Development and evaluation of a concise nurse-driven non-pharmacological delirium reduction workflow for hospitalized patients: An interrupted time series study.

We created a concise nurse-driven delirium reduction workflow with the aim of reducing delirium rates and length of stay for hospitalized adults. Our nurse-driven workflow included five evidence-based daytime "sunrise" interventions (patient room lights on, blinds up, mobilization/out-of-bed, water within patient's reach and patient awake) and five nighttime "turndown" interventions (patient room lights off, blinds down, television off, noise reduction and pre-set bedtime). Interventions were also chosen because fidelity could be quickly monitored twice daily without patient interruption from outside the room. To evaluate the workflow, we used an interrupted time series study design between 06/01/17 and 05/30/22 to determine if the workflow significantly reduced the unit's delirium rate and average length of stay. Our workflow is feasible to implement and monitor and initially significantly reduced delirium rates but not length of stay. However, the reduction in delirium rates were not sustained following the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Developing electronic health record-based measures of the 4Ms to support implementation and evidence generation for Age-Friendly Health Systems.

BACKGROUND: To support implementation of the 4Ms framework and more rigorous evidence of 4Ms impact, we translated Institute for Healthcare Improvement's (IHI's) recommended 4Ms routine care practices into electronic health record-based, encounter-level adherence measures and then implemented measures at a large academic medical center. METHODS: We started with the 19 care practices in IHI's 4Ms implementation guide and developed encounter-level adherence measures using structured EHR data. We also developed overall 4Ms-level and M-level composite measures. Next, we operationalized measures at UCSF Health-an academic medical center that has implemented the 4Ms using the IHI guide. We identified UCSF Health patients who should have received 4Ms care during their inpatient admission (19,335 individuals 65 years and older with an admission between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021), then implemented the individual measures and composite measures (all at the encounter level) using Epic EHR data. We focused on 4Ms inpatient care processes, but similar approaches can be followed for ambulatory, post-acute, and other settings. RESULTS: We developed 18 EHR-based measures that captured all IHI care practices, 16 of which could be implemented using UCSF Health EHR data. For example, the EHR-based measure for the Medication care practice "deprescribe high risk medications" was measured using EHR data as "Patient had no previously existing prescriptions for high-risk medications OR patient had ≥1 previously existing prescriptions for high-risk medications deprescribed during the encounter," and 29.5% of UCSF Health encounters met this measure. For composite measures, on average, UCSF Health encounters had 61.1% adherence to the 4Ms (SD = 14.4%), with the lowest average adherence to What Matters (50.9%; SD = 44.3%) and the highest for Mentation (68.4%; SD = 13.4%). CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to construct encounter-level measures of 4Ms adherence using EHR data and derive insights to guide ongoing implementation efforts. Future efforts should refine measures based on assessments of reliability and validity.

Lost in Transition: Missed Opportunities for the 4 Ms to Support Post-Acute Care Transitions.

Thousands of health systems have adopted the 4 Ms framework, a set of evidence-based practices specific to older adults, as part of the Age-Friendly Health Systems (AFHS) initiative. However, implementation efforts have largely been setting-specific and approaches to achieve continuity of the 4 Ms during care transitions are nascent. Transitions from hospitals to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) are one type of care transition that would greatly benefit from continuity of 4 Ms practices. Drawing from the authors' insights and 5 exploratory interviews at 3 health systems that implemented the 4 Ms in the inpatient setting, we describe a set of current-state challenges when trying to extend specific inpatient 4 Ms practices (eg, deprescribing of high-risk medications) as well as the nuanced understanding of the individual's clinical trajectory developed during an inpatient stay. We also offer concrete opportunities, such as developing 4 Ms-centric discharge summary templates, to address the challenges. With the large investment in AFHS transformation and associated efforts to implement the 4 Ms framework in all care settings used by older adults, it is critical to raise awareness of the specific obstacles to promoting continuity of successful 4 Ms practices during care transitions and work to overcome them. Our insights from hospital-to-SNF transitions offer a starting point.

Health system approaches and experiences implementing the 4Ms: Insights from 3 early adopter health systems.

BACKGROUND: Redesigning the healthcare system to consistently provide effective and tailored care to older adults is needed. The 4Ms (What Matters, Mobility, Medication, and Mentation) offer a framework to guide health systems' efforts to deliver Age-Friendly care. We use an implementation science framework to characterize and assess real-world implementation experiences with the 4Ms across varied health systems. METHODS: With expert input, we selected three health systems that were early adopters of the 4Ms and engaged in different implementation support models through the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. We conducted 29 semi-structured interviews with diverse stakeholders from each site. Stakeholders ranged from hospital leadership to frontline clinicians. Interviews covered each site's approach to and experiences with implementation, including facilitators and barriers. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We characterized each site's implementation decisions and then inductively identified overarching themes and subthemes with supporting quotes. RESULTS: Health systems varied in their implementation approach, including the implementation order of each of the 4Ms. We identified three overarching themes: (1) the 4Ms offered a compelling conceptual framework for advancing Age-Friendly care, but implementation was complex and fragmented; (2) complete and sustained implementation of the 4Ms required multidisciplinary and multilevel leadership and engagement; (3) strategies that facilitate implementation success and support frontline culture change included top-down communication and infrastructure alongside hands-on clinical education and support. Common barriers are siloed implementation efforts across settings that impeded synergies and scaling; disengaged physicians; and difficulty implementing What Matters in a meaningful way. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to other implementation studies, we identified multifactorial domains impacting 4Ms implementation. To achieve Age-Friendly transformation, health systems must plan for and attend to multiple phases of implementation while ensuring that the work coheres under a unified vision that spans disciplines and settings.

The current landscape of Acute Care for Elders units in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefits of Acute Care for Elders (ACE) units have been established for over 25 years. However, how widely disseminated ACE units are in the United States and the degree of fidelity to the key elements of this model of care are unknown. Our objective was to identify all existing ACE units in the United States and to obtain detailed information about variations in implementation. METHODS: The strategy to identify current ACE units began with online searches and snowball sampling using contacts from professional societies and workgroups. Next, a request for information regarding the existence of ACE units was sent to the remaining US hospitals listed in a national hospital database. An online survey was sent to identified ACE unit contacts to capture information on implementation characteristics and the five key elements of ACE units. RESULTS: There were 3692 hospitals in the database with responses from 2055 (56%) hospitals reporting the presence or absence of an ACE unit. We identified 68 hospitals (3.3%) with an existing or previous ACE unit. Of these 68 hospitals, 50 (74%) completed the survey and reported that 43 ACE units were currently open and 7 had been closed. Of the 43 currently open ACE units, most are affiliated with an academic hospital and there is variable implementation of each of the five key ACE elements (from 69% to 98%). CONCLUSIONS: Among the 50 hospitals to complete the survey, 43 current ACE units were identified, with variable fidelity to the key elements. Estimates of prevalence of ACE units and fidelity to key elements are limited by nonresponses to the national survey request by nearly half of hospitals.

Protocol-based interdisciplinary co-management for hip fracture care: 3 years of experience at an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary standardized protocols for the care of patients with hip fractures have been shown to improve outcomes. A hip fracture protocol was implemented at our institution to standardize care, focusing on emergency care, pre-operative medical management, operative timing, and geriatrics co-management. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of this protocol. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of adult patients admitted to a single tertiary care institution who underwent operative management of a hip fracture between July 2012 and March 2020. Comparison of patient characteristics, hospitalization characteristics, and outcomes were performed between patients admitted before and after protocol implementation in 2017. RESULTS: A total of 517 patients treated for hip fracture were identified: 313 before and 204 after protocol implementation. Average age, average Charlson Comorbidity Index, percent female gender, and distribution of hip fracture diagnosis did not vary significantly between groups. There was a significant reduction in time from admission to surgical management, from 37.0 ± 47.7 to 28.5 ± 27.1 h (p = 0.0016), and in the length of hospital stay, from 6.3 ± 6.5 to 5.4 ± 4.0 days (p = 0.0013). The percentage of patients whose surgeries were performed under spinal anesthesia increased from 12.5 to 26.5% (p = 0.016). There was no difference in 90-day readmission rate or mortality at 30 days, 90 days, or 1 year between groups. CONCLUSION: With the implementation of an interdisciplinary hip fracture protocol, we observed significant and sustained reductions in time to surgery and hospital length of stay, important metrics in hip fracture management, without increased readmission or mortality. This has implications to minimize health care costs and improve outcomes for our aging population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, therapeutic.

Derivation, Validation, Sustained Performance, and Clinical Impact of an Electronic Medical Record-Based Perioperative Delirium Risk Stratification Tool.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium is an important problem for surgical inpatients and was the target of a multidisciplinary quality improvement project at our institution. We developed and tested a semiautomated delirium risk stratification instrument, Age, WORLD backwards, Orientation, iLlness severity, Surgery-specific risk (AWOL-S), in 3 independent cohorts from our tertiary care hospital and describe its performance characteristics and impact on clinical care. METHODS: The risk stratification instrument was derived with elective surgical patients who were admitted at least overnight and received at least 1 postoperative delirium screen (Nursing Delirium Screening Scale [NuDESC] or Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit [CAM-ICU]) and preoperative cognitive screening tests (orientation to place and ability to spell WORLD backward). Using data pragmatically collected between December 7, 2016, and June 15, 2017, we derived a logistic regression model predicting probability of delirium in the first 7 postoperative hospital days. A priori predictors included age, cognitive screening, illness severity or American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and surgical delirium risk. We applied model odds ratios to 2 subsequent cohorts ("validation" and "sustained performance") and assessed performance using area under the receiver operator characteristic curves (AUC-ROC). A post hoc sensitivity analysis assessed performance in emergency and preadmitted patients. Finally, we retrospectively evaluated the use of benzodiazepines and anticholinergic medications in patients who screened at high risk for delirium. RESULTS: The logistic regression model used to derive odds ratios for the risk prediction tool included 2091 patients. Model AUC-ROC was 0.71 (0.67-0.75), compared with 0.65 (0.58-0.72) in the validation (n = 908) and 0.75 (0.71-0.78) in the sustained performance (n = 3168) cohorts. Sensitivity was approximately 75% in the derivation and sustained performance cohorts; specificity was approximately 59%. The AUC-ROC for emergency and preadmitted patients was 0.71 (0.67-0.75; n = 1301). After AWOL-S was implemented clinically, patients at high risk for delirium (n = 3630) had 21% (3%-36%) lower relative risk of receiving an anticholinergic medication perioperatively after controlling for secular trends. CONCLUSIONS: The AWOL-S delirium risk stratification tool has moderate accuracy for delirium prediction in a cohort of elective surgical patients, and performance is largely unchanged in emergent/preadmitted surgical patients. Using AWOL-S risk stratification as a part of a multidisciplinary delirium reduction intervention was associated with significantly lower rates of perioperative anticholinergic but not benzodiazepine, medications in those at high risk for delirium. AWOL-S offers a feasible starting point for electronic medical record-based postoperative delirium risk stratification and may serve as a useful paradigm for other institutions.

The Diverse Implementation of Geriatrics-Orthopedics Comanagement Programs in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Many health systems are establishing geriatrics-orthopedics (Geri-Ortho) comanagement programs; however, there is paucity of published information on existing programs' variations in clinical operations, structure, and reported implementation challenges and perceived successes. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to obtain detailed information about the variety of existing Geri-Ortho comanagement programs in the United States. DESIGN/PARTICPANTS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 44 existing Geri-Ortho comanagement programs, with 23 (52%) of programs responding. MEASUREMENT: Quantitative questions were used to assess operational, staffing, and financial structures; and qualitative questions were used to identify reported challenges and perceived successes of implementation. RESULTS: Programs self-identified as urban (n = 23), academic (n = 20), or nonprofit (n = 22) and as having a level I trauma center (n = 17). Most programs (n = 18) were funded fully by the institution. Fourteen programs used geriatricians, and nine used medicine/hospitalists as the supporting clinical service, whereas approximately half (n = 11) used these services in a true comanagement model. Six universal themes were identified as necessary for program implementation. The most commonly described successes perceived by all respondents were improvements in clinical outcomes and better interdisciplinary relationships. Reported challenges included difficulty in interdisciplinary geriatrics education, difficulty in adherence to protocols, and lack of funding for staffing. CONCLUSIONS: There are diverse types of Geri-Ortho comanagement programs in the United States, although universal elements exist. Many had similar challenges in implementation, and further studies are needed to determine which implementation elements are critical to clinical and financial outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1714-1719, 2020.

A Physician With Thigh Pain.

To prevent death, necrotizing soft-tissue infections should be diagnosed quickly and treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics and surgical debridement.

Discrimination in Healthcare Settings is Associated with Disability in Older Adults: Health and Retirement Study, 2008-2012.

BACKGROUND: As our society ages, improving medical care for an older population will be crucial. Discrimination in healthcare may contribute to substandard experiences with the healthcare system, increasing the burden of poor health in older adults. Few studies have focused on the presence of healthcare discrimination and its effects on older adults. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the relationship between healthcare discrimination and new or worsened disability. DESIGN: This was a longitudinal analysis of data from the nationally representative Health and Retirement Study administered in 2008 with follow-up through 2012. PARTICIPANTS: Six thousand and seventeen adults over the age of 50 years (mean age 67 years, 56.3 % female, 83.1 % white) were included in this study. MAIN MEASURES: Healthcare discrimination assessed by a 2008 report of receiving poorer service or treatment than other people by doctors or hospitals (never, less than a year=infrequent; more than once a year=frequent). Outcome was self-report of new or worsened disability by 2012 (difficulty or dependence in any of six activities of daily living). We used a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, gender, net worth, education, depression, high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, lung disease, heart disease, stroke, and healthcare utilization in the past 2 years. KEY RESULTS: In all, 12.6 % experienced discrimination infrequently and 5.9 % frequently. Almost one-third of participants (29 %) reporting frequent healthcare discrimination developed new or worsened disability over 4 years, compared to 16.8 % of those who infrequently and 14.7 % of those who never experienced healthcare discrimination (p < 0.001). In multivariate analyses, compared to no discrimination, frequent healthcare discrimination was associated with new or worsened disability over 4 years (aHR = 1.63, 95 % CI 1.16-2.27). CONCLUSIONS: One out of five adults over the age of 50 years experiences discrimination in healthcare settings. One in 17 experience frequent healthcare discrimination, and this is associated with new or worsened disability by 4 years. Future research should focus on the mechanisms by which healthcare discrimination influences disability in older adults to promote better health outcomes for an aging population.