Medicare Transitional Care Management Program and Changes in Timely Postdischarge Follow-Up.

Importance: In 2013, Medicare implemented payments for transitional care management (TCM) services, which provide increased reimbursement to clinicians providing ambulatory care to patients after discharge from medical facilities to the community. Objective: To determine whether the introduction of TCM payments was associated with an increase in timely postdischarge follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional interrupted time-series study assessed quarterly postdischarge visit rates before (2010-2012) and after (2013-2019) TCM implementation 100% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged to the community after a hospital or skilled nursing facility stay. Data analyses were performed February 1 to December 15, 2023. Exposure: Implementation of payments for TCM. Main Outcomes and Measures: Timely postdischarge primary care follow-up, defined as receipt of a primary care ambulatory visit within 14 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes included receipt of a TCM visit and specialty care follow-up. Results: The study sample comprised 79 125 965 eligible discharges. Of these, 55.4% were female; 1.5% were Asian, 12.1% Black, 5.6% Hispanic, and 79.0% were White individuals; and 79.6% were beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. Timely primary care follow-up increased from 31.5% in 2010 to 38.8% in 2019 (absolute increase 7.3%), whereas specialist follow-up increased from 27.6% to 30.8% (absolute increase 3.2%). By 2019, 11.3% of eligible patients received TCM services. Interrupted time-series analyses demonstrated an increased slope of timely primary care follow-up after the introduction of TCM services (pre-TCM slope, 0.12% per quarter vs post-TCM slope, 0.29% per quarter; difference, 0.13%; 95% CI, 0.02% to 0.22%). Receipt of timely follow-up increased for all demographic groups; however, Black, Hispanic, and Medicaid dual-eligible patients and patients residing in urban areas and counties with high-level social deprivation were less likely to receive follow-up during the study period. These disparities widened for Black patients (difference-in-differences in pre-TCM vs post-TCM slope, -0.14%; 95% CI, -0.25% to -0.2%) and patients who were Medicaid dual-eligible (difference-in-differences pre-TCM vs post-TCM slope, -0.21%; 95% CI, -0.35% to -0.07%). Conclusions: These findings indicate that Medicare's introduction of payments for TCM services was associated with a persistent increase in the rate of timely postdischarge primary care but did not narrow demographic or socioeconomic disparities. Most beneficiaries did not receive timely primary care follow-up.

Trends in observation stays for Medicare beneficiaries with and without Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

BACKGROUND: There has been a marked rise in the use of observation care for Medicare beneficiaries visiting the emergency department (ED) in recent years. Whether trends in observation use differ for people with Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias (AD/ADRD) is unknown. METHODS: Using a national 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries ages 68+ from 2012 to 2018, we compared trends in ED visits and observation stays by AD/ADRD status for beneficiaries visiting the ED. We then examined the degree to which trends differed by nursing home (NH) residency status, assigning beneficiaries to four groups: AD/ADRD residing in NH (AD/ADRD+ NH+), AD/ADRD not residing in NH (AD/ADRD+ NH-), no AD/ADRD residing in NH (AD/ADRD- NH+), and no AD/ADRD not residing in NH (AD/ADRD- NH-). RESULTS: Of 7,489,780 unique beneficiaries, 18.6% had an AD/ADRD diagnosis. Beneficiaries with AD/ADRD had more than double the number of ED visits per 1000 in all years compared to those without AD/ADRD and saw a faster adjusted increase over time (+26.7 vs. +8.2 visits/year; p < 0.001 for interaction). The annual increase in the adjusted proportion of ED visits ending in observation was also greater among people with AD/ADRD (+0.78%/year, 95% CI 0.77-0.80%) compared to those without AD/ADRD (+0.63%/year, 95% CI 0.59-0.66%; p < 0.001 for interaction). Observation utilization was greatest for the AD/ADRD+ NH+ population and lowest for the AD/ADRD- NH- population, but the AD/ADRD+ NH- group saw the greatest increase in observation stays over time (+15.4 stays per 1000 people per year, 95% CI 15.0-15.7). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with AD/ADRD have seen a disproportionate increase in observation utilization in recent years, driven by both an increase in ED visits and an increase in the proportion of ED visits ending in observation.

Factors associated with disagreement between clinician app-based ultra-brief Confusion Assessment Method and reference standard delirium assessments.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the Ultra-Brief Confusion Assessment Method (UB-CAM), designed to help physicians and nurses to recognize delirium, showed high, but imperfect, accuracy compared with Research Reference Standard Delirium Assessments (RRSDAs). The aim of this study is to identify factors associated with disagreement between clinicians' app-based UB-CAM assessments and RRSDAs. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective diagnostic test study. The study was conducted at two hospitals and included 527 inpatients (≥70 years old) and 289 clinicians (53 physicians, 236 nurses). Trained research associates performed RRSDAs and determined delirium presence using the CAM. Clinicians administered the UB-CAM using an iPad app. Disagreement factors considered were clinician, patient, and delirium characteristics. We report odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: One thousand seven hundred and ninety-five clinician UB-CAM assessments paired with RRSDAs were administered. The prevalence of delirium was 17%. The rate of disagreement between clinician UB-CAM assessments and RRSDAs was 12%. Significant factors associated with disagreement between clinician UB-CAM assessments and RRSDAs (OR [95% CI]) included: presence of dementia (2.7 [1.8-4.1]), patient education high school or less (1.9 [1.3-2.9]), psychomotor retardation (2.5 [1.4-4.2]), and the presence of mild delirium or subsyndromal delirium (5.5 [3.5-8.7]). Significant risk factors for false negatives were patient age less than 80 (2.2 [1.1-4.3]) and mild delirium (3.5 [1.6-7.4]). Significant risk factors for false positives were presence of dementia (4.0 [2.3-7.0]), subsyndromal delirium (5.1 [2.9-9.1]), and patient education high school or less (2.0 [1.2-3.6]). Clinician characteristics were not significantly associated with disagreement. CONCLUSIONS: The strongest factors associated with disagreement between clinician UB-CAM screens and RRSDAs were the presence of dementia and subsyndromal delirium as risk factors for false positives, and mild delirium and younger age as a risk factor for false negatives. These disagreement factors contrast with previous studies of risk factors for incorrect clinician delirium screening, and better align screening results with patient outcomes.

Trends in healthy days at home for Medicare beneficiaries using the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Older adults, particularly those with Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease Related Dementias (AD/ADRD), have high rates of emergency department (ED) visits and are at risk for poor outcomes. How best to measure quality of care for this population has been debated. Healthy Days at Home (HDAH) is a broad outcome measure reflecting mortality and time spent in facility-based healthcare settings versus home. We examined trends in 30-day HDAH for Medicare beneficiaries after visiting the ED and compared trends by AD/ADRD status. METHODS: We identified all ED visits among a national 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries ages 68 and older from 2012 to 2018. For each visit, we calculated 30-day HDAH by subtracting mortality days and days spent in facility-based healthcare settings within 30 days of an ED visit. We calculated adjusted rates of HDAH using linear regression, accounting for hospital random effects, visit diagnosis, and patient characteristics. We compared rates of HDAH among beneficiaries with and without AD/ADRD, including accounting for nursing home (NH) residency status. RESULTS: We found fewer adjusted 30-day HDAH after ED visits among patients with AD/ADRD compared to those without AD/ADRD (21.6 vs. 23.0). This difference was driven by a greater number of mortality days, SNF days, and, to a lesser degree, hospital observation days, ED visits, and long-term hospital days. From 2012 to 2018, individuals living with AD/ADRD had fewer HDAH each year but a greater mean annual increase over time (p < 0.001 for the interaction between year and AD/ADRD status). Being a NH resident was associated with fewer adjusted 30-day HDAH for beneficiaries with and without AD/ADRD. CONCLUSIONS: Beneficiaries with AD/ADRD had fewer HDAH following an ED visit but saw moderately greater increases in HDAH over time compared to those without AD/ADRD. This trend was visit driven by declining mortality and utilization of inpatient and post-acute care.

One-year Medicare costs associated with delirium in older hospitalized patients with and without Alzheimer's disease dementia and related disorders.

INTRODUCTION: One-year health-care costs associated with delirium in older hospitalized patients with and without Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) have not been examined previously. METHODS: Medicare costs were determined prospectively at discharge, and at 30, 90, and 365 days in a cohort (n = 311) of older adults after hospital admission. RESULTS: Seventy-six (24%) patients had ADRD and were more likely to develop delirium (51% vs. 24%, P < 0.001) and die within 1 year (38% vs. 21%, P = 0.002). In ADRD patients with versus without delirium, adjusted mean difference in costs associated with delirium were $34,828; most of the excess costs were incurred between 90 and 365 days (P = 0.03). In non-ADRD patients, delirium was associated with increased costs at all timepoints. Excess costs associated with delirium in ADRD patients increased progressively over 1 year, whereas in non-ADRD patients the increase was consistent across time periods. DISCUSSION: Our findings highlight the complexity of health-care costs for ADRD patients who develop delirium, a potentially preventable source of expenditures. HIGHLIGHTS: Novel examination of health-care costs of delirium in persons with and without Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). Increased 1-year costs of $34,828 in ADRD patients with delirium (vs. without). Increased costs for delirium in ADRD occur later during the 365-day study period. For ADRD patients, cost differences between those with and without delirium increased over 1 year. For non-ADRD patients, the parallel cost differences were consistent over time.

Comparative salary-related costs of a brief app-directed delirium identification protocol by hospitalists, nurses, and nursing assistants.

BACKGROUND: Systematic screening can improve delirium identification among hospitalized older adults. Prior studies have shown clinicians and health system leaders may believe they do not have the time and resources for assessment. We conducted a comparative salary-related cost analysis of an adaptive delirium identification protocol directed by an iPad app. METHODS: We recruited 527 older adult medicine patients from an urban academic medical center (n = 269) and a rural community hospital (n = 258). Physicians and nurses completed the two-step Ultra-brief Confusion Assessment Method (UB-CAM) protocol (with or without a skip pattern), while certified nursing assistants completed only the UB-2 ultra-brief screen. The sample included 527 patients (average age 80, 57% women, 35% with dementia). Time required to administer the protocol was collected automatically by the iPad app. Salary-related costs of screening were determined by multiplying the time required by the hourly wage for the three disciplines, as obtained from national and regional published healthcare salary cost data. Cost estimates for entire hospital implementation were also calculated. RESULTS: Participants were screened on 924 hospital days by 399 clinicians (53 physicians, 236 nurses, 110 CNAs). For the UB-2, CNAs cost per screen was lower than the other clinician types ($0.37 per screen vs. $0.73 for nurses and $2.39 for hospitalists). For the UB-CAM with skip (UB-CAM), costs per protocol were $1.10 for nurses vs. $3.61 for physicians. The annual salary-related costs of hospital-wide implementation of a nurse-based UB-CAM protocol in a medium-sized (300-bed) hospital was $63,015 plus $4356 for initial and annual training. CONCLUSIONS: CNAs and nurses had the lowest salary-associated costs for app-directed CAM-based delirium screening and identification, respectively. Salary-related annual hospital costs for the most efficient protocols in a medium-sized hospital were less than the annual cost of hiring 1 FTE of the discipline performing the protocols.

Association of Diagnosed Dementia with Post-discharge Mortality and Readmission Among Hospitalized Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Patients with dementia are frequently hospitalized and may face barriers in post-discharge care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with dementia have an increased risk of adverse outcomes following discharge. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized in 2016. MAIN MEASURES: Co-primary outcomes were mortality and readmission within 30 days of discharge. Multivariable logistic regression models were estimated to assess the risk of each outcome for patients with and without dementia accounting for demographics, comorbidities, frailty, hospitalization factors, and disposition. KEY RESULTS: The cohort included 1,089,109 hospitalizations of which 211,698 (19.3%) were of patients with diagnosed dementia (median (IQR) age 83 (76-89); 61.5% female) and 886,411 were of patients without dementia (median (IQR) age 76 (79-83); 55.0% female). At 30 days following discharge, 5.7% of patients with dementia had died compared to 3.1% of patients without dementia (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.21; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.24). At 30 days following discharge, 17.7% of patients with dementia had been readmitted compared to 13.1% of patients without dementia (aOR 1.02; CI 1.002 to 1.04). Dementia was associated with an increased odds of readmission among patients discharged to the community (aOR 1.07, CI 1.05 to 1.09) but a decreased odds of readmission among patients discharge to nursing facilities (aOR 0.93, CI 0.90 to 0.95). Patients with dementia who were discharged to the community were more likely to be readmitted than those discharged to nursing facilities (18.9% vs 16.0%), and, when readmitted, were more likely to die during the readmission (20.7% vs 4.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosed dementia was associated with a substantially increased risk of mortality and a modestly increased risk of readmission within 30 days of discharge. Patients with dementia discharged to the community had particularly elevated risk of adverse outcomes indicating possible gaps in post-discharge services and caregiver support.

Three-Minute Diagnostic Assessment for Delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM): French translation and cultural adaptation.

PURPOSE: The routine use of validated diagnostic instruments is key to identifying delirious patients early and expediting care. The 3-Minute Diagnostic Assessment for Delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM) instrument is a brief, easy to use, sensitive, and specific delirium assessment tool for hospitalized patients. We aimed to translate the original English version into French, and then adapt it to older high-risk patients. METHODS: Translation and adaptation of the questionnaire were guided by an expert committee and the 3D-CAM instrument developer. During the translation phase, we achieved semantic and conceptual equivalence of the instrument by conducting forward and backward translations. During the adaptation phase, we assessed the face validity, clarity of wording, and ease of use of the translated questionnaire by administering it to 30 patients and their caregivers in peri-interventional and medical intermediate care units. During both phases, we used qualitative (goal and adequacy of the questionnaire) and quantitative (Sperber score, clarity score) criteria. RESULTS: Translation: four items were judged inadequate and were revised until all reached a Sperber score of < 3/7. Face validity: 91% of patients thought the questionnaire was designed to assess memory, thoughts, or reasoning. Clarity: eight items required adjustments until all scored ≥ 9/10 for clarity. Ease of use: all bedside caregivers reported that the questionnaire was easy to complete after receiving brief instructions. CONCLUSIONS: We produced a culturally adapted French version of the 3D-CAM instrument that is well understood and well-received by older high-risk patients and their caregivers.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'administration systématique d'instruments diagnostiques validés est essentielle pour identifier précocement les patients confus. Le questionnaire 3D-CAM (3 Minute Diagnostic Confusion Assessment Method) est un outil d'évaluation bref, facile à administrer en milieu hospitalier, sensible et spécifique pour l'état confusionnel. Notre objectif était de le traduire en français, puis de l'adapter à une population de patients âgés à haut risque. MéTHODE: La traduction et l'adaptation ont été guidées par un comité d'experts et le développeur de l'instrument. Nous avons atteint une équivalence sémantique et conceptuelle en menant des traductions antérogrades, puis rétrogrades. Nous avons évalué la validité de contenu, la clarté lexicale, et la facilité d'administration du questionnaire en le soumettant à 30 patients et 30 soignants dans des unités de soins intermédiaires médicaux et péri-interventionnels. Durant les phases de traduction et d'adaptation, nous avons utilisé des critères qualitatifs et quantitatifs. RéSULTATS: Traduction : quatre questions ont été jugées inadéquates et ont été révisées pour atteindre un score de Sperber < 3/7. Validité de contenu : 91% des patients pensaient que le questionnaire était conçu pour évaluer la mémoire, les pensées, ou le raisonnement. Clarté : huit questions ont dû être modifiées pour atteindre un score de clarté ≥ 9/10. Facilité d'administration : tous les soignants pensaient que le questionnaire était facile à utiliser après une brève formation. CONCLUSIONS: Nous avons produit une version française du questionnaire 3D-CAM qui est adaptée aux patients âgés à haut risque et aux soignants en milieu de soins aigus.

Assessment of potential selection bias in neuroimaging studies of postoperative delirium and cognitive decline: lessons from the SAGES study.

Due to cost and participant burden, neuroimaging studies are often performed in relatively small samples of voluntary participants. This may lead to selection bias. It is important to identify factors associated with participation in neuroimaging studies and understand their effect on outcome measures. We investigated the effect of postoperative delirium on long-term (over 48 months) cognitive decline (LTCD) in 560 older surgical patients (≥ 70 years), including a nested MRI cohort (n = 146). We observed a discrepancy in the effect of delirium on cognitive decline as a function of MRI participation. Although overall difference in cognitive decline due to delirium was not greater than what might be expected due to chance (p = .21), in the non-MRI group delirium was associated with a faster pace of LTCD (-0.063, 95% CI -0.094 to -0.032, p < .001); while in the MRI group the effect of delirium was less and not significant (-0.023, 95% CI -0.076, 0.030, p = .39). Since this limits our ability to investigate the neural correlates of delirium and cognitive decline using MRI data, we attempted to mitigate the observed discrepancy using inverse probability weighting for MRI participation. The approach was not successful and the difference of the effect of delirium in slope was essentially unchanged. There was no evidence that the MRI sub-group experienced delirium that differed in severity relative to MRI non-participants. We could not attribute the observed discrepancy to selection bias based on measured factors. It may reflect a power issue due to the smaller MRI subsample or selection bias from unmeasured factors.

Psychoactive medication therapy and delirium screening in skilled nursing facilities.

BACKGROUND: A positive delirium screen at skilled-nursing facility (SNF) admission can trigger a simultaneous diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease or related dementia (AD/ADRD) and lead to psychoactive medication treatment despite a lack of evidence supporting use. METHODS: This was a nationwide historical cohort study of 849,086 Medicare enrollees from 2011-2013 who were admitted to the SNF from a hospital without a history of dementia. Delirium was determined through positive Confusion Assessment Method screen and incident AD/ADRD through active diagnosis or claims. Cox proportional hazard models predicted the risk of receiving one of three psychoactive medications (i.e., antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, antiepileptics) within 7 days of SNF admission and within the entire SNF stay. RESULTS: Of 849,086 newly-admitted SNF patients (62.6% female, mean age 78), 6.1% had delirium (of which 35.4% received an incident diagnosis of AD/ADRD); 12.6% received antipsychotics, 30.4% benzodiazepines, and 5.8% antiepileptics. Within 7 days of admission, patients with delirium and incident dementia were more likely to receive an antipsychotic (relative risk [RR] 3.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.99 to 3.20), or a benzodiazepine (RR 1.23; 95% CI 1.19 to 1.27) than patients without either condition. By the end of the SNF stay, patients with both delirium and incident dementia were more likely to receive an antipsychotic (RR 3.04; 95% CI 2.95 to 3.14) and benzodiazepine (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.36) than patients without either condition. CONCLUSION: In this historical cohort, a positive delirium screen was associated with a higher risk of receiving psychoactive medication within 7 days of SNF admission, particularly in patients with an incident AD/ADRD diagnosis. Future research should examine strategies to reduce inappropriate psychoactive medication prescribing in older adults admitted with delirium to SNFs.

One-Year Medicare Costs Associated With Delirium in Older Patients Undergoing Major Elective Surgery.

Importance: Delirium is a common, serious, and potentially preventable problem for older adults, associated with adverse outcomes. Coupled with its preventable nature, these adverse sequelae make delirium a significant public health concern; understanding its economic costs is important for policy makers and health care leaders to prioritize care. Objective: To evaluate current 1-year health care costs attributable to postoperative delirium in older patients undergoing elective surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study included 497 patients from the Successful Aging after Elective Surgery (SAGES) study, an ongoing cohort study of older adults undergoing major elective surgery. Patients were enrolled from June 18, 2010, to August 8, 2013. Eligible patients were 70 years or older, English-speaking, able to communicate verbally, and scheduled to undergo major surgery at 1 of 2 Harvard-affiliated hospitals with an anticipated length of stay of at least 3 days. Eligible surgical procedures included total hip or knee replacement; lumbar, cervical, or sacral laminectomy; lower extremity arterial bypass surgery; open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair; and open or laparoscopic colectomy. Data were analyzed from October 15, 2019, to September 15, 2020. Exposures: Major elective surgery and hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cumulative and period-specific costs (index hospitalization, 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year follow-up) were examined using Medicare claims and extensive clinical data. Total inflation-adjusted health care costs were determined using data from Medicare administrative claims files for the 2010 to 2014 period. Delirium was rated using the Confusion Assessment Method. We also examined whether increasing delirium severity was associated with higher cumulative and period-specific costs. Delirium severity was measured with the Confusion Assessment Method-Severity long form. Regression models were used to determine costs associated with delirium after adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Of the 566 patients who were eligible for the study, a total of 497 patients (mean [SD] age, 76.8 [5.1] years; 281 women [57%]; 461 White participants [93%]) were enrolled after exclusion criteria were applied. During the index hospitalization, 122 patients (25%) developed postoperative delirium, whereas 375 (75%) did not. Patients with delirium had significantly higher unadjusted health care costs than patients without delirium (mean [SD] cost, $146 358 [$140 469] vs $94 609 [$80 648]). After adjusting for relevant confounders, the cumulative health care costs attributable to delirium were $44 291 (95% CI, $34 554-$56 673) per patient per year, with the majority of costs coming from the first 90 days: index hospitalization ($20 327), subsequent rehospitalizations ($27 797), and postacute rehabilitation stays ($2803). Health care costs increased directly and significantly with level of delirium severity (none-mild, $83 534; moderate, $99 756; severe, $140 008), suggesting an exposure-response relationship. The adjusted mean cumulative costs attributable to severe delirium were $56 474 (95% CI, $40 927-$77 440) per patient per year. Extrapolating nationally, the health care costs attributable to postoperative delirium were estimated at $32.9 billion (95% CI, $25.7 billion-$42.2 billion) per year. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the economic outcomes of delirium and severe delirium after elective surgery are substantial, rivaling costs associated with cardiovascular disease and diabetes. These results highlight the need for policy imperatives to address delirium as a large-scale public health issue.

Association of Positive Delirium Screening with Incident Dementia in Skilled Nursing Facilities.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Early detection of delirium in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) is a priority. The extent to which delirium screening leads to a potentially inappropriate diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) is unknown. DESIGN: Nationwide retrospective cohort study from 2011 to 2013. SETTING: An SNF. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,175,550 Medicare enrollees who entered the SNF from a hospital and had no prior diagnosis of dementia. EXPOSURE: A positive screen for delirium using the validated Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), performed as part of the federally mandated Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. MEASUREMENTS: Incident all-cause dementia, ascertained through International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), diagnosis in Medicare claims or active diagnoses in MDS. RESULTS: Positive screening for delirium was identified in 7.7% of cases (n = 90,449), and most occurred within the first 7 days of SNF admission (62.5%). The overall incidence of ADRD was 6.3% (n = 73,542). Nearly all new diagnoses of ADRD (93.5%) occurred within the first 30 days of SNF admission. Patients who screened CAM positive for delirium had a nearly threefold increased risk of receiving an incident ADRD diagnosis on the same day (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.50-4.63). Among patients who screened CAM positive for delirium, those who were cognitively intact or had mild cognitive impairments were, on average, six times more likely to receive an incident ADRD diagnosis (HR = 6.64; 95% CI = 1.76-25.0) relative to those testing CAM negative. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among older adults not previously diagnosed with dementia, a positive screen for delirium was significantly associated with higher risk of ADRD diagnosis after admission to a SNF. This risk was highest for patients in the first days of their stay and with the least cognitive impairment, suggesting that the ADRD diagnosis was potentially inappropriate.

Neighborhood-Level Social Disadvantage and Risk of Delirium Following Major Surgery.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Delirium is a common postoperative complication associated with prolonged length of stay, hospital readmission, and premature mortality. We explored the association between neighborhood-level characteristics and delirium incidence and severity, and compared neighborhood- with individual-level indicators of socioeconomic status in predicting delirium incidence. DESIGN: A prospective observational cohort of patients enrolled between June 18, 2010, and August 8, 2013. Baseline interviews were conducted before surgery, and delirium/delirium severity was evaluated daily during hospitalization. Research staff evaluating delirium were blinded to baseline cognitive status. SETTING: Two academic medical centers in Boston, MA. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 560 older adults, aged 70 years or older, undergoing major noncardiac surgery. INTERVENTION: The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) was used to characterize each neighborhood's socioeconomic disadvantage. MEASUREMENTS: Delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) long form. Delirium severity was calculated using the highest value of CAM Severity score (CAM-S) occurring during daily hospital assessments (CAM-S Peak). RESULTS: Residing in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (ADI > 44) was associated with a higher risk of incident delirium (12/26; 46%), compared with the least disadvantaged neighborhoods (122/534; 23%) (risk ratio (RR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) = 2.0 (1.3-3.1). The CAM-S Peak score was significantly associated with ADI (Spearman rank correlation, ρ = 0.11; P = .009). Mean CAM-S Peak scores generally rose from 3.7 to 5.3 across levels of increasing neighborhood disadvantage. The RR (95% CI) values associated with individual-level markers of socioeconomic status and cultural background were: 1.2 (0.9-1.7) for education of 12 years or less; 1.3 (0.8-2.1) for non-White race; and 1.7 (1.1-2.6) for annual household income of less than $20,000. None of these individual-level markers exceeded the ADI in terms of effect size or significance for prediction of delirium risk. CONCLUSIONS: Neighborhood-level makers of social disadvantage are associated with delirium incidence and severity, and demonstrated an exposure-response relationship. Future studies should consider contextual-level metrics, such as the ADI, as risk markers of social disadvantage that can help to guide delirium treatment and prevention.

National Trends in Potentially Preventable Hospitalizations of Older Adults with Dementia.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Dementia is associated with higher healthcare expenditures, in large part due to increased hospitalization rates relative to patients without dementia. Data on contemporary trends in the incidence and outcomes of potentially preventable hospitalizations of patients with dementia are lacking. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample from 2012 to 2016. SETTING: U.S. acute care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,843,632 unique hospitalizations of older adults (aged ≥65 years) with diagnosed dementia. MEASUREMENTS: Annual trends in the incidence of hospitalizations for all causes and for potentially preventable conditions including acute ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs), chronic ACSCs, and injuries. In-hospital outcomes including mortality, discharge disposition, and hospital costs. RESULTS: The survey weighted sample represented an estimated 9.27 million hospitalizations for patients with diagnosed dementia (mean [standard deviation] age = 82.6 [6.7] years; 61.4% female). In total, 3.72 million hospitalizations were for potentially preventable conditions (40.1%), 2.07 million for acute ACSCs, .76 million for chronic ACSCs, and .89 million for injuries. Between 2012 and 2016, the incidence of all-cause hospitalizations declined from 1.87 million to 1.85 million per year (P = .04) while the incidence of potentially preventable hospitalizations increased from .75 million to .87 million per year (P < .001), driven by an increased number of hospitalizations of community-dwelling older adults. Among patients with dementia hospitalized for potentially preventable conditions, inpatient mortality declined from 6.4% to 6.1% (P < .001), inflation-adjusted median costs increased from $7,319 to $7,543 (P < .001), and total annual costs increased from $7.4 to $9.3 billion. Although 86.0% of hospitalized patients were admitted from the community, only 32.7% were discharged to the community. CONCLUSION: The number of potentially preventable hospitalizations of older adults with dementia is increasing, driven by hospitalizations of community-dwelling older adults. Improved strategies for early detection and goal-directed treatment of potentially preventable conditions in patients with dementia are urgently needed. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:2240-2248, 2020.

New Delirium Severity Indicators: Generation and Internal Validation in the Better Assessment of Illness (BASIL) Study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common and preventable geriatric syndrome. Moving beyond the binary classification of delirium present/absent, delirium severity represents a potentially important outcome for evaluating preventive and treatment interventions and tracking the course of patients. Although several delirium severity assessment tools currently exist, most have been developed in the absence of advanced measurement methodology and have not been evaluated with rigorous validation studies. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to report our development of new delirium severity items and the results of item reduction and selection activities guided by psychometric analysis of data derived from a field study. METHODS: Building on our literature review of delirium instruments and expert panel process to identify domains of delirium severity, we adapted items from existing delirium severity instruments and generated new items. We then fielded these items among a sample of 352 older hospitalized patients. RESULTS: We used an expert panel process and psychometric data analysis techniques to narrow a set of 303 potential items to 17 items for use in a new delirium severity instrument. The 17-item set demonstrated good internal validity and favorable psychometric characteristics relative to comparator instruments, including the Confusion Assessment Method - Severity (CAM-S) score, the Delirium Rating Scale Revised 98, and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale. CONCLUSION: We more fully conceptualized delirium severity and identified characteristics of an ideal delirium severity instrument. These characteristics include an instrument that is relatively quick to administer, is easy to use by raters with minimal training, and provides a severity rating with good content validity, high internal consistency reliability, and broad domain coverage across delirium symptoms. We anticipate these characteristics to be represented in the subsequent development of our final delirium severity instrument.

The Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of Confusion Assessment Method Based Scoring System for Delirium Severity (CAM-S).

Previous studies showed that the Confusion Assessment Method based delirium severity evaluation tool (CAM-S) had good reliability and validity. However, there is no Chinese version of the CAM-S. Therefore, we set out to perform a prospective investigation in older Chinese patients who had total joint replacement surgery under general anesthesia in Tenth People's Hospital in Shanghai, P.R. China. A total of 576 participants, aged 60 years or older, were screened, 179 participants were enrolled, and 125 of them were included for the final analysis. Pre-operative evaluations were conducted one day before the surgery. Postoperative evaluations were conducted twice daily from postoperative day 1 to day 3. The incidence of postoperative delirium was 24.8%. The Chinese version of CAM-S [including a Short Form (CAM-S Short Form) and a Long Form (CAM-S Long Form)] had an optimal reliability reflected by internal consistency (Cronbach's α= 0.748 and 0.839 for CAM-S Short Form and CAM-S Long Form respectively), split-halves reliability (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.372 and 0.384 for CAM-S Short Form and CAM-S Long Form respectively), and inter-rater reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients = 0.629 and 0.945 for CAM-S Short Form and CAM-S Long Form respectively). Additionally, the Chinese version of CAM-S also showed a good discriminate validity. The domain scores of CAM-S were inversely correlated with corresponding domain scores of the MMSE. Finally, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis obtained an optimal cutoff point of 2.5 for CAM-S Short Form and 3.5 for CAM-S Long Form in recognizing delirium diagnosed by CAM. The areas under the ROC were 0.989 (95% CI 0.972 - 1.000, p < 0.001) and 0.964 (95% CI 0.946 - 0.982, p < 0.001), respectively. These data suggest that the Chinese version of CAM-S has good reliability and validity in evaluating postoperative delirium in geriatric Chinese patients and may be a useful tool to assess the severity of delirium.

Perspectives on the Delirium Experience and Its Burden: Common Themes Among Older Patients, Their Family Caregivers, and Nurses.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: While there are qualitative studies examining the delirium-related experiences of patients, family caregivers, and nurses separately, little is known about common aspects of delirium burden among all three groups. We describe common delirium burdens from the perspectives of patients, family caregivers, and nurses. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews about delirium burden with 18 patients who had recently experienced a delirium episode, with 16 family caregivers, and with 15 nurses who routinely cared for patients with delirium. We recruited participants from a large, urban teaching hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. We used interpretive description as the approach to data analysis. RESULTS: We identified three common burden themes of the delirium experience: Symptom Burden (Disorientation, Hallucinations/Delusions, Impaired Communication, Memory Problems, Personality Changes, Sleep Disturbances); Emotional Burden (Anger/Frustration, Emotional Distress, Fear, Guilt, Helplessness); and Situational Burden (Loss of Control, Lack of Attention, Lack of Knowledge, Lack of Resources, Safety Concerns, Unpredictability, Unpreparedness). These burdens arise from different sources among patients, family caregivers, and nurses, with markedly differing perspectives on the burden experience. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our findings advance the understanding of common burdens of the delirium experience for all groups and offer structure for instrument development and distinct interventions to address the burden of delirium as an individual or group experience. Our work reinforces that no one group experiences delirium in isolation. Delirium is a shared experience that will respond best to systemwide approaches to reduce associated burden.

Assessment of Instruments for Measurement of Delirium Severity: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Measurement of delirium severity has been recognized as highly important for tracking prognosis, monitoring response to treatment, and estimating burden of care for patients both during and after hospitalization. Rather than simply rating delirium as present or absent, the ability to quantify its severity would enable development and monitoring of more effective treatment approaches for the condition. Objectives: To present a comprehensive review of delirium severity instruments, conduct a methodologic quality rating of the original validation study of the most commonly used instruments, and select a group of top-rated instruments. Evidence Review: This systematic review was conducted using literature from Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, from January 1, 1974, through March 31, 2017, with the key words delirium, severity, tests, measures, and intensity. Inclusion criteria were original articles assessing delirium severity and using a delirium-specific severity instrument. Final listings of articles were supplemented with hand searches of reference listings to ensure completeness. At least 2 reviewers independently completed each step of the review process: article selection, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment of relevant articles using a validated rating scale. All discrepancies between raters were resolved by consensus. Findings: Of 9409 articles identified, 228 underwent full text review, and we identified 42 different instruments of delirium severity. Eleven of the 42 tools were multidomain, delirium-specific instruments providing a quantitative rating of delirium severity; these instruments underwent a methodologic quality review. Applying prespecified criteria related to frequency of use, methodologic quality, construct or predictive validity, and broad domain coverage, an expert panel used an iterative modified Delphi process to select 6 final high-quality instruments meeting these criteria: the Confusion Assessment Method-Severity Score, Confusional State Examination, Delirium-O-Meter, Delirium Observation Scale, Delirium Rating Scale, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale. Conclusions and Relevance: The 6 instruments identified may enable accurate measurement of delirium severity to improve clinical care for patients with this condition. This work may stimulate increased usage and head-to-head comparison of these instruments.

Delirium Burden in Patients and Family Caregivers: Development and Testing of New Instruments.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Delirium creates distinct emotional distress in patients and family caregivers, yet there are limited tools to assess the experience. Our objective was to develop separate patient and family caregiver delirium burden instruments and to test their content and construct validity. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Two hundred forty-seven patients and 213 family caregivers were selected from an ongoing prospective cohort of medical-surgical admissions aged ≥70 years old. New patient and family caregiver delirium burden instruments were developed and used to measure the subjective experiences of in-hospital delirium. Delirium and delirium severity were measured by the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and CAM-Severity (long form). RESULTS: Both Delirium Burden (DEL-B) instruments consist of eight questions and are measured on a 0 - 40 point scale. Final questions had good clarity and relevancy, as rated by the expert panel, and good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .82-.86). In the cohort validation, Patient DEL-B (DEL-B-P) was 5.1 points higher and Family Caregiver DEL-B (DEL-B-C) was 5.8 points higher, on average, for patients who developed delirium compared to those who did not (p < .001). Test-retest reliability of DEL-B-C at baseline and 1 month was strong (correlation = .73). Delirium severity was mildly-moderately correlated with DEL-B-P (correlation = .34) and DEL-B-C (correlation = .26), suggesting contribution of other factors. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: We created instruments to reliably measure and evaluate the burden of delirium for patients and their family caregivers. Although additional validation is indicated, these instruments provide a key first step toward measuring and improving the subjective experience of delirium for patients and their families.