric conditions. The role of the safety net for these adults will intensify over the next two decades with the growing numbers of middle-aged and older adults with adverse social determinants of health and premature geriatric conditions. The foundation for addressing their needs is to detect geriatric conditions and then focus care plans on the impact of these factors on function, which predicts mortality and quality of life more than chronic conditions alone. To detect geriatric conditions in safety net populations, the Age-Friendly Health System (AFHS) framework offers an evidence-based focus on the 4Ms: Mentation, Mobility, Medications, and what Matters. Further incorporating geriatric care models that target the 4Ms and are adapted to safety net populations will enable age-friendly care that optimizes health and addresses what matters to older people.

Innovation in care for individuals with cognitive impairment: Can reimbursement policy spread best practices?

There is now an unprecedented opportunity to improve the care of the over 5 million people who are living with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias and many more with cognitive impairment due to brain injury, systemic diseases, and other causes. The introduction of a new Medicare care planning benefit-long sought openly by advocacy organizations and clinicians and badly needed by patients and families-could greatly improve health care quality, but only if widely and fully implemented. We describe the components of this new benefit and its promise of better clinical care, as well as its potential to create a new platform for clinical and health outcomes research. We highlight external factors-and some that are internal to the benefit structure itself-that challenge the full realization of its value, and we call for broad public and professional engagement to ensure that it will not fail.

Hospitalization-Associated Disability in Adults Admitted to a Safety-Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about hospitalization-associated disability (HAD) in older adults who receive care in safety-net hospitals. OBJECTIVES: To describe HAD and to examine its association with age in adults aged 55 and older hospitalized in a safety-net hospital. DESIGN: Secondary post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort from a discharge intervention trial, the Support from Hospital to Home for Elders. SETTING: Medicine, cardiology, and neurology inpatient services of San Francisco General Hospital, a safety-net hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 583 participants 55 and older who spoke English, Spanish, or Chinese. We determined the incidence of HAD 30 days post-hospitalization and ORs for HAD by age group. MEASUREMENTS: The outcome measure was death or HAD at 30 days after hospital discharge. HAD is defined as a new or additional disability in one or more activities of daily living (ADL) that is present at hospital discharge compared to baseline. Participants' functional status at baseline (2 weeks prior to admission) and 30 days post-discharge was ascertained by self-report of ADL function. RESULTS: Many participants (75.3 %) were functionally independent at baseline. By age group, HAD occurred as follows: 27.4 % in ages 55-59, 22.2 % in ages 60-64, 17.4 % in ages 65-69, 30.3 % in ages 70-79, and 61.7 % in ages 80 or older. Compared to the youngest group, only the adjusted OR for HAD in adults over 80 was significant, at 2.45 (95 % CI 1.17, 5.15). CONCLUSIONS: In adults at a safety-net hospital, HAD occurred in similar proportions among adults aged 55-59 and those aged 70-79, and was highest in the oldest adults, aged ≥ 80. In safety-net hospitals, interventions to reduce HAD among patients 70 years and older should consider expanding age criteria to adults as young as 55.

Journalists, district attorneys and researchers: why IRBs should get in the middle.

BACKGROUND: Federal regulations in the United States have shaped Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to focus on protecting individual human subjects. Health services research studies focusing on healthcare institutions such as hospitals or clinics do not have individual human subjects. Since U.S. federal regulations are silent on what type of review, if any, these studies require, different IRBs may approach similar studies differently, resulting in undesirable variation in the review of studies focusing on healthcare institutions. Further, although these studies do not focus on individual human subjects, they may pose risks to participating institutions, as well as individuals who work at those institutions, if identifying information becomes public. DISCUSSION: Using two recent health services research studies conducted in the U.S. as examples, we discuss variations in the level of IRB oversight for studies focusing on institutions rather than individual human subjects. We highlight how lack of IRB guidance poses challenges for researchers who wish to both protect their subjects and work appropriately with the public, journalists or the legal system in the U.S. Competing interests include the public's interest in transparency, the researcher's interest in their science, and the research participants' interests in confidentiality. Potential solutions that may help guide health services researchers to balance these competing interests include: 1) creating consensus guidelines and standard practices that address confidentiality risk to healthcare institutions and their employees; and 2) expanding the IRB role to conduct a streamlined review of health services research studies focusing on healthcare institutions to balance the competing interest of stakeholders on a case-by-case basis. SUMMARY: For health services research studies focusing on healthcare institutions, we outline the competing interests of researchers, healthcare institutions and the public. We propose solutions to decrease undesirable variations in the review of these studies.

Older jail inmates and community acute care use.

OBJECTIVES: We examined older jail inmates' predetainment acute care use (emergency department or hospitalization in the 3 months before arrest) and their plans for using acute care after release. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of 247 jail inmates aged 55 years or older assessing sociodemographic characteristics, health, and geriatric conditions associated with predetainment and anticipated postrelease acute care use. RESULTS: We found that 52% of older inmates reported predetainment acute care use and 47% planned to use the emergency department after release. In modified Poisson regression, homelessness was independently associated with predetainment use (relative risk = 1.42; 95% confidence interval = 1.10, 1.83) and having a primary care provider was inversely associated with planned use (relative risk = 0.69; 95% confidence interval = 0.53, 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: The Affordable Care Act has expanded Medicaid eligibility to all persons leaving jail in an effort to decrease postrelease acute care use in this high-risk population. Jail-to-community transitional care models that address the health, geriatric, and social factors prevalent in older adults leaving jail, and that focus on linkages to housing and primary care, are needed to enhance the impact of the act on acute care use for this population.

Effect of board certification on antihypertensive treatment intensification in patients with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Regular recertification is mandatory to maintain board certification status in all specialties. However, the evidence that physicians' performance decreases with time since initial certification is limited. We therefore carried out a study to determine whether the frequency of antihypertensive treatment intensification for diabetic patients changes with time since their physicians' last board certification. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed treatment of 8127 hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus treated by 301 internists at primary care practices affiliated with 2 large academic hospitals. Patient visits with documented blood pressure > or = 130/85 mm Hg between January 1, 2000, and August 31, 2005, were studied. The association between the number of years since the physician's last board certification and the probability of pharmacological antihypertensive treatment intensification at a given visit was analyzed. Frequency of treatment intensification decreased from 26.7% for physicians who were board certified the previous year to 6.9% for physicians who were board certified 31 years before the visit. Treatment intensification rate was 22.5% for physicians certified < or = 10 years ago versus 16.9% for physicians last certified > 10 years ago (P<0.0001). Multivariable analysis adjusted for patient and visit characteristics and physician age showed that for every decade since the physician's last board certification, the probability of treatment intensification decreased by 21.3% (P=0.0097). CONCLUSIONS: Physician intensification of pharmacological therapy for blood pressure levels above the recommended treatment goals decreases with time since the last board certification. This finding supports the current policy of mandatory recertification.