A Process Evaluation of an Antibiotic Stewardship Intervention for Urinary Tract Infections in Nursing Homes.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the internal and external validity of a cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) evaluating a decision tool with supportive interventions for the empirical treatment of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in nursing homes (NHs), and to identify facilitators and barriers in implementing this antibiotic stewardship intervention. DESIGN: Mixed-methods process evaluation study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Physicians, nursing staff, client council members, and residents of Dutch NHs. METHODS: We used cRCT data of the ANNA study (Antibiotic Prescribing and Non-prescribing in Nursing Home Residents With Signs and Symptoms Ascribed to Urinary Tract Infection). In addition, we sent out an online evaluation questionnaire, conducted semistructured interviews with physicians and nursing staff, and consulted client council members. RESULTS: Internal validity was lowered: control group physicians participated in several non-study-related activities regarding UTI. External validity was good: almost all intervention components had a high fidelity (52%-74%) and were perceived as relevant (physicians: 7.2-8.6 of 10, nursing staff: 6.5-8.5 of 10) and feasible (physicians: 7.5 of 10, nursing staff 6.4 of 10), with feasibility for residents with dementia and urine incontinence needing attention. The most common reason for deviating from the advice generated by the decision tool was an unclear illness presentation. Identified facilitators to implementation were confidence in the intervention, repeated intervention encounter, and having "champions" in the NH. Barriers were limited involvement of nursing staff, unstable nursing teams, residents' and representatives' belief that antibiotics should be prescribed, and a low antibiotic prescribing threshold within the NH culture. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Lowered internal validity may have reduced the study effect. Attention should be paid to the feasibility of the intervention in residents with dementia and urinary incontinence. Improvement opportunities for implementation were higher nursing staff involvement and repeated intervention offering.

Duration of Residence and Hypertension in Black Foreign-Born Residents: NHIS, 2004-2017.

BACKGROUND: Black Americans have the highest prevalence of hypertension in the USA. Black immigrants, who, by definition, have time-limited exposure to the USA, may provide insight into the relationship between exposure to the US environment, Black race, and hypertension. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of pooled National Health Interview Survey (2004-2017) data of foreign-born White European and Black adults (N = 11,516). Multivariable robust Poisson regressions assessed the relationship between self-reported hypertension and duration of the residency (< 5, 5-9, 10-14, ≥ 15 years) among Black, Black African, Black Caribbean, and White European foreign-born residents. RESULTS: In multivariable analyses-controlling for age, sex, education, poverty-to-income ratio, insurance status, recent encounter with a clinician, and BMI-Black foreign-born residents (PR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.03, 1.90) and Black Africans (10-14 years.: PR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.13, 2.56; ≥ 15 years.: PR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.04, 2.34) with a duration of residency of at least 15 and 10 years, respectively, had a greater prevalence of hypertension than those with duration less than 5 years. A nonsignificant positive association between a duration of residency of at least 15 years (compared to less than 5 years) and self-reported hypertension was observed for White Europeans (PR 1.49, 95% CI = 0.88, 2.51) and Black Caribbeans (PR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.69, 1.72). CONCLUSION: Duration of residency is particularly associated with hypertension among Black Africans after migration to the USA. This discrepancy may be explained by differences in primary care utilization and awareness of hypertension diagnoses among recent African immigrants, along with greater stress associated with living in the USA.

A National Typology of Health Service Regulation in Assisted Living.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: State-regulating agencies use 350 different licenses and certifications to govern assisted living (AL), resulting in significant variation in regulations governing health services, the scope of practice, and capacity. This lack of standardization makes it difficult to compare and contrast AL operations and residents' outcomes across similarly regulated communities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used qualitative and quantitative methods to empirically develop and describe a typology of state AL regulations that captures inter- and intrastate variation. Based on the rules governing health services, we created regulatory specificity scores for 5 thematic dimensions: medication administration, third-party care, skilled nursing, medication review, and licensed nurse staffing. With these scores, we conducted a K-means cluster analysis to identify groups of AL license types. To differentiate the regulatory types, we calculated standardized mean differences across structure, process, outcome, and resident characteristics of the AL communities licensed under each type. RESULTS: We identified 6 types of AL differentiated by the regulatory provisions governing health services: Housing, Holistic, Hybrid, Hospitality, Healthcare, and Health Support. The types align with previous work and reflect tangible differences in resident characteristics, health service structures, processes, and outcomes. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This typology effectively captures differences across regulated dimensions and can inform and support quality of care. Researchers, policy-makers, and consumers may benefit from using this typology and acknowledging these differences in AL licensure when designing research studies, developing policies, and selecting an AL community.

Recommendations for Medical and Mental Health Care in Assisted Living Based on an Expert Delphi Consensus Panel: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: Assisted living (AL) is the largest provider of residential long-term care in the US, and the morbidity of AL residents has been rising. However, AL is not a health care setting, and concern has been growing about residents' medical and mental health needs. No guidance exists to inform this care. Objective: To identify consensus recommendations for medical and mental health care in AL and determine whether they are pragmatic. Evidence Review: A Delphi consensus statement study was conducted in 2021; as a separate effort, the extent to which the recommendations are reflected in practice was examined in data obtained from 2016 to 2021 (prepandemic). In the separate effort, data were from a 7-state study (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas). The 19 Delphi panelists constituted nationally recognized experts in medical, nursing, and mental health needs of and care for older adults; dementia care; and AL and long-term care management, advocacy, regulation, and education. One invitee was unavailable and nominated an alternate. The primary outcome was identification of recommended practices based on consensus ratings of importance. Panelists rated 183 items regarding importance to care quality and feasibility. Findings: Consensus identified 43 recommendations in the areas of staff and staff training, nursing and related services, resident assessment and care planning, policies and practices, and medical and mental health clinicians and care. To determine the pragmatism of the recommendations, their prevalence was examined in the 7-state study and found that most were in practice. The items reflected the tenets of AL, the role of AL in providing dementia care, the need for pragmatism due to the diversity of AL, and workforce needs. Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus statement, 43 recommendations important to medical and mental health care in AL were delineated that are highly pragmatic as a guide for practice and policy.

Dementia and COVID-19 infection control in assisted living in seven states.

BACKGROUND: Assisted living (AL) is the largest residential long-term care provider in the United States, including for persons with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Despite recognizing the challenge of infection control for persons with dementia, this study of 119 AL communities is the first to describe dementia-relevant COVID-19 infection control across different types of AL communities, and to discuss implications for the future. METHODS: From a parent study sampling frame of 244 AL communities across seven states, 119 administrators provided data about COVID-19 infection control practices and resident behaviors. Data were collected from July 2020 through September 2021. Communities were differentiated based on the presence of beds/units dedicated for persons living with dementia, as being either dementia-specific, mixed, or integrated. Data obtained from administrators related to feasibility of implementing seven infection control practices, and the extent to which residents themselves practiced infection prevention. Analyses compared practices across the three community types. RESULTS: Less than half of administrators found it feasible to close indoor common areas, all community types reported a challenge organizing group activities for safe distancing, and more than half of residents with dementia did not wear a face covering or maintain physical distance from other residents when indicated. Dementia-specific AL communities were generally the most challenged with infection control during COVID-19. CONCLUSION: All AL community types experienced infection control challenges, more so in dementia-specific communities (which generally provide care to persons with more advanced dementia and have fewer private beds). Results indicate a need to bolster infection prevention capacity when caring for this especially vulnerable population, and have implications for care in nursing homes as well.

Impact of COVID-19 on Structure and Function of Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) Sites in North Carolina.

OBJECTIVES: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deeply affected all forms of long-term care for older adults, highlighting infection control issues, provider and staff shortages, and other challenges. As a comparatively new, community-based long-term care option, the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) faced unique challenges. This project investigated the impact of COVID-19 on operations in all PACE programs in one US state. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Structured interviews with administrators of all 12 PACE programs in North Carolina. METHODS: Interviews were conducted December 2020 to January 2021 by trained interviewers over Zoom; they were transcribed, coded, and qualitatively analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Reported COVID-19 infection rates among PACE participants for 2020 averaged 12.3 cases, 4.6 hospitalizations, and 1.9 deaths per 100 enrollees. Six themes emerged from analyses: new, unprecedented administrative challenges; insufficient access to and integration with other health care providers; reevaluation of the core PACE model, resulting in a transition to home-based care; reorientation to be more family-focused in care provision; implementation of new, creative strategies to address participant and family psychological and social well-being in the home; and major reconfiguration of staffing, including transitions to new and different roles and a concomitant effort to provide support and relief to staff. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: While facing many challenges that required major changes in care provision, PACE was successful in mounting a COVID-19 response that upheld safety, promoted the physical and mental well-being of participants, and responded to the needs of family caregivers. Administrators felt that, after the pandemic, the PACE service model is likely to remain more home-based and less reliant on the day center than in the past. As a result, PACE may have changed for the better and be well-positioned to play an expanded role in our evolving long-term care system.

Applying Evidence-based Principles to Guide Emergency Surgery in Older Adults.

Although outcomes for older adults undergoing elective surgery are generally comparable to younger patients, outcomes associated with emergency surgery are poor. These adverse outcomes are in part because of the physiologic changes associated with aging, increased odds of comorbidities in older adults, and a lower probability of presenting with classic "red flag" physical examination findings. Existing evidence-based perioperative best practice guidelines perform better for elective compared with emergency surgery; so, decision making for older adults undergoing emergency surgery can be challenging for surgeons and other clinicians and may rely on subjective experience. To aid surgical decision making, clinicians should assess premorbid functional status, evaluate for the presence of geriatric syndromes, and consider social determinants of health. Documentation of care preferences and a surrogate decision maker are critical. In discussing the risks and benefits of surgery, patient-centered narrative formats with inclusion of geriatric-specific outcomes are important. Use of risk calculators can be meaningful, although limitations exist. After surgery, daily evaluation for common postoperative complications should be considered, as well as early discharge planning and palliative care consultation, if appropriate. The role of the geriatrician in emergency surgery for older adults may vary based on the acuity of patient presentation, but perioperative consultation and comanagement are strongly recommended to optimize care delivery and patient outcomes.

Pragmatic Trials in Long-Term Care: Implementation and Dissemination Challenges and Opportunities.

Randomized controlled trials are considered the most rigorous research design in efficacy and effectiveness research; however, such trials present numerous challenges that limit their applicability in real-world settings. As a consequence, pragmatic trials are increasingly viewed as a research design that overcomes some of these barriers with the potential to produce findings that are more reproducible. Although pragmatic methodology in long-term care is receiving increasing attention as an approach to improve successful dissemination and implementation, pragmatic trials present complexities of their own. To address these complexities and related issues, experts with experience conducting pragmatic trials, developing nursing home policy, participating in advocacy efforts, and providing clinical care in long-term care settings participated in a virtual consensus conference funded by the National Institute on Aging in Spring 2021. Participants identified 4 cross-cutting principles key to dissemination and implementation of pragmatic trial interventions: (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) diversity and inclusion, (3) organizational strain and readiness, and (4) learn from adaptations. Participants emphasized that implementation processes must be grounded in the perspectives of the people who will ultimately be responsible for implementing the intervention once it is proven to be effective. In addition, messaging must speak to long-term care staff and all others who have a stake in its outcomes. Although our understanding of dissemination and implementation strategies remains underdeveloped, this article is designed to guide long-term care researchers and community providers who are increasingly aware of the need for pragmatism in disseminating and implementing evidence-based care interventions.

Pragmatic Trials in Long-Term Care: Research Challenges and Potential Solutions in Relation to Key Areas of Care.

As a method of research, pragmatic trials are recommended so as to generate results that are applicable to real-world care. This intent is especially important for the millions of older adults who receive long-term care in thousands of nursing homes and assisted living communities across the country-and many millions more around the globe. This article presents key points raised by experts participating in a conference funded by the National Institute of Aging held at the 2021 conference of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-term Care Medicine. The purpose of the conference was to convene leading clinicians, researchers, and industry partners to address special considerations of pragmatic trials in long-term care. Cross-cutting and unique challenges and solutions to conducting pragmatic trials were discussed focusing on 3 areas of clinical relevance to long-term care: (1) functional care and outcomes, (2) psychosocial care and quality of life, and (3) medical care and outcomes, with a special focus on persons with dementia. Challenges and innovative solutions were organized across the 9 domains of the revised Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) Tool, and future research recommendations for pragmatic trials in long-term care were identified.