Effects of a perioperative geriatric intervention for older adults with Cancer: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with gastrointestinal cancers undergoing surgery often experience poor outcomes, such as prolonged postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) use, hospital readmissions, and complications. Involvement of geriatricians in the care of older adults with cancer can improve outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial of a perioperative geriatric intervention (PERI-OP) in older patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing surgery. METHODS: From 9/2016-4/2019, we randomly assigned patients age ≥ 65 with gastrointestinal cancer planning to undergo surgical resection to receive PERI-OP or usual care. Patients assigned to PERI-OP met with a geriatrician preoperatively in the outpatient setting and postoperatively as an inpatient consultant. The primary outcome was postoperative hospital LOS. Secondary outcomes included postoperative ICU use, 90-day hospital readmission rates, and complication rates. We conducted intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. RESULTS: ITT analyses included 137/160 patients who underwent surgery (usual care = 68/78, intervention = 69/82). PP analyses included the 68 usual care patients and the 30/69 intervention patients who received the preoperative and postoperative intervention components. ITT analyses demonstrated no significant differences between intervention and usual care in postoperative hospital LOS (7.23 vs 8.21 days, P = 0.374), ICU use (23.2% vs 32.4%, P = 0.257), 90-day hospital readmission rates (21.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.690), or complication rates (17.4% vs 20.6%, P = 0.668). In PP analyses, intervention patients had shorter postoperative hospital LOS (5.90 vs 8.21 days, P = 0.024), but differences in ICU use (13.3% vs 32.4%, P = 0.081), 90-day hospital readmission rates (16.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.439), and complication rates (6.7% vs 20.6%, P = 0.137) remained non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, PERI-OP did not have a significant impact on postoperative hospital LOS, ICU use, hospital readmissions, or complications. However, the subgroup who received PERI-OP as planned experienced encouraging results. Future studies of PERI-OP should include efforts, such as telehealth, to ensure the intervention is delivered as planned.

Information Sharing Practices Between US Hospitals and Skilled Nursing Facilities to Support Care Transitions.

Importance: Patient transitions from hospitals to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) require robust information sharing. After a decade of investment in health information technology infrastructure and new incentives to promote hospital-SNF coordination in the US, the current state of information sharing at this critical transition is unknown. Objective: To measure the completeness, timeliness, and usability of information shared by hospitals when discharging patients to SNFs, and to identify relational and structural characteristics associated with better hospital-SNF information sharing. Design, Setting, and Participants: Survey of 500 SNFs from a US nationally representative sample (265 respondents representing 471 hospital-SNF pairs; response rate of 53.0%) that collected detailed data on information sharing that supports care transitions from each of the 2 hospitals from which they receive the largest volume of patient referrals. Survey administration occurred between January 2019 and March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall assessment of information completeness, timeliness, and usability using 5-point Likert scales. Detailed measures, including (1) completeness-routine sharing of 23 specific information types; (2) timeliness-how often information arrived after the patient; and (3) usability-whether information was duplicative, extraneous, or not tailored to SNF needs. In addition, 8 relational characteristics (eg, shared staffing, collaborative meetings, and referral volume) and 10 structural characteristics (eg, size, ownership, and staffing) were assessed as potential factors associated with better information sharing. Results: Of 471 hospital-SNF pairs, 64 (13.5%) reported excellent performance on all 3 dimensions of information sharing, whereas 141 (30.0%) were at or below the mean performance on all dimensions. Social status (missing in 309 pairs [65.7%]) and behavioral status (missing in 319 pairs [67.7%]) were the most common types of missing information. Receipt of hospital information was delayed, sometimes (159 pairs [33.8%]) or often (77 pairs [16.4%]) arriving after the patient. In total, 358 pairs [76.0%] reported at least 1 usability shortcoming. Having a hospital clinician on site at the SNF was associated in multivariate analysis with more complete (odds ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.07-2.78; P = .03), timely (odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.08-2.88; P = .02), and usable (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.02-2.63; P = .04) information sharing. Hospital accountable care organization participation was associated with more timely information sharing (odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.13-3.14; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, US SNFs reported significant shortcomings in the completeness, timeliness, and usability of information provided by hospitals to support patient transitions. These shortcomings are likely associated with a suboptimal transition experience. Shared clinicians represent a potential strategy to improve information sharing but are costly. New payment models such as accountable care organizations may offer a more scalable approach but were only associated with more timely sharing.