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.

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.

Standardized assessment of medication reconciliation in post-acute care.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation (MR) facilitates safety during transitions of care, which occur frequently across post-acute care (PAC) settings. Under the intent of the IMPACT Act of 2014, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services contracted with the RAND Corporation to develop and test standardized assessment data elements (SADEs) that assess the MR process. METHODS: We employed an iterative process that incorporated stakeholder input and three rounds of testing to identify, refine, and evaluate MR SADEs. Testing took place in 186 PAC sites (57 home health agencies, 28 inpatient rehabilitation facilities, 28 long-term care hospitals, and 73 skilled nursing facilities). There were 2951 patients in the final test. Novel MR SADEs, based on the Joint Commission's framework, were refined. The final SADEs assessed whether: patient was taking high-risk medications; an indication was noted for each medication class; discrepancies were identified; patient or family/caregiver was involved in addressing discrepancies; discrepancies were communicated to physician (or designee) within 24 h; recommended physician actions regarding discrepancies were implemented within 24 h after physician response; and the reconciled list was communicated to patient, prescriber, and/or pharmacy. Two assessors per facility collected data for each patient. Analyses described completion time, data missingness, and interrater reliability, as well as feedback on assessor burden. RESULTS: Time to complete the MR SADEs was 3.2 min. Missing data were <5%. Interrater reliability was moderate to high (κ: 0.42 [whether a reconciled list was communicated to prescribers] to 0.89 [identifying patients taking hypoglycemics]). For identifying high-risk medication classes, interrater reliability was high (κ: 0.72-0.89). There were minimal differences by setting. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first set of MR SADEs that have been assessed across the PAC settings. Results demonstrate feasibility, based on missing data and completion time, and moderate to strong reliability, based on interrater comparisons, of assessing MR.

Who receives post-acute care? Characteristics of national population and field test sample.

BACKGROUND: Each year millions of Medicare beneficiaries in the United States receive post-acute care (PAC) in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), and home health agencies (HHA). We describe, overall and by PAC setting, the national population of facilities and patients, evaluate the representativeness of a national field test sample, and describe patient characteristics in the national field test sample. METHODS: We analyzed the 2016 Provider of Service file, 2016 patient assessment data reported by PAC providers to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid, and data collected from PAC providers participating in a national field test. National data included 27,234 PAC settings and 5,033,820 beneficiaries receiving PAC. The national field test sample consisted of 143 facilities across 14 markets with 25-30 patients sampled from each facility (n = 3669). We describe PAC facility and patient characteristics for both the national and field test sample. RESULTS: Nationally, PAC facilities were more likely for-profit versus not for-profit, have an average nurse-to-bed ratio between 1:10 to 1:1 (lowest in SNFs) and be in metropolitan versus other areas. PAC patients were more likely to be white, female, and 75-89 years of age; heart failure as a primary medical condition tended to be more common than stroke or sepsis. There was limited variability across setting types. In the national field test, patients in LTCHs demonstrated a greater likelihood of cognitive impairment, positive depression screening, bowel and bladder appliance use, higher rates of medication drug classes taken, and use of therapeutic diets and IV medications. CONCLUSION: The national field test facility and patient samples were fairly representative of the national population overall and across settings with a few exceptions. Moreover, differences according to PAC setting on patient characteristics in the national field test aligned with general differences in patient populations.

Development and testing of a standardized pain interview assessment for use in post-acute care.

OBJECTIVES: Pain is highly prevalent among patients in post-acute care (PAC) settings and can affect quality of life, treatment outcomes, and transitions in care. Routine, accurate assessment of pain across settings is important for pain management and care planning; however, existing PAC assessment instruments do not assess patient pain in a standardized manner. METHODS: We developed and tested a set of pain interview data elements for use across PAC settings (skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, long term care hospitals, home health agencies) as part of a larger effort undertaken by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop standardized assessment data elements to meet the requirements of the IMPACT Act of 2014. The interview assessed six pain constructs: presence; frequency; interference with sleep; interference with rehabilitation therapies [if applicable]; interference with daily activities; worst pain; and pain relief from treatments/medications). A total of 3031 PAC patients at 143 PAC settings (across 14 U.S. geographic/metropolitan areas in 10 states) participated in a national field test of standardized data elements from November 2017 to August 2018. We assessed item response distributions, time to complete interviews, inter-assessor agreement, and, for a subset of patients, change in responses between admission and discharge assessments. We also conducted focus groups with nurse assessors about their experiences administering the items. RESULTS: For patients reporting any pain, average time to complete the pain interview was 3.1 min (SD = 1.3), and interrater reliability was excellent for all data elements (kappa range: 0.95-0.99). Findings were similar across types of PAC settings. Qualitative data from nurses emphasized ease of administration and high perceived clinical utility. CONCLUSION: Findings provide support for feasibility of implementing a standardized pain interview assessment in PAC settings. This tool can support tracking of patient needs across settings and interoperability of data in electronic medical records.

Standardized assessment of cognitive function of post-acute care patients.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of cognitive function in post-acute care (PAC) settings is important for understanding an individual's condition and care needs, developing better person-directed care plans, predicting resource needs and understanding case mix. Therefore, we tested the feasibility and reliability of cognitive function assessments, including the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), Confusion Assessment Method (CAM©), Expression and Understanding, and Behavioral Signs and Symptoms for patients in PAC under the intent of the IMPACT Act of 2014. METHODS: We conducted a national test of assessments of four standardized cognitive function data elements among patients in PAC. One hundred and forty-three PAC settings (57 home health agencies, 28 inpatient rehabilitation facilities, 28 long-term care hospitals, and 73 Skilled Nursing Facilities) across 14 U.S. markets from November 2017 to August 2018. At least one of four cognitive function data elements were assessed in 3026 patients. We assessed descriptive statistics, percent of missing data, time to complete, and interrater reliability between paired research nurse and facility staff assessors, and assessor feedback. RESULTS: The BIMS, CAM©, Expression and Understanding, and Behavioral Signs and Symptoms demonstrated low rates of missing data (less than 2%), high percent agreement, and substantial support from assessors. The prevalence of Behavioral Signs and Symptoms was low in our sample of PAC settings. CONCLUSION: Findings provide support for feasibility of implementing standardized assessment of all our cognitive function data elements for patients in PAC settings. The BIMS and CAM© were adopted into federal Quality Reporting Programs in the fiscal year/calendar year 2020 final rules. Future work could consider implementing additional cognitive items that assess areas not covered by the BIMS and CAM©.

Standardized assessment of cognitive function, mood, and pain among patients who are unable to communicate.

BACKGROUND: Assessments of patients have sought to increase the patient voice through direct patient interviews and performance-based testing. However, some patients in post-acute care (PAC) are unable to communicate and cannot participate in interviews or structured cognitive tests. Therefore, we tested the feasibility and reliability of observational assessments of cognitive function, mood, and pain for patients who are unable to communicate in PAC settings. METHODS: We conducted a national test of observational assessments of cognitive function, mood, and pain in 143 PAC facilities (57 home health agencies, 28 Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities, 28 Long-Term Care Hospitals, and 73 Skilled Nursing Facilities) across 14 U.S. markets from November 2017 to August 2018. For the 548 patients identified as unable to make themselves understood, we assessed descriptive statistics, percent of missing data, time to complete, and inter-rater reliability (IRR) between paired research nurse and facility staff assessors. RESULTS: Most sampled non-communicative patients were administered all three observational assessments. Among assessed patients, overall missing data was high for some items within the Staff Assessment for Mental Status (2.9% to 33.5%) and Staff Assessment of Patient Mood (12.4% to 44.3%), but not the Observational Assessment of Pain or Distress (0.0% to 4.4%). Average time to complete the data elements ranged from 2.4 to 3.5 min and IRR was good to excellent for all items (kappa range: 0.74-0.98). CONCLUSION: The three observational data elements had acceptable reliability. Although results revealed varying feasibility, there was support for feasibility overall in terms of implementing a standardized observational assessment of pain for patients in PAC settings. Additional work is needed for the Staff Assessment for Mental Status and the Staff Assessment of Patient Mood to improve the observable nature of these data elements and enhance instructions and training for standardizing the assessments.

Developing standardized patient assessment data elements for Medicare post-acute care assessments.

BACKGROUND: To support interoperability and care planning across provider types, the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (IMPACT Act) requires the submission of standardized patient assessment data using the assessment instruments provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS was tasked with developing standardized assessment data elements (SADEs) within clinical categories named in the IMPACT Act. METHOD: We used environmental scans, subject matter expert, and stakeholder input to identify candidate SADEs; tested candidate data elements in alpha testing; revised SADEs and training protocols based on alpha analyses and stakeholder feedback; tested SADEs across post-acute care (PAC) settings in a national field test that included 3121 patients across 143 home health agencies, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, long-term care hospitals, and skilled nursing facilities in 14 markets across the United States; and analyzed data and stakeholder input from national testing. Field testing measured the time required for assessment, percent completion, and inter-rater reliability. We analyzed qualitative feedback from stakeholder focus groups and technical expert panels. We also obtained survey and focus group feedback from data collectors. RESULTS: We developed a mixed-method, multi-stakeholder procedure to identify and gather input on SADE for cross-setting use. This process yielded feasible and reliable SADEs for PAC settings that assess pain, cognitive status, mood, and medication reconciliation. The success of this work depended on working iteratively with diverse stakeholders and providing qualitative as well as quantitative evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The procedures applied in this project for developing and adopting SADEs for PAC, as well as the challenges and strategies to overcome challenges, should be considered in future item and quality measure development.

The IMPACT Act of 2014: Standardizing patient assessment data to support care coordination, quality outcomes, and interoperability.

The Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (IMPACT Act) addressed the need for uniform, clinical, and demographic data in post-acute care (PAC) settings. Structured, uniform data enables potential interoperable data exchange, quality comparisons across PAC provider types, and the capacity to explore a Medicare unified PAC payment system. Standardized patient assessment data elements were developed for clinical domains such as cognitive function and mental status, special services, treatments, and interventions, and medical conditions and comorbidities to create a common language that can be used to bolster a patient's needs and goals to improve clinical outcomes. Clinical care, decision making, and care planning were at the center of all decisions made to standardize specific data elements. In addition, all standardized data were mapped to nationally accepted vocabulary standards to support electronic health information exchange. The standardized patient assessment data elements present the foundation for uniform language across the PAC continuum to promote a greater quality of care for every patient.

Standardized assessment of depression symptoms in post-acute care: A screening threshold approach.

BACKGROUND: Depression symptoms have impacts on quality of life, rehabilitation and treatment adherence, and resource utilization among patients in post-acute care (PAC) settings. The PHQ-2 and PHQ-9 are instruments for the assessment of depression, previously used in PAC settings, that have tradeoffs in terms of measurement depth versus respondent/assessor burden. Therefore, the present study tested a gateway version of the protocol (PHQ-2 to 9). METHODS: In 143 PAC settings in 14 U.S. markets across 10 states from November 2017 to August 2018, facility and research nurses administered the PHQ-2 to communicative patients (n = 3010). Nurses administered the full PHQ-9 if the patient screened positive for either of the two cardinal symptoms assessed by the PHQ-2 (depressed mood and anhedonia). We assessed the prevalence and frequency of depression symptoms using the PHQ-2 to 9, associations between depression screening results and patient characteristics and clinical conditions, and feasibility indicators. RESULTS: More than 1 in 4 patients (28%) screened positive on the PHQ-2. Only 6% of those completing the full PHQ-9 had a score indicating "minimal" severity. The average score (M = 11.9) met the threshold for moderate depression. Positive PHQ-2 screening was associated with age, female gender, disposition at discharge, septicemia/severe sepsis, and dependence for ADLs of toileting and lying to sitting mobility. Age was also associated with full PHQ-9 scores; patients ages 45-64 had the highest mean score. Length of stay was not associated with PHQ-2 screening results or full PHQ-2 to 9 scores. Missing data were minimal (<2.4%). The average time to complete was 2.3 min. Interrater reliability and percent agreement were excellent. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest the feasibility of a gateway scoring approach to standardized assessment of depression symptoms among PAC patients, and that depression symptoms are relatively common among this inpatient population.

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.