Home Health Agency Patient Experience Measures and Their Relationship to Joint Commission Accreditation.

BACKGROUND: Health care accreditation is a widely accepted mechanism for improving the quality of care and promoting patient safety. An integral dimension of health care quality is the patient experience of care. However, the influence of accreditation on the patient experience is unclear. The Home Health Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HHCAHPS) survey is the standard for collecting patient care experience data in the home health setting. The aim of this study was to examine the association of Joint Commission accreditation on patients' experience of care by comparing HHCAHPS ratings from Joint Commission-accredited and non-Joint Commission-accredited home health agencies (HHAs). METHODS: This multiyear observational study used 2015-2019 HHCAHPS data obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) website and Joint Commission databases. The data set included 1,454 (23.8%) Joint Commission-accredited and 4,643 (76.2%) non-Joint Commission-accredited HHAs. Dependent variables included three composite measures of care (Care of Patients, Provider-Patient Communications, and Specific Care Issues) and two global rating measures. Data were analyzed using a series of longitudinal random effects logistic regression models. RESULTS: This study found no association between Joint Commission accreditation and the two global HHCAHPS measures, modest significant increases for Joint Commission-accredited HHAs in measure rates for the Care of Patients and Communication composite measures (p < 0.05), and a more significant increase for the Specific Care Issues composite measure related to medication safety and home safety (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that Joint Commission accreditation may be positively associated with some patient experience of care outcomes. This relationship was most pronounced when there was significant overlap between the focus of the accreditation standards and focus of the HHCAHPS items.

A Multistate Comparison Study of COVID-19 Cases Among Accredited and Nonaccredited Nursing Homes.

Widely acknowledged is the disproportionate number of COVID-19 cases among nursing home residents. This observational study examined the relationship between accreditation status and COVID-19 case rates in states where the numbers and proportions of Joint Commission accredited facilities made such comparisons possible (Illinois (IL), Florida (FL), and Massachusetts (MA)). COVID-19 data were accessed from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Nursing Home Compare Public Use File, which included retrospective COVID-19 data submitted by nursing homes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Healthcare Safety Network. The outcome variable was the total number of nursing home-identified COVID-19 cases from June 2020 to January 2021. Joint Commission accreditation status was the independent variable. Mediating factors included state, and county-level case rates. Increases in the county rate had a significant association with higher nursing home COVID-19 case rates (p < .001). After adjusting for county case rates, no differences were observed in the mean group case rates for accredited and nonaccredited nursing homes. However, comparing predicted case rates to actual case rates revealed that accredited nursing homes were more closely aligned with their predicted rates. Performance of the nonaccredited nursing homes was more variable and had proportionally more outliers compared to accredited nursing homes. Community prevalence of COVID-19 is the strongest predictor of nursing home cases. While accreditation status did not have an impact on overall mean group performance, nonaccredited nursing homes had greater variation in performance and a higher proportion of negative outliers. Accreditation was associated with more consistent performance during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite being located in counties with a higher prevalence of COVID-19.

Retooling of Paper-based Outcome Measures to Electronic Format: Comparison of the NY State Public Risk Model and EHR-derived Risk Models for CABG Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Risk adjustment is critical in the comparison of quality of care and health care outcomes for providers. Electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to eliminate the need for costly and time-consuming manual data abstraction of patient outcomes and risk factors necessary for risk adjustment. METHODS: Leading EHR vendors and hospital focus groups were asked to review risk factors in the New York State (NYS) coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery statistical models for mortality and readmission and assess feasibility of EHR data capture. Risk models based only on registry data elements that can be captured by EHRs (one for easily obtained data and one for data obtained with more difficulty) were developed and compared with the NYS models for different years. RESULTS: Only 6 data elements could be extracted from the EHR, and outlier hospitals differed substantially for readmission but not for mortality. At the patient level, measures of fit and predictive ability indicated that the EHR models are inferior to the NYS CABG surgery risk model [eg, c-statistics of 0.76 vs. 0.71 (P<0.001) and 0.76 vs. 0.74 (P=0.009) for mortality in 2010], although the correlation of the predicted probabilities between the NYS and EHR models was high, ranging from 0.96 to 0.98. CONCLUSIONS: A simplified risk model using EHR data elements could not capture most of the risk factors in the NYS CABG surgery risk models, many outlier hospitals were different for readmissions, and patient-level measures of fit were inferior.

Impact of Race on Immunization Status in Long-Term Care Facilities.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the relationship between resident race and immunization status in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Race was captured at the resident and the facility racial composition level. DESIGN: Thirty-six long-term care facilities varying in racial composition and size were selected for site visits. SETTING: LTCFs were urban and rural, CMS certified, and non-hospital administered. MEASUREMENTS: Chart abstraction was used to determine race, immunization, and refusal status for the 2010-2011 flu season (influenza 1), the 2011-2012 flu season (influenza 2), and the pneumococcal pneumonia vaccine for all residents over 65 years old. RESULTS: Thirty-five LTCFs submitted sufficient data for inclusion, and 2570 resident records were reviewed. Overall immunization rates were 70.5% for influenza 1, 74.1% for influenza 2, and 65.6% for pneumococcal pneumonia. Random effects logistic regression indicated that as the percent of Black residents increased, the immunization rate significantly decreased (immunization 1, p < 0.018, immunization 2, p < 0.002, pneumococcal pneumonia, p = 0.0059), independent of the effect of resident race which had less of an impact on rates. CONCLUSIONS: This study found considerable LTCF variation and racial disparities in immunization rates. Compared to Blacks, Whites were vaccinated at higher rates regardless of the LTCF racial composition. Facilities with a greater proportion of Black residents had lower immunization rates than those with primarily White residents. Facility racial mix is a stronger predictor of influenza immunization than resident race. Black residents had significantly higher vaccination refusal rates than White residents for immunization 2. Further studies examining LTCF-level factors that affect racial disparities in immunizations in LTCFs are needed.

Rapid influenza diagnostic test use and antiviral prescriptions in outpatient settings pre- and post-2009 H1N1 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) can be used at the point-of-care and are often the only influenza tests readily available in outpatient facilities. OBJECTIVES: To determine the use of RIDTs and antiviral prescription practices in outpatient facilities. STUDY DESIGN: Surveys were mailed to U.S. physician's offices, emergency departments, and community health centers in 2008 (pre-2009 H1N1 pandemic) and 2010 (post-2009 H1N1 pandemic). The 2010 survey included questions to evaluate changes in testing and treatment practices among various risk groups subsequent to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. RESULTS: In both surveys, respondents using RIDTs relied on RIDT results to guide prescribing antiviral medications. Greater than two-thirds of these respondents reported prescribing antiviral medications both pre- and post-pandemic for patients within 48h of onset of flu-like symptoms with a positive RIDT (69% pre-pandemic; 67% post-pandemic). After the pandemic (2010 survey), outpatient providers also reported prescribing antivirals to those with flu-like symptoms for 31% of children <2 years, 23% of children 2-5 years, 37% of pregnant patients, and 74% of other patients at high risk; while these figures were higher than pre-pandemic, they represent a failure to use CDC guidelines to prescribe antivirals for patients with suspected influenza who are at higher risk for complications. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians in outpatient facilities often relied on RIDT findings to aid in making antiviral treatment decisions; however their treatment practices were not always consistent with CDC guidelines. The use of RIDTs and antiviral medicines were influenced by the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.