Post-acute and Long-term Care Providers and Services Users in the United States, 2017-2018.

This report presents the most current national results from the National Study of Long-Term Care Providers (NSLTCP), conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to describe providers and services users in seven major sectors of paid, regulated postacute and long-term care services in the United States.

Advance Directives State Requirements, Center Practices, and Participant Prevalence in Adult Day Services Centers: Findings From the 2016 National Study of Long-Term Care Providers.

OBJECTIVES: Adult day services centers (ADSCs) may serve as an entrée to advance care planning. This study examined state requirements for ADSCs to provide advance directives (ADs) information to ADSC participants, ADSCs' awareness of requirements, ADSCs' practice of providing AD information, and their associations with the percentage of participants with ADs. METHODS: Using the 2016 National Study of Long-Term Care Providers, analyses included 3,305 ADSCs that documented ADs in participants' files. Bivariate and linear regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Nine states had a requirement to provide AD information. About 80.8% of ADSCs provided AD information and 41.3% of participants had documented ADs. There were significant associations between state requirements, awareness, and providing information with AD prevalence. State requirement was mediated by awareness. DISCUSSION: This study found many ADSCs provided AD information, and ADSCs that thought their state had a requirement and provided information was associated with AD prevalence, regardless of state requirements.

Variations Between Adult Day Services Centers in the United States by the Racial and Ethnic Case-Mix of Center Participants.

This is the first nationally representative study to identify differences between adult day services centers, a unique home- and community-based service, by racial/ethnic case-mix: Centers were classified as having a majority of participants who were Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, or non-Hispanic other race/ethnicities and non-Hispanic White. The associations between racial/ethnic case-mix and geographic and operational characteristics of centers and health and functioning needs of participants were assessed using multivariate regression analyses, using the 2014 National Study of Long-term Care Providers' survey of 2,432 centers. Half of all adult day centers predominantly served racial/ethnic minorities, which were more likely to be for-profit, had lower percentages of self-pay revenue, more commonly provided transportation services, and had higher percentages of participants with diabetes, compared with predominantly non-Hispanic White centers. Findings show differences by racial/ethnic case-mix, which are important when considering the long-term care needs of a diverse population of older adults.

Measuring Experience With End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Literature Review.

CONTEXT: Increasing interest in end-of-life care has resulted in many tools to measure the quality of care. An important outcome measure of end-of-life care is the family members' or caregivers' experiences of care. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the instruments currently in use to inform next steps for research and policy in this area. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, PsycINFO, and PsycTESTS(®) for all English-language articles published after 1990 using instruments to measure adult patient, family, or informal caregiver experiences with end-of-life care. Survey items were abstracted and categorized into content areas identified through an iterative method using three independent reviewers. We also abstracted information from the most frequently used surveys about the identification of proxy respondents for after-death surveys, the timing and method of survey administration, and the health care setting being assessed. RESULTS: We identified 88 articles containing 51 unique surveys with available content. We characterized 14 content areas variably present across the 51 surveys. Information and care planning, provider care, symptom management, and overall experience were the most frequent areas addressed. There was also considerable variation across the surveys in the identification of proxy respondents, the timing of survey administration, and in the health care settings and services being evaluated. CONCLUSION: This review identified several comprehensive surveys aimed at measuring the experiences of end-of-life care, covering a variety of content areas and practical issues for survey administration. Future work should focus on standardizing surveys and administration methods so that experiences of care can be reliably measured and compared across care settings.