Long-term effectiveness of screening for hearing loss: the screening for auditory impairment--which hearing assessment test (SAI-WHAT) randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of hearing screening on long-term hearing outcomes in a general population of older veterans. DESIGN: Hearing loss in the elderly is underdetected and undertreated. Routine hearing screening has been proposed, but it is not clear whether screening identifies patients who are sufficiently motivated to adhere to treatment. A four-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare three screening strategies with no screening in 2,305 older veterans seeking general medical care. SETTING: Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System. INTERVENTIONS: The screening strategies were a tone-emitting otoscope, a widely used questionnaire about hearing handicap, and a combination of both tools. MEASUREMENTS: Hearing aid use 1 year after screening. RESULTS: Of participants who underwent screening with the tone-emitting otoscope, questionnaire, and combined testing, 18.6%, 59.2%, and 63.6%, respectively, screened positive for hearing loss (P<.01 for test of equality across three arms). Patients proceeded to formal audiology evaluation 14.7%, 23.0%, and 26.6% of the time in the same screening arms, compared with 10.8% in the control arm (P<.01 for test of equality across four arms). Hearing aid use 1 year after screening was 6.3%, 4.1%, and 7.4% in the same arms, compared with 3.3% in the control arm (P<.01). Hearing aid users experienced significant improvements in hearing-related function and communication ability. CONCLUSION: In older veterans, screening for hearing loss led to significantly more hearing aid use. Screening with the tone-emitting otoscope was more efficient. The results are most applicable to older populations with few cost barriers to hearing aids.

A pilot evaluation of the Family Caregiver Support Program.

The purposes of this study were to evaluate a federal and state-funded Family Caregiver Support Program (FCSP) and explore what types of caregiver support service are associated with what caregiver outcomes. Information was obtained on a sample of 164 caregivers' use of eleven different types of support service. Descriptive and comparative analyses were used to detect the differences between users and nonusers of caregiver support services. Six measures included were caregiving appraisal scale, caregiving burden, caregiving mastery, caregiving satisfaction, hour of care, and service satisfaction. Using consulting and education services is associated with lessening of subjective burden; using financial support services is associated with more beneficial caregiver appraisal, such as better caregiver mastery. The findings are practical and helpful for future caregiver service and program development and evaluation and policy making for supporting caregivers. In addition, the evaluation method demonstrated in the study provided a simple and moderately effective method for service agencies which would like to evaluate their family caregiver support services.

Mom and pop versus the big boys: adult family homes as providers of Medicaid-funded residential care.

This paper compares assisted living apartments (ALs), adult residential care facilities (ARCs), and small adult family homes (AFHs) for Medicaid residents in Washington State, with particular emphasis on the settings, staffing, services, and policies of AFHs. We targeted for enrollment all residents entering an AFH, ARC, or AL setting on Medicaid/state funding in a three-county area of Washington State. We obtained information on 199 settings, interviewing administrative and direct care providers. AFHs are smaller than ARCs and ALs and less likely to be part of a chain, with no significant difference in staffing ratios of registered nurses and licensed practical nurses. Sixty-four percent of AFH residents were receiving public funds compared to 32% of AL residents. AFHs report admitting residents with more activities of daily living needs, health conditions, and behavior problems. They are less likely to have autonomy-related policies, and they provide more services and fewer activities. While attention should continue to be paid to staff supports, policy and practice should support the continued role of AFHs, which are of special interest because of their potential to provide more homelike, less costly care but with possible trade-offs compared to larger facilities.

Assisted living pilot program: background, methods, and facility characteristics.

Objectives. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) funded assisted living (AL), adult family home (AFH), and residential care for the first time in the Assisted Living Pilot Program (ALPP). This article describes the background and methods of the ALPP evaluation and the characteristics and experiences of the facilities. Method. Facility data were collected from the contracting/inspection process and a survey of ALPP facilities and those contacted but not participating in ALPP. Results. Data on 131 participating facilities are presented: 41 AFHs, 47 assisted living facilities (ALFs), and 43 residential care facilities (RCFs). The average facility had 33 beds (about one quarter Medicaid beds), for-profit ownership, and private rooms for ALPP residents, and about half had private baths. About two thirds of ALPP AFH providers spoke a primary language other than English. Discussion. Findings indicate that a wide range of community facilities were willing to provide care to residents with heterogeneous needs on VA funding.

Assisted living pilot program: utilization and cost findings.

Objective. The Department of Veterans Affairs funded assisted living, adult family home, and adult residential care for the first time in the Assisted Living Pilot Program (ALPP). This article compares the use and cost for individuals that entered ALPP and a comparison group. Method. This was a nonrandomized study. The comparison group consisted of VA patients who were eligible but did not enter an ALPP facility. The ALPP (n = 393) and comparison (n = 259) groups were followed for 12 months to assess ALPP facility, case management, and health care costs. Results. ALPP facility and ALPP case management costs were respectively $5,560 and $2,830 per individual. Total health care costs, including ALPP costs, were $11,533 higher for the ALPP group compared to the comparison group after adjusting for baseline differences. Discussion. Although ALPP successfully helped individuals transition to longer term care in these facilities, it was more costly than the comparison group.

Assisted living pilot program: health outcomes.

Objectives. Assisted living programs demonstrate variation in structure and services. The Department of Veterans Affairs funded this care for the first time in the Assisted Living Pilot Program (ALPP). This article presents resident health outcomes and the relationship between facility characteristics and outcomes. Method. This article presents results on 393 ALPP residents followed for 12 months after admission to 95 facilities. Results. A total of 19.8% residents died, and the average activities of daily living impairment did not change significantly. Half of the residents remained in an ALPP facility, with the average resident spending 315 days in the community during the 12-month follow-up period. This article found a limited number of characteristics of structure and staffing to be significantly associated with outcomes. Discussion. If differences among facility characteristics are not clearly related to differences in outcomes, then choices among type of setting can be based on the match of needs to available services, location, or preferences.

Screening for Auditory Impairment-Which Hearing Assessment Test (SAI-WHAT): RCT design and baseline characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Effective screening programs should not merely detect presence of disease, but also lead to long-term benefit. We describe the rationale and design of the first randomized clinical trial to study the long-term effects of routine screening for hearing loss. We also describe the baseline characteristics of the randomized cohort. METHODS: We randomized 2305 veterans age 50 years or older to a control arm without screening, or to screening with: physiologic testing (AudioScope), a self-administered questionnaire (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening version [HHIE-S]), or both tests. The primary outcome measure will be hearing aid use one year after screening. We will also study a number of secondary outcomes, including appointments made with and visits to an audiologist, cases of aidable hearing loss, hearing aids dispensed, self-rated communication ability, and hearing-related quality of life. RESULTS: Baseline demographic and health status measures were evenly distributed across the screening arms. The percentage of patients who screened positive for hearing loss was 18.6%, 59.2%, and 63.6% for the AudioScope, HHIE-S, and combined screening arms, respectively. IMPLICATIONS: Long-term results are needed to gain insight into whether the AudioScope is associated with high rates of false negative screening, the HHIE-S is associated with high rates of false positive screening, or a combination of both. Identifying the best screening program will depend on determining which strategy leads to successful hearing aid use.

Psychotropic use in community residential care facilities: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Psychotropic medication use in community residential care (CRC) facilities has been reported to be similar to that found in nursing homes before the implementation of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to (1) describe patterns of psychotropic medication use at baseline and after 1 year of follow-up in adult residents aged > or =65 years supported by Medicaid in CRC facilities, (2) describe the quality of psychotropic use, and (3) examine the relationship between psychotropic use and resident and facility characteristics. METHODS: This was a planned analysis of a larger prospective cohort study conducted in CRC facilities (assisted living, adult family home, adult residential care) in a 3-county area in the state of Washington. Interviews and state Medicaid databases were used to collect resident characteristics (demographic data, medication use, activities of daily living, self-reported health, and frequency of memory and behavior problems) and facility characteristics (type, staffing, and occupancy rates). Residents were classified as users or nonusers of psychotropic medications. Suboptimal psychotropic use was defined as use of agents with a higher side-effect profile (tertiary amine tricyclic antidepressants, long-acting benzodiazepines, and low-potency conventional antipsychotics). Logistic regression was used to examine characteristics associated with any psychotropic use at baseline. RESULTS: The typical resident was a white woman, aged 83 years, receiving 7 medications. Nearly half (46.8%) of all residents used > or =1 psychotropic medication at baseline, whereas 16.7% used multiple agents. Antidepressants accounted for the greatest amount of psychotropic use (31.2%). Suboptimal antidepressants, sedative/anxiolytics, and antipsychotics were used by 19.3%, 16.7%, and 7.3% of medication users in each class, respectively. Only age (odds ratio [OR] = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.35-1.00), number of medications (OR = 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11), and the Revised Memory and Behavior Problems Checklist score (OR = 2.03; 95% CI, 1.28-3.23) were associated with psychotropic use at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Psychotropic medication use was high in CRC facilities (46.8%), with antidepressants being the most frequently used drugs. Use of suboptimal (19.3% of antidepressant users, 16.7% of sedative/anxiolytic users, 7.3% of antipsychotic users) and multiple psychotropics (16.7%) was low.

Quality of medication records and use of pharmacy resources in community residential care facilities.

BACKGROUND: In community residential care (CRC) facilities, medication administration is often performed by unlicensed personnel with minimal knowledge in medication use. Medication management is one of the top 3 quality-of-care issues facing these facilities. OBJECTIVE: To examine the type of medication assistance residents received, determine the proportion of facilities that used pharmacy resources, and examine the quality of facility medication records in CRC facilities (eg, adult family homes, adult residential care, assisted living facilities). METHODS: Baseline in-person interviews were conducted with 349 residents and 299 facility providers in the Puget Sound region of Washington. Information was also obtained from facility medication records at enrollment and state databases. A pharmacist determined quality of the records using a standardized form. RESULTS: The average resident was a 78-year-old white female taking 7 drugs. Medication records that were computer generated were significantly less likely to have misspelled names of drugs and errors in or absence of dose, directions for use, and route of administration. Overall, 26.3% of facilities reported that a consultant pharmacist reviewed residents' medication lists, 52.0% reported the use of preprinted lists, and 75.6% received prepackaged medications from the pharmacy. Adult family homes, the smallest facility type, were the least likely to use pharmacy-related services. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of handwritten medication records was a concern in CRC facilities. These facilities may benefit from services offered by pharmacies that may enhance medication management, many of which were underutilized.

The influence of patient preference on depression treatment in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The chronic illness model encourages consideration of patients' treatment preferences. Moreover, research suggests that matching treatment to preference might affect outcomes for patients with depression. PURPOSE: This investigation explored factors associated with treatment preference matching and the effects of matching on depression treatment outcomes. METHODS: Treatment preferences were assessed among primary care patients with depression participating in a large randomized trial of depression management. Patients were offered antidepressant medication and/or counseling based on preference and several other factors. Depression was assessed at 3 and 9 months. RESULTS: Participants who preferred medication were older, were in worse physical health, and were more likely to already be taking antidepressants. Participants who preferred both medication and counseling evidenced greater agreement with the statement that depression is a medical illness. Overall, 72% of participants were matched with their preferred treatment; matched participants demonstrated more rapid improvement in depression symptomatology than unmatched participants. CONCLUSIONS: Obtaining preferred treatment appears to contribute to improved treatment outcome. Continued attempts to assess for and accommodate treatment preferences might result in better response to depression treatment.

Satisfaction with care among community residential care residents.

Measuring satisfaction with community residential care (CRC) is growing in importance but still in its infancy. The authors conducted interviews with 176 CRC residents and their providers. Logistic regression was used to identify resident and physical characteristics, policies and services, and aggregate resident characteristics associated with satisfaction. Residents had high levels of satisfaction, demonstrating most concern with the facility being able to meet their future needs and food quality. Resident demographics and health status were associated with satisfaction. Contrary to hypotheses, facility type (adult family home and assisted living) was the only facility characteristic strongly associated with satisfaction. Possible explanations include that the relationship between satisfaction and facility characteristics is more complex than expected, as well as significant challenges in measuring satisfaction and facility characteristics. The inconsistent results of previous satisfaction studies do not provide direction for imposition of uniform standards for facility characteristics, if the goal is improved satisfaction.

Association of body weight with condition-specific quality of life in male veterans.

PURPOSE: We hypothesized that obese adults with coronary heart disease, obstructive lung disease, or depression would report greater impairments in health-related quality of life owing to their angina, dyspnea, or depressive symptoms as compared with persons with normal body weight. METHODS: We analyzed cross-sectional data from the Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project, a multicenter study of veterans enrolled in general internal medicine clinics. Health-related quality of life was assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36, the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, the Seattle Obstructive Lung Disease Questionnaire, and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist for Depression. RESULTS: Compared with patients of normal weight (body mass index: 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2), underweight patients (body mass index <18.5 kg/m2) reported health-related quality-of-life scores that were at least 5% lower (worse) in all 15 quality-of-life domains examined. Patients with class III obesity (body mass index > or =40 kg/m2) reported quality-of-life scores that were at least 5% lower than those of normal weight patients in eight domains. Scores of overweight patients (body mass index: 25 to 29.9 kg/m2) were higher (better) than those of normal weight patients in 11 domains. CONCLUSION: Body mass index was strongly associated with generic- and condition-specific health-related quality of life. Our results suggest that, when considering health-related quality-of-life outcomes among veterans, the optimal body mass index may be above the "normal" range. Further research should test the validity of the 1998 National Institutes of Health body mass index categories as predictors of health outcomes among veterans.

Community residential care: comparison of cognitively impaired and noncognitively impaired residents.

Community residential care (CRC) is growing, with cognitive impairment the most common reason for CRC placement. We enrolled cognitively impaired and noncognitively impaired residents, informal caregivers, and providers in 219 CRC facilities for this study. Residents with cognitive impairment were older (p < .001), needed more activities of daily living (ADL) assistance (p < .001), and had a higher frequency of behavior problems (p < .001) than noncognitively impaired residents. Cognitively impaired and noncognitively impaired residents did not significantly differ in the facility-related factors they perceived as important or in the amount of control they felt they had over the decision to move. Including residents with cognitive impairment in future research and separately analyzing residents by cognitive status will give a more accurate picture of the needs of CRC residents.

Resident outcomes of Medicaid-funded community residential care.

PURPOSE: Washington State's initiatives to increase the availability and quality of community residential care presented an opportunity to describe clients entering adult family homes, adult residential care, and assisted living and to identify outcomes of care. DESIGN AND METHODS: We enrolled 349 residents, 243 informal caregivers, and 299 providers in 219 settings. We conducted interviews at enrollment and 12 months later, and we collected data from state databases. RESULTS: The average resident was a 78 year old woman reporting dependence in two of six activities of daily living. Residents in adult family homes demonstrated significantly more disability. Seventy-eight percent of residents survived at the 12-month follow-up. In analyses that controlled for differences at enrollment, residents in the three types of settings were very similar in health outcomes at follow-up. IMPLICATIONS: State policies should reflect the wide range of needs of residents seeking care in these settings. Choices among type of setting can be based on the match of needs to individual preferences.

Potentially inappropriate medication use in community residential care facilities.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication use in community residential care (CRC) facilities at baseline, describe exposure to potentially inappropriate drugs during the 1-year follow-up, and examine characteristics associated with potentially inappropriate use. DESIGN: A cohort study was conducted using 282 individuals aged >/=65 years entering a CRC facility in a 3-county area in the Puget Sound region of Washington State between April 1998 and December 1998 on Medicaid funding. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Use of potentially inappropriate medications as defined by explicit criteria (e.g., drugs that should generally be avoided in the elderly because potential risks outweigh any potential benefits). RESULTS: Sixty-two (22%) residents took a total of 75 potentially inappropriate medications at baseline. The most common agents used at baseline were oxybutynin (3.5%) and amitriptyline (3.5%). The incidence of new use of potentially inappropriate medications was 0.1/100 person-days during the follow-up period. Potentially inappropriate use was related to self-reported fair or poor health (adjusted OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.92) and number of prescription drugs (adjusted OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19). In the Cox proportional hazard model, no characteristics predicted new potentially inappropriate medication use during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Potentially inappropriate medication use is common among residents in CRC facilities. A comprehensive periodic review may be beneficial for reducing potentially inappropriate use, especially for patients taking multiple drugs.

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in a primary care veteran population.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the incremental cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care intervention for depression compared with consult-liaison care. METHODS: A total of 354 patients in a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinic who met the criteria for major depression or dysthymia were randomly assigned to one of the two care models. Under the collaborative care model, a mental health team provided a treatment plan to primary care providers, telephoned patients to encourage adherence, reviewed treatment results, and suggested modifications. Outcomes were assessed at three and nine months by telephone interviews. Health care use and costs were also assessed. RESULTS: A significantly greater number of collaborative care patients were treated for depression and given prescriptions for antidepressants. The collaborative care patients experienced an average of 14.6 additional depression-free days over the nine months. The mean incremental cost of the intervention per patient was $237 US dollars for depression treatment and $519 US dollars for total outpatient costs. A majority of the additional expenditures were accounted for by the intervention. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $24 US dollars per depression-free day for depression treatment costs and $33 US dollars for total outpatient cost. CONCLUSIONS: Better coordination and communication under collaborative care was associated with a greater number of patients being treated for depression and with moderate increases in days free of depression and in treatment cost. Additional resources are needed for effective collaborative care models for depression treatment in primary care.

Effectiveness of collaborative care depression treatment in Veterans' Affairs primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To compare collaborative care for treatment of depression in primary care with consult-liaison (CL) care. In collaborative care, a mental health team provided a treatment plan to the primary care provider, telephoned patients to support adherence to the plan, reviewed treatment results, and suggested modifications to the provider. In CL care, study clinicians informed the primary care provider of the diagnosis and facilitated referrals to psychiatry residents practicing in the primary care clinic. DESIGN: Patients were randomly assigned to treatment model by clinic firm. SETTING: VA primary care clinic. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred sixty-eight collaborative care and 186 CL patients who met criteria for major depression and/or dysthymia. MEASUREMENTS: Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20), Short Form (SF)-36, Sheehan Disability Scale. MAIN RESULTS: Collaborative care produced greater improvement than CL in depressive symptomatology from baseline to 3 months (SCL-20 change scores), but at 9 months there was no significant difference. The intervention increased the proportion of patients receiving prescriptions and cognitive behavioral therapy. Collaborative care produced significantly greater improvement on the Sheehan at 3 months. A greater proportion of collaborative care patients exhibited an improvement in SF-36 Mental Component Score of 5 points or more from baseline to 9 months. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care resulted in more rapid improvement in depression symptomatology, and a more rapid and sustained improvement in mental health status compared to the more standard model. Mounting evidence indicates that collaboration between primary care providers and mental health specialists can improve depression treatment and supports the necessary changes in clinic structure and incentives.

Identifying Depressed Patients With a High Risk of Comorbid Anxiety in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Depressive and anxiety disorders are highly prevalent in the primary care setting. There is evidence that patients with depression and comorbid anxiety are more severely impaired than patients with depression alone and require aggressive mental health treatment. The goal of this study was to assess the impact of comorbid anxiety in a primary care population of depressed patients. METHOD: 342 subjects diagnosed with a DSM-IV-defined major depressive episode, dysthymia, or both were asked 2 questions about the presence of comorbid anxiety symptoms (history of panic attacks and/or flashbacks). Patient groups included depression only (N = 119), depression and panic attacks (N = 51), depression and flashbacks (N = 97), and depression and both panic attacks and flashbacks (N = 75). Groups were compared on demographics, mental health histories, and health-related quality-of-life variables. Data were gathered from January 1998 to March 1999. RESULTS: Those patients with depression, panic attacks, and flashback symptoms as compared with those with depression alone were more likely to be younger, unmarried, and female. The group with depression, panic attacks, and flashbacks was also more likely to have more depressive symptoms, more impaired health status, worse disability, and a more complicated and persistent history of mental illness. Regression analysis revealed that the greatest impact on disability, presence of depressive symptoms, and mental health outcomes was associated with panic attacks. CONCLUSION: By asking 2 questions about comorbid anxiety symptoms, primary care providers evaluating depressed patients may be able to identify a group of significantly impaired patients at high risk of anxiety disorders who might benefit from collaboration with or referral to a mental health specialist.

Comparison of 3 Depression Screening Methods and Provider Referral in a Veterans Affairs Primary Care Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Concern about underdiagnosis and undertreatment of depression in primary care has led to support for routine screening. Although multiple screening instruments exist, we are not aware of studies to date that have compared different screening strategies, e.g., how the instrument is administered: by whom and in what setting. This study compared 3 separate screening strategies in terms of patient flow, coverage, patient characteristics, and other factors with the usual care system of provider referral. METHOD: We analyzed existing data from a completed randomized team trial of collaborative care depression treatment in which patients who met DSM-IV criteria for current major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, or both were recruited using the usual care system of provider referral (provider) and 3 separate screening strategies: (1) a 2-stage waiting room screening interview (waiting), (2) an in-clinic screen consisting of 2 self-report items embedded in a larger survey (in-clinic), and (3) a 2-stage self-report mail survey (mail). The team trial and analysis were conducted between January 1998 and July 2003. RESULTS: The usual care system of provider referral identified the most depressed patients and had relatively good coverage compared with the 3 screening strategies. Of the 3 screening strategies, the in-clinic strategy had the best coverage, while the mail strategy had the worst coverage. Provider referral patients were younger and had fewer chronic medical illnesses than did other patients. The waiting strategy identified more patients with bipolar affective disorder. CONCLUSION: While different strategies may be optimal for different resource levels and patient characteristics, this study suggests that an in-clinic self-report survey may be the best adjunct to provider referral for efficiently increasing coverage. This study also suggests that different screening strategies may capture different patient populations.