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.

Optimizing delirium care in the era of Age-Friendly Health System.

Delirium is a significant geriatric condition associated with adverse clinical and economic outcomes. The cause of delirium is usually multifactorial, and person-centered multicomponent approaches for proper delirium management are required. In 2017, the John A. Hartford Foundation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) launched a national initiative, Age-Friendly Health System (AFHS), promoting the use of a framework called 4Ms (what matters, medication, mentation, and mobility). The 4Ms framework's primary goal is to provide comprehensive and practical person-centered care for older adults and it aligns with the core concepts of optimal delirium management. In this special article, we demonstrate how a traditional delirium prevention and management model can be assessed from the perspective of AFHS. An example is the crosswalk with the Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) Core Interventions and the 4MS, which demonstrates alignment in delirium management. We also introduce useful tools to create an AFHS environment in delirium management. Although much has been written about delirium management, there is a need to identify the critical steps in advancing the overall delirium care in the context of the AFHS. In this article, we suggest future directions, including the need for more prospective and comprehensive research to assess the impact of AFHS on delirium care, the need for more innovative and sustainable education platforms, fundamental changes in the healthcare payment system for proper adoption of AFHS in any healthcare setting, and application of AFHS in the community for continuity of care for older adults with delirium.

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.

Recognition of Delirium Superimposed on Dementia: Is There an Ideal Tool?

Delirium in persons with dementia (DSD) is a common occurrence. Over the past three decades, several tools have been developed and validated to diagnose delirium, yet there is still a shortage of tools recommended in persons with dementia and there is a lack of sufficient research on the accuracy of performance of such tools in this growing population. The purpose of this article is to (1) conduct a clinical review of the detection of DSD across settings of care by formal health care professionals and informal family members and care partners; (2) identify barriers and facilitators to detection and highlight delirium tools that have been tested in person with dementia; and (3) make recommendations for future research, practice, and policy. Given this review, an "ideal" tool for DSD would point to tools being brief, easy to integrate into the EMR, and accurate with at least 90% accuracy given the poor outcomes associated with delirium and DSD. Knowing the baseline and communication between family members and healthcare professionals should be a top priority for education, research, and health systems policy. More work is needed in better understanding DSD and optimizing and standardizing feature assessment, especially the acute change feature at the bedside for DSD.

Caregiving for Persons Living With Dementia During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Perspectives of Family Care Partners.

Persons living with dementia (PLWD) are at increased risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poorer outcomes if they contract the disease. COVID-19 may also change and exacerbate usual stresses of family caregiving. The current qualitative descriptive study examined 14 family care partners' (FCPs) experiences and perspectives on how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted them, their care recipients, and their caregiving for their care recipients. Thematic analysis of interviews generated five themes: Cautious of COVID-19 Exposure, Challenges of Balancing COVID-19 Restrictions With Caregiving, Shared Loneliness, Functional Decline, and Communication Challenges With PLWD and Health Care Professionals (HCPs). FCPs are integral to the care of PLWD across care settings. The time is now to plan for changes in policy that will safely maintain FCPs' visitation with their care recipients with dementia and allow for partnering with HCPs to avoid the long-lasting negative effects on older adults' health and function. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 49(3), 27-33.].

Home-Based Care Provider Perspectives on Care Refusal During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Acute and chronic disease management continues to shift toward a health care in the home model, yet literature discussing continuity of home-based care services during public health emergencies, such as infectious disease pandemics, is scant. In the current study, we used semi-structured telephone interviews with 27 home-based care providers (HBCPs) from Medicare-certified home health care agencies located in eight U.S. counties to explore older adults' decision making around home-based care service continuation during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Four themes emerged, including two related to older adults' decision making around refusal of in-home care and two related to HBCPs' responses to care refusals. Fear of COVID-19 infection motivated older adults to make care-related decisions that were incongruent with their health needs, including refusal of care in the home, despite receiving education from HBCPs. These data highlight a need for tools to help HBCPs better support patients through decision-making processes about care continuation during COVID-19 and future infectious disease pandemics. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 49(1), 35-41.].

How "age-friendly" are deprescribing interventions? A scoping review of deprescribing trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how age-friendly deprescribing trials are regarding intervention design and outcome assessment. Reduced use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) can be addressed by deprescribing-a systematic process of discontinuing and/or reducing the use of PIMs. The 4Ms-"Medication", "Mentation", "Mobility", and "What Matters Most" to the person-can be used to guide assessment of age-friendliness of deprescribing trials. DATA SOURCE: Published literature. STUDY DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: The literature was identified using keywords related to deprescribing and polypharmacy in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, ProQuest, CINAHL, and Cochrane and snowballing. Study characteristics were extracted and evaluated for consideration of 4Ms. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Thirty-seven of the 564 trials identified met the review eligibility criteria. Intervention design: "Medication" was considered in the intervention design of all trials; "Mentation" was considered in eight trials; "Mobility" (n = 2) and "What Matters Most" (n = 6) were less often considered in the design of intervention. Most trials targeted providers without specifying how matters important to older adults and their families were aligned with deprescribing decisions. OUTCOME ASSESSMENT: "Medication" was the most commonly assessed outcome (n = 33), followed by "Mobility" (n = 13) and "Mentation" (n = 10) outcomes, with no study examining "What Matters Most" outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: "Mentation" and "Mobility", and "What Matters Most" have been considered to varying degrees in deprescribing trials, limiting the potential of deprescribing evidence to contribute to improved clinical practice in building an age-friendly health care system.