Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 131
Filter
2.
JAMA Netw Open ; 7(1): e2352666, 2024 Jan 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38261319

ABSTRACT

Importance: Older adults with multiple conditions receive health care that may be burdensome, of uncertain benefit, and not focused on what matters to them. Identifying and aligning care with patients' health priorities may improve outcomes. Objective: To assess the association of receiving patient priorities care (PPC) vs usual care (UC) with relevant clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this nonrandomized controlled trial with propensity adjustment, enrollment occurred between August 21, 2020, and May 14, 2021, with follow-up continuing through February 26, 2022. Patients who were aged 65 years or older and with 3 or more chronic conditions were enrolled at 1 PPC and 1 UC site within the Cleveland Clinic primary care multisite practice. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to August 2023. Intervention: Health professionals at the PPC site guided patients through identification of values, health outcome goals, health care preferences, and top priority (ie, health problem they most wanted to focus on because it impeded their health outcome goal). Primary clinicians followed PPC decisional strategies (eg, use patients' health priorities as focus of communication and decision-making) to decide with patients what care to stop, start, or continue. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes included perceived treatment burden, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) social roles and activities, CollaboRATE survey scores, the number of nonhealthy days (based on healthy days at home), and shared prescribing decision quality measures. Follow-up was at 9 months for patient-reported outcomes and 365 days for nonhealthy days. Results: A total of 264 individuals participated, 129 in the PPC group (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [6.1] years; 66 women [48.9%]) and 135 in the UC group (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [6.5] years; 55 women [42.6%]). Characteristics between sites were balanced after propensity score weighting. At follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in perceived treatment burden score between groups in multivariate models (difference, -5.2 points; 95% CI, -10.9 to -0.50 points; P = .07). PPC participants were almost 2.5 times more likely than UC participants to endorse shared prescribing decision-making (adjusted odds ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 0.90 to 6.40; P = .07), and participants in the PPC group experienced 4.6 fewer nonhealthy days (95% CI, -12.9 to -3.6 days; P = .27) compared with the UC participants. These differences were not statistically significant. CollaboRATE and PROMIS Social Roles and Activities scores were similar in the 2 groups at follow-up. Conclusions and Relevance: This nonrandomized trial of priorities-aligned care showed no benefit for social roles or CollaboRATE. While the findings for perceived treatment burden and shared prescribing decision-making were not statistically significant, point estimates for the findings suggested that PPC may hold promise for improving these outcomes. Randomized trials with larger samples are needed to determine the effectiveness of priorities-aligned care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04510948.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities , Patient Care , Humans , Female , Aged , Communication , Data Analysis , Decision Making, Shared
3.
JAMA Intern Med ; 184(1): 7-8, 2024 Jan 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37983054

ABSTRACT

This Viewpoint discusses why health priorities­tailored care, rather than the one-size-fits-all approach, is beneficial for marginalized individuals.


Subject(s)
Health Inequities , Healthcare Disparities , Humans
5.
JAMA Surg ; 158(12): e234856, 2023 Dec 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37792354

ABSTRACT

Importance: Lack of knowledge about longer-term outcomes remains a critical blind spot for trauma systems. Recent efforts have expanded trauma quality evaluation to include a broader array of postdischarge quality metrics. It remains unknown how such quality metrics should be used. Objective: To examine the utility of implementing recommended postdischarge quality metrics as a composite score and ascertain how composite score performance compares with that of in-hospital mortality for evaluating associations with hospital-level factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This national hospital-level quality assessment evaluated hospital-level care quality using 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims of older adults (aged ≥65 years) hospitalized with primary diagnoses of trauma, hip fracture, and severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Hospitals with annual volumes encompassing 10 or more of each diagnosis were included. The data analysis was performed between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022. Exposures: Reliability-adjusted quality metrics used to calculate composite scores included hospital-specific performance on mortality, readmission, and patients' average number of healthy days at home (HDAH) within 30, 90, and 365 days among older adults hospitalized with all forms of trauma, hip fracture, and severe TBI. Main Outcomes and Measures: Associations with hospital-level factors were compared using volume-weighted multivariable logistic regression. Results: A total of 573 554 older adults (mean [SD] age, 83.1 [8.3] years; 64.8% female; 35.2% male) from 1234 hospitals were included. All 27 reliability-adjusted postdischarge quality metrics significantly contributed to the composite score. The most important drivers were 30- and 90-day readmission, patients' average number of HDAH within 365 days, and 365-day mortality among all trauma patients. Associations with hospital-level factors revealed predominantly anticipated trends when older adult trauma quality was evaluated using composite scores (eg, worst performance was associated with decreased older adult trauma volume [odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.88-0.90]). Results for in-hospital mortality showed inverted associations for each considered hospital-level factor and suggested that compared with nontrauma centers, level 1 trauma centers had a 17 times higher risk-adjusted odds of worst (highest quantile) vs best (lowest quintile) performance (odds ratio, 17.08; 95% CI, 16.17-18.05). Conclusions and Relevance: The study results challenge historical notions about the adequacy of in-hospital mortality as the single measure of older adult trauma quality and suggest that, when it comes to older adults, decisions about how quality is evaluated can profoundly alter understandings of what constitutes best practices for care. Composite scores appear to offer a promising means by which postdischarge quality metrics could be used.


Subject(s)
Brain Injuries, Traumatic , Emergency Medical Services , Humans , Male , Aged , Female , United States/epidemiology , Aged, 80 and over , Medicare , Hospital Mortality/trends , Patient Discharge , Aftercare , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Quality of Health Care , Hospitals
7.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 71(2): 561-568, 2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36310367

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of older persons with dementia have atrial fibrillation (AF). Nearly all have stroke risks that exceed the guideline-recommended threshold for anticoagulation. Although individuals with dementia develop profound impairments and die from the disease, little evidence exists to guide anticoagulant discontinuation, and almost one-third of nursing home residents with advanced dementia and AF remain anticoagulated in the last 6 months of life. We aimed to quantify the benefits and harms of anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: Using Minimum Data Set and Medicare claims, we conducted a retrospective cohort study with 14,877 long-stay nursing home residents aged ≥66 between 2013 and 2018 who had advanced dementia and AF. We excluded individuals with venous thromboembolism and valvular heart disease. We measured anticoagulant exposure quarterly, using Medicare Part D claims. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke and serious bleeding. We performed survival analyses with multivariable adjustment and inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weighting. RESULTS: In the study sample, 72.0% were female, 82.7% were aged ≥80 years, and 13.5% were nonwhite. Mean CHA2 DS2 VASC score was 6.19 ± 1.58. In multivariable survival analysis, anticoagulation was associated with decreased risk of death (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.67-0.75) and increased bleeding risk (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.29); the association with stroke risk was not significant (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.80-1.46). Results were similar in models with IPT weighting. While >50% of patients in both groups died within a year, median weighted survival was 76 days longer for anticoagulated individuals. CONCLUSION: Persons with advanced dementia and AF derive clinically modest life prolongation from anticoagulation, at the cost of elevated risk of bleeding. The relevance of this benefit is unclear in a group with high dementia-related mortality and for whom the primary goal is often comfort.


Subject(s)
Atrial Fibrillation , Dementia , Stroke , United States/epidemiology , Aged , Humans , Female , Aged, 80 and over , Male , Atrial Fibrillation/complications , Atrial Fibrillation/drug therapy , Atrial Fibrillation/epidemiology , Stroke/epidemiology , Stroke/etiology , Stroke/prevention & control , Retrospective Studies , Medicare , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hemorrhage/epidemiology , Dementia/epidemiology , Dementia/complications , Nursing Homes , Risk Factors
8.
Ann Surg ; 278(2): e314-e330, 2023 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36111845

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To identify the distributions of and extent of variability among 3 new sets of postdischarge quality-metrics measured within 30/90/365 days designed to better account for the unique health needs of older trauma patients: mortality (expansion of the current in-hospital standard), readmission (marker of health-system performance and care coordination), and patients' average number of healthy days at home (marker of patient functional status). BACKGROUND: Traumatic injuries are a leading cause of death and loss of independence for the increasing number of older adults living in the United States. Ongoing efforts seek to expand quality evaluation for this population. METHODS: Using 100% Medicare claims, we calculated hospital-specific reliability-adjusted postdischarge quality-metrics for older adults aged 65 years or older admitted with a primary diagnosis of trauma, older adults with hip fracture, and older adults with severe traumatic brain injury. Distributions for each quality-metric within each population were assessed and compared with results for in-hospital mortality, the current benchmarking standard. RESULTS: A total of 785,867 index admissions (305,186 hip fracture and 92,331 severe traumatic brain injury) from 3692 hospitals were included. Within each population, use of postdischarge quality-metrics yielded a broader range of outcomes compared with reliance on in-hospital mortality alone. None of the postdischarge quality-metrics consistently correlated with in-hospital mortality, including death within 1 year [ r =0.581 (95% CI, 0.554-0.608)]. Differences in quintile-rank revealed that when accounting for readmissions (8.4%, κ=0.029) and patients' average number of healthy days at home (7.1%, κ=0.020), as many as 1 in 14 hospitals changed from the best/worst performance under in-hospital mortality to the completely opposite quintile rank. CONCLUSIONS: The use of new postdischarge quality-metrics provides a more complete picture of older adult trauma care: 1 with greater room for improvement and better reflection of multiple aspects of quality important to the health and recovery of older trauma patients when compared with reliance on quality benchmarking based on in-hospital mortality alone.


Subject(s)
Brain Injuries, Traumatic , Emergency Medical Services , Humans , Aged , United States , Benchmarking , Medicare , Hospital Mortality , Reproducibility of Results , Aftercare , Patient Readmission , Patient Discharge , Retrospective Studies
9.
PEC Innov ; 3: 100242, 2023 Dec 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38161685

ABSTRACT

Objective: To examine the use of a web-based, self-directed health priorities identification tool for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). Methods: We recruited a gender- and racially-diverse, highly educated sample of older adults with MCCs to engage with our My Health Priorities tool, then complete a semi-structured interview. Thematic analysis was used to examine interview transcripts. Results: Twenty-one participants shared perspectives on the acceptability and use of the tool. Three themes (with eleven subthemes) were generated to describe: website user experience feedback, the content of the health priorities identification process, and the tool's capacity to empower communication and decision making. Conclusion: Participants found this tool acceptable and easy to use, describing a variety of benefits of the priorities self-identification process and offered suggestions for refinement and broader implementation. Older adults with limited internet navigation abilities or misconceptions about the self-directed process may benefit from clinicians clarifying the purpose of the process or initiating priorities-aligned discussions. Innovation: This novel tool can help older adults with MCCs define what matters most for their health and healthcare, informing a variety of health decisions. This tool may enable and motivate patients to lead health priorities decision-making discussions with clinicians and care partners.

10.
West J Emerg Med ; 23(4): 579-588, 2022 Jul 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35980413

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The "4Ms" model - What Matters, Medication, Mentation, and Mobility - is increasingly gaining attention in age-friendly health systems, yet a feasible approach to identifying what matters to older adults in the emergency department (ED) is lacking. Adapting the "What Matters" questions to the ED setting, we sought to describe the concerns and desired outcomes of both older adult patients seeking ED care and their treating clinicians. METHODS: We conducted 46 dyadic semi-structured interviews of cognitively intact older adults and their treating clinicians. We used the "What Matters" conversation guide to explore patients' 1) concerns and 2) desired outcomes. We then asked analogous questions to each patient's treating clinician regarding the patient's priorities. Interviews were professionally transcribed and coded using an inductive approach of thematic analysis to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Interviews with older adults lasted a mean of three minutes, with a range of 1-8 minutes. Regarding patients' concerns, five themes emerged from older adults: 1) concern through a family member or outpatient clinician recommendation; 2) no concern, with a high degree of trust in the healthcare system; 3) concerns regarding symptom cause identification; 4) concerns regarding symptom resolution; and 5) concerns regarding preservation of their current status. Regarding desired outcomes, five priority themes emerged among older adults: 1) obtaining a diagnosis; 2) returning to their home environment; 3) reducing or resolving symptoms; 4) maintaining self-care and independence; and 5) gaining reassurance. Responding to what they believed mattered most to older adult patients, ED clinicians believed that older adults were concerned primarily about symptom cause identification and resolution and primarily desired a return to the home environment and symptom reduction. CONCLUSION: This work identifies concerns and desired outcomes of both older adult patients seeking ED care and their treating clinicians as well as the feasibility of incorporating the "What Matters" questions within ED clinical practice.


Subject(s)
Emergency Medical Services , Emergency Service, Hospital , Aged , Humans , Qualitative Research
14.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 69(12): 3476-3485, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34383963

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: After hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), older adults may be at increased risk for falls due to deconditioning, new medications, and worsening health status. Our primary objective was to identify risk factors for falls after AMI hospitalization among adults over age 75. METHODS: We used data from the Comprehensive Evaluation of Risk Factors in Older Patients with AMI (SILVER-AMI) study, a prospective cohort study of 3041 adults age 75 and older hospitalized with AMI at 94 community and academic medical centers across the United States. In-person interviews and physical assessments, as well as medical record review, were performed to collect demographic, clinical, functional, and psychosocial data. Falls were self-reported in telephone interviews and medically serious falls (those associated with emergency department use or hospitalization) were determined by medical record adjudication. Backward selection was used to identify predictors of fall risk in logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 554 (21.6%) participants reported a fall and 191 (6.4%) had a medically serious fall within 6 months of discharge. Factors independently associated with self-reported falls included impaired mobility, prior fall history, longer hospital stay, visual impairment, and weak grip. Factors independently associated with medically serious falls included older age, polypharmacy, impaired functional mobility, prior fall history, and living alone. CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients hospitalized for AMI, falls are common in the 6 months following discharge and associated with demographic, functional, and clinical factors that are readily identifiable. Fall risk should be considered in post-AMI clinical decision-making and interventions to prevent falls should be evaluated.


Subject(s)
Accidental Falls/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Myocardial Infarction/complications , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Health Status , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , United States
16.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(3): e211271, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33760091

ABSTRACT

Importance: Older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) vary in their health outcome goals and the health care that they prefer to receive to achieve these goals. Objective: To describe the outcome goals and health care preferences of this population with MCCs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included participants in the Patient Priorities Care study who underwent health priorities identification from February 1, 2017, to August 31, 2018, in a primary care practice. Patients eligible to participate were 65 years or older, English speaking, and had at least 3 chronic conditions; in addition, they used at least 10 medications, saw at least 2 specialists, or had at least 2 emergency department visits or 1 hospitalization during the past year. Of 236 eligible patients, 163 (69%) agreed to participate in this study. Data were analyzed from August 1 to October 31, 2020. Exposures: Guided by facilitators, participants identified their core values, as many as 3 actionable and realistic outcome goals, health-related barriers to these goals, and as many as 3 helpful and 3 bothersome health care activities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Frequencies were ascertained for outcome goals and health care preferences. Preferences included health care activities (medications, health care visits, procedures, diagnostic tests, and self-management) reported as either helpful or bothersome. Results: Most of the 163 participants were White (158 [96.9%]) and women (109 [66.9%]), with a mean (SD) age of 77.6 (7.6) years. Of 459 goals, the most common encompassed meals and other activities with family and friends (111 [24.2%]), shopping (28 [6.1%]), and exercising (21 [4.6%]). Twenty individuals (12.3%) desired to live independently without specifying necessary activities. Of 312 barriers identified, the most common were pain (128 [41.0%]), fatigue (45 [14.4%]), unsteadiness (42 [13.5%]), and dyspnea (19 [6.1%]). Similar proportions of patients identified at least 1 medication that was helpful (130 [79.8%]) or bothersome (128 [78.5%]). Medications most commonly cited as helpful were pain medications, including nonopiods (36 of 55 users [65.5%]) and opioids (15 of 27 users [55.6%]); sleep medications (27 of 51 users [52.9%]); and respiratory inhalants (19 of 45 [42.2%]). Most often mentioned as bothersome were statins (25 of 97 users [25.8%]) and antidepressants (13 of 40 users [32.5%]). Thirty-two participants (19.6%) reported using too many medications. Health care visits were identified as helpful by 43 participants (26.4%); 15 (9.2%) reported too many visits. Procedures were named helpful by 38 participants (23.3%); 24 (14.7%) cited unwanted procedures. Among 48 participants with diabetes, monitoring of glucose levels was doable for 18 (37.5%) and too bothersome for 9 (18.8%). Conclusions and Relevance: Participants identified realistic and actionable goals while varying in health care activities deemed helpful or bothersome. The goals and health care preferences of more diverse populations must be explored. Previous work suggests that clinicians can use this information in decision-making.


Subject(s)
Goals , Multiple Chronic Conditions/therapy , Patient Preference , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cross-Sectional Studies , Delivery of Health Care , Female , Humans , Male , Multiple Chronic Conditions/psychology , Treatment Outcome
17.
Open Heart ; 8(1)2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33452007

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To develop a 180-day readmission risk model for older adults with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) that considered a broad range of clinical, demographic and age-related functional domains. METHODS: We used data from ComprehenSIVe Evaluation of Risk in Older Adults with AMI (SILVER-AMI), a prospective cohort study that enrolled participants aged ≥75 years with AMI from 94 US hospitals. Participants underwent an in-hospital assessment of functional impairments, including cognition, vision, hearing and mobility. Clinical variables previously shown to be associated with readmission risk were also evaluated. The outcome was 180-day readmission. From an initial list of 72 variables, we used backward selection and Bayesian model averaging to derive a risk model (N=2004) that was subsequently internally validated (N=1002). RESULTS: Of the 3006 SILVER-AMI participants discharged alive, mean age was 81.5 years, 44.4% were women and 10.5% were non-white. Within 180 days, 1222 participants (40.7%) were readmitted. The final risk model included 10 variables: history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of heart failure, initial heart rate, first diastolic blood pressure, ischaemic ECG changes, initial haemoglobin, ejection fraction, length of stay, self-reported health status and functional mobility. Model discrimination was moderate (0.68 derivation cohort, 0.65 validation cohort), with good calibration. The predicted readmission rate (derivation cohort) was 23.0% in the lowest quintile and 65.4% in the highest quintile. CONCLUSIONS: Over 40% of participants in our sample experienced hospital readmission within 180 days of AMI. Our final readmission risk model included a broad range of characteristics, including functional mobility and self-reported health status, neither of which have been previously considered in 180-day risk models.


Subject(s)
Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Patient Readmission/trends , Risk Assessment/methods , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Incidence , Male , Myocardial Infarction/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , Time Factors , United States/epidemiology
18.
Am J Med ; 134(3): 374-382, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32822663

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Complex medication regimens, often present in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, may increase the risk of adverse drug effects and harm. We sought to characterize this complexity by determining the prevalence of polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate medications, and therapeutic competition (where a medication for 1 condition may worsen another condition) in 1 of the few dedicated heart failure with preserved ejection fraction programs in the United States. METHODS: We conducted chart review on 231 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction seen in the University of Michigan's Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Clinic between July 2016 and September 2019. We recorded: 1) standing medications to determine the presence of polypharmacy, defined as ≥10 medications; 2) potentially inappropriate medications based on the 2016 American Heart Association Scientific Statement on drugs that pose a major risk of causing or exacerbating heart failure, the 2019 Beers Criteria update, or a previously described list of medications associated with geriatric syndromes; and 3) competing conditions and subsequent medications that could create therapeutic competition. RESULTS: The prevalence of polypharmacy was 74%, and the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications was 100%. Competing conditions were present in 81% of patients, of whom 49% took a medication that created therapeutic competition. CONCLUSION: In addition to confirming that polypharmacy was highly prevalent, we found that potentially inappropriate medications and therapeutic competition were also frequently present. This supports the urgent need to develop patient-centered approaches to mitigate the negative effects of complex medication regimens endemic to adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.


Subject(s)
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/etiology , Heart Failure/complications , Heart Failure/drug therapy , Polypharmacy , Potentially Inappropriate Medication List/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Female , Heart Failure/physiopathology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Stroke Volume , United States
20.
JAMA Netw Open ; 3(8): e2013243, 2020 08 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32822491

ABSTRACT

Importance: To date, measurement and treatment of older adult fall injury has been siloed within specific care settings, such as a hospital or within a nursing home or community. Little is known about changes in fall risk across care settings. Understanding the occurrence of falls across settings has implications for measuring and incentivizing high-value care across care settings. Objective: To estimate the risk of older adult fall injury within and across discrete periods during a 12-month care episode anchored by an acute hospitalization. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study is a longitudinal analysis of 12-month periods that include an anchor hospital stay using national data from 2006 to 2014. Participants included older (aged ≥65 years) Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from the Health and Retirement Study. Weekly fall injury rates were computed for 4 periods compared with the anchor hospitalization: at baseline (1-6 months before hospitalization), just before (<1 month before hospitalization), just after (<1 month after hospitalization), and at follow-up (1-6 months after hospitalization). Piecewise logistic regression models estimated weekly marginal risk of fall injury within each period, adjusting for sociodemographic and health characteristics. Fall injury risks for high-risk beneficiaries with a fall injury during the anchor hospitalization were also estimated. Data analysis was performed from November 2019 to April 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Fall injuries. Results: In total, 10 106 anchor hospitalizations for 4101 beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 77.1 [7.6] years; 5912 hospitalizations among women [58.5%]) were identified. The overall fall injury risk was 0.77%. In adjusted models, marginal increases in weekly fall injury risk just before hospitalization (0.27 percentage points [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.33 percentage points], or 30.0%; P < .001) were 4 times greater than decreases just after hospitalization (-0.18 percentage points [95% CI, -0.23 to -0.13 percentage points], or -9.2%; P < .001)]. A greater risk differential before and after hospitalization was observed for patients with an inpatient fall injury (1.89 percentage points [95% CI, 1.37 to 2.40], or 309.8%; P < .001; vs -0.39 percentage points [95% CI, -0.73 to -0.04], or -11.6%; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: An episode-based assessment of fall injury illustrates substantial variability in period-specific risks over an extended period including an anchor hospitalization. Risk transitions between periods include sizable increases just before hospitalization that do not fully subside after hospital discharge. Financial incentives to coordinate hospital and posthospital care for patients at risk for fall injury are needed. These could include bundled payments for fall injury episodes that incentivize coordination across settings.


Subject(s)
Accidental Falls/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Accidental Falls/prevention & control , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...