Presymptomatic Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Among Residents and Staff at a Skilled Nursing Facility: Results of Real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction and Serologic Testing.

High rates of asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 infection suggest benefits to routine testing in congregate care settings. Screening was undertaken in a single nursing facility without a known case of coronavirus disease 2019, demonstrating an 85% prevalence among residents and 37% among staff. Serology was not helpful in identifying infections.

Hospital-Level Care at Home for Acutely Ill Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Substitutive hospital-level care in a patient's home may reduce cost, health care use, and readmissions while improving patient experience, although evidence from randomized controlled trials in the United States is lacking. Objective: To compare outcomes of home hospital versus usual hospital care for patients requiring admission. Design: Randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03203759). Setting: Academic medical center and community hospital. Patients: 91 adults (43 home and 48 control) admitted via the emergency department with selected acute conditions. Intervention: Acute care at home, including nurse and physician home visits, intravenous medications, remote monitoring, video communication, and point-of-care testing. Measurements: The primary outcome was the total direct cost of the acute care episode (sum of costs for nonphysician labor, supplies, medications, and diagnostic tests). Secondary outcomes included health care use and physical activity during the acute care episode and at 30 days. Results: The adjusted mean cost of the acute care episode was 38% (95% CI, 24% to 49%) lower for home patients than control patients. Compared with usual care patients, home patients had fewer laboratory orders (median per admission, 3 vs. 15), imaging studies (median, 14% vs. 44%), and consultations (median, 2% vs. 31%). Home patients spent a smaller proportion of the day sedentary (median, 12% vs. 23%) or lying down (median, 18% vs. 55%) and were readmitted less frequently within 30 days (7% vs. 23%). Limitation: The study involved 2 sites, a small number of home physicians, and a small sample of highly selected patients (with a 63% refusal rate among potentially eligible patients); these factors may limit generalizability. Conclusion: Substitutive home hospitalization reduced cost, health care use, and readmissions while increasing physical activity compared with usual hospital care. Primary Funding Source: Partners HealthCare Center for Population Health and internal departmental funds.

Hospital-Level Care at Home for Acutely Ill Adults: a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals are standard of care for acute illness, but hospitals can be unsafe, uncomfortable, and expensive. Providing substitutive hospital-level care in a patient's home potentially reduces cost while maintaining or improving quality, safety, and patient experience, although evidence from randomized controlled trials in the US is lacking. OBJECTIVE: Determine if home hospital care reduces cost while maintaining quality, safety, and patient experience. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults admitted via the emergency department with any infection or exacerbation of heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or asthma. INTERVENTION: Home hospital care, including nurse and physician home visits, intravenous medications, continuous monitoring, video communication, and point-of-care testing. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was direct cost of the acute care episode. Secondary outcomes included utilization, 30-day cost, physical activity, and patient experience. KEY RESULTS: Nine patients were randomized to home, 11 to usual care. Median direct cost of the acute care episode for home patients was 52% (IQR, 28%; p = 0.05) lower than for control patients. During the care episode, home patients had fewer laboratory orders (median per admission: 6 vs. 19; p < 0.01) and less often received consultations (0% vs. 27%; p = 0.04). Home patients were more physically active (median minutes, 209 vs. 78; p < 0.01), with a trend toward more sleep. No adverse events occurred in home patients, one occurred in control patients. Median direct cost for the acute care plus 30-day post-discharge period for home patients was 67% (IQR, 77%; p < 0.01) lower, with trends toward less use of home-care services (22% vs. 55%; p = 0.08) and fewer readmissions (11% vs. 36%; p = 0.32). Patient experience was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of substitutive home-hospitalization compared to in-hospital usual care reduced cost and utilization and improved physical activity. No significant differences in quality, safety, and patient experience were noted, with more definitive results awaiting a larger trial. Trial Registration NCT02864420.

Zoledronic acid for hip fracture during initial hospitalization.

Inpatient zoledronic acid (IP-ZA) administered during the initial fracture hospitalization significantly improves the osteoporosis treatment rate. Clinical outcomes of IP-ZA after hip fracture remains uncertain. Here we report a new-user active comparator cohort study that emulated a randomized controlled trial using real-world data and evaluated the risk of death of any cause and radiologically confirmed subsequent new fractures among patients hospitalized for a hip fracture who had received IP-ZA as compared with propensity-matched controls who were not treated with anti-osteoporosis medication within the first-year post fracture. 654 patients who had received IP-ZA and 6877 controls (for whom antiosteoporosis treatment was indicated but no IP-ZA started during index hospitalization) were included in the study. The primary cohort comprised 652 IP-ZA patients (IP-ZA group) and 1926 matched controls (Untreated group) with 71.7% female, 92.1% White, and mean age of 80.9 years. Cumulative all-cause-mortality over the 24 months follow-up for the IP-ZA group was 12.3%, and 20.7% for Untreated group [hazard ratio (HR), 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49-0.78, p < 0.001)]. 585 (89.7%) patients in IP-ZA group received only a single dose of ZA during the 24 months, and the death rate of this single dose group was 13.3%, which was significantly lower than that of the Untreated group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89, p = 0.003). Rates of radiologically confirmed cumulative subsequent new vertebral fractures were 2.0% in IP-ZA group and 5.4% in Untreated group (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.71, P = 0.001). A similarly lower rate of new vertebral fractures was seen in the single dose subgroup (1.9% vs. 5.4%. HR, 0.44; 95% 0.24-0.82, p = 0.008). IP-ZA, administered during the initial hospitalization for hip fracture, was associated with lower all-cause-mortality and risk of radiologically confirmed subsequent new vertebral fractures, and thus offers a mechanism to narrow the treatment gap in patients having sustained a hip fragility fracture.

Hip fracture is a serious complication of osteoporosis affecting approximately 300 000 Americans per year and is associated with a 20-30% one-year mortality rate. Most patients with hip fracture are elderly (average age 80-81 years), with multiple underlying medical conditions and are often unable to timely attend post-hospitalization outpatient follow-up to initiate anti-osteoporosis treatment. As a result, only ~10% of post-hip fracture patients receive treatment for underlying osteoporosis. We have previously reported that zoledronic acid (ZA) administered during initial fracture hospitalization (IP-ZA) is safe and can effectively improve the osteoporosis treatment rate to 70%. The present study analyzed the clinical outcomes of 652 patients who had sustained hip fractures and were treated with IP-ZA and 1926 matched controls and revealed significantly reduced rates of all-cause mortality and vertebral compression fracture (VCF) during a 2-year follow-up period. Of note, nearly 90% of the treated patients received only a single dose of ZA (namely, IP-ZA), suggesting that, for most patients, the only opportunity to receive anti-osteoporosis treatment was during the index fracture hospitalization. Importantly, reduced mortality and VCF rates were readily seen in this single-dose group of patients. Our data suggests that IP-ZA is beneficial for osteoporotic hip fracture.

A Fracture Liaison Service to Address Vitamin D Deficiency for Patients Hospitalized for Osteoporotic Fracture.

Context: Addressing vitamin D deficiency (VDD) is important for fracture secondary prevention. Objectives: To explore the function of a fracture liaison service (FLS) to address VDD. Design Setting and Patients: An observational study of patients admitted to the Massachusetts General Hospital with fractures between January 1, 2016, and October 31, 2023, cared for by the FLS. Intervention: Ergocalciferol 50 000 international units (50ku-D2) oral daily for 3 to 7 days. Main Outcomes Measures: VDD prevalence. Efficacy of inpatient daily 50ku-D2 in raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels. Results: Of the 2951 consecutive patients, 724 (24.53%) had VDD (defined by 25OHD ≤ 19 ng/mL). Men (252/897, or 28.09%) were more likely than women (472/2054, or 22.98%) to have VDD (P = .003). VDD was seen in 41.79% (117/280), 24.41% (332/1360), and 20.98% (275/1311) of patients of aged ≤59, 60 to 79, and ≥80 years, respectively (P < .00001). Of the 1303 patients with hip fractures, 327 (25.09%) had VDD, which was associated with a longer length of stay (8.37 ± 7.35 vs 7.23 ± 4.78 days, P = .009) and higher trend of 30-day-readmission rate (13.63% vs 18.35%, P = .037). In a cohort of 32 patients with complete data, each dose of 50ku-D2 increased serum 25OHD by 3.62 ± 2.35 ng/mL without affecting serum calcium or creatinine levels. Conclusion: VDD was seen in nearly 25% of Massachusetts General Hospital FLS patients and more prevalent in male and younger patients. VDD was associated with longer length of stay and higher 30-day-readmission risk in patients with hip fracture. Daily 50ku-D2 appeared to be a practical way to quickly replete vitamin D in the inpatient setting.

Applying embedded program evaluation for care delivery transformation: An analysis of a home-based urgent care program.

Background: In 2014, Mass General Brigham, formerly Partners HealthCare, launched a novel urgent home-based medical care program to provide rapid medical evaluation and treatment to homebound patients and older adults with frailty or limited mobility named the partners mobile observation unit (PMOU) program. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, embedded evaluation assessing the impact of PMOU on postreferral utilization and total medical expenditure (TME). We used propensity weighting and logistic regression to estimate the 30-day adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of emergency department (ED) utilization and inpatient medical hospitalization for patients enrolled in PMOU (891 episodes of care) relative to those who were referred but not enrolled in the program (57 episodes of care) during the period of April 2017 to June 2018. We additionally conducted a difference-in-differences analysis assessing program impact on TME, comparing claims data 30 days pre/post referral. Results: Despite positive trends, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to postreferral ED visits or hospitalizations, with an OR of 0.83 (p = 0.56) and OR of 0.64 (p = 0.21), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in pre/post referral TME for intervention relative to control episodes (p = 0.64). In post hoc analysis of control episodes, 75% received care elsewhere within 14 days of referral. Conclusion: Although the results suggested positive trends, this analysis of this relatively mature program was unable to identify statistically significant reductions in ED visits, hospitalizations, or TME associated with the PMOU program. Future efforts to build home-based urgent care programs or related programs targeting older adults with frailty or limited mobility should aim to improve patient targeting and identify opportunities to improve program operations and generate meaningful reductions in healthcare utilization and spending.

Skilled Nursing Facility Care at Home for Adults Discharged From the Hospital: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The ability to deliver SNF-level care at home is unclear. We sought to demonstrate the feasibility of rehabilitation at home (RAH) via a pilot randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Daily care from a home health aide, certified nursing assistant, nurse, and physician. Core technologies included remote PT, automated medication dispensing, and continuous monitoring. Primary outcome: episode cost. RESULTS: We randomized 10 patients. Home patients' episode cost a median $8404 (IQR, $2697) versus $9215 (IQR, $5702). LOS for both was 14 days. Home patients' ADLs improved between admission and 30-days post-discharge by median 4 (IQR, 5) versus 1 (IQR, 2). Home patients' median Picker patient experience score was 12/14 (IQR, 2) versus 7/14 (IQR, 3). DISCUSSION: A RAH pilot compared favorably to traditional SNF, with trends toward lower cost, greater functional status improvement, and better patient experience. This delivery innovation could reimagine how we deliver post-acute care but requires replication. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATION: NCT04048590.

The essential role of population health during and beyond COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has fundamentally changed how health care systems deliver services and revealed the tenuousness of care delivery based on face-to-face office visits and fee-for-service reimbursement models. Robust population health management, fostered by value-based contract participation, integrates analytics and agile clinical programs and is adaptable to optimize outcomes and reduce risk during population-level crises. In this article, we describe how mature population health programs in a learning health system have been rapidly leveraged to address the challenges of the pandemic. Population-level data and care management have facilitated identification of demographic-based disparities and community outreach. Telemedicine and integrated behavioral health have ensured critical primary care and specialty access, and mobile health and postacute interventions have shifted site of care and optimized hospital utilization. Beyond the pandemic, population health can lead as a cornerstone of a resilient health system, better prepared to improve public health and mitigate risk in a value-based paradigm.

Home-based Testing for SARS-CoV-2: Leveraging Prehospital Resources for Vulnerable Populations.

INTRODUCTION: Expanded testing for SARS-CoV-2 is critical to characterizing the extent of community spread of COVID-19 and to identifying infectious cohorts. Unfortunately, current facility-based testing compounds shortcomings in testing availability, neglecting those who are frail or physically unable to travel to a testing facility. METHODS: We developed an emergency medical service (EMS)-based home testing and evaluation program, leveraging existing community EMS resources. This program has kept vulnerable populations out of the emergency department, reduced cost, and improved access to care. RESULTS: Our EMS-based testing program can test approximately 15 homebound patients per day. Through April 2020 our program had performed 477 home-based tests. Additionally, we have recently undertaken several mass testing operations, testing up to 900 patients per testing site. CONCLUSION: Facility-based SARS-CoV-2 testing requires that a patient physically present to a facility for a nasopharyngeal swap to be collected. Unfortunately, access may be limited for patients that are homebound, chronically ill, or without a means of private transportation. By leveraging existing EMS infrastructure in new ways, our community has been able to keep almost 500 vulnerable patients in their home. Using EMS, we can strengthen the healthcare system's response to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic and support at-risk populations, including those that are underserved, homebound, and frail.

Engaging Hospices in Quality Measurement and Improvement: Early Experiences of a Large Integrated Health Care System.

The quality of hospice care remains highly variable in the U.S. Patients, providers, and health care systems lack a comprehensive method of measuring the quality of care provided by an individual hospice. Partners HealthCare sought to assess hospice quality based on objective and quantitative criteria obtained directly from hospices and through public reporting. Here, we describe the process of creating and administering this assessment and the initial creation of a collaborative network with high-quality hospices. A multidisciplinary advisory council developed criteria and a scoring system, focusing on organizational information (e.g., nursing turnover), clinical care quality indicators (e.g., visit hours before death), and training (e.g., medical director certification) and satisfaction (e.g., patient and family surveys). All Medicare-certified hospices in good standing in Massachusetts were eligible to participate in a request for information (RFI) process. We blinded data before scoring and invited hospices scoring above the 15th percentile to join the initial collaborative. Of 72 eligible hospices, most (53%) responded to the RFI, and 32% (n = 23) submitted completed surveys. Hospices could receive up to 23.75 points, and scores ranged from 2.25 to 19.5. The median score was 13.62 (interquartile range 10.5-16.75). For hospices scoring above the 15th percentile (n = 19), scores ranged from 10.0 to 19.5 (median 14). The hospice RFI process is one health care system's attempt to evaluate hospice quality. Further research will determine whether the scoring system proves to be a sensitive, specific, and reproducible measure of hospice quality, and whether the collaborative can foster quality improvement over time.

Surrogate Preferences on the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment Form.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to compare treatment preferences of patients to those of surrogates on the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were collected from a sequential selection of 606 Massachusetts POLST (MOLST) forms at 3 hospitals, and corresponding electronic patient health records. Selections on the MOLST forms were categorized into All versus Limit Life-Sustaining Treatment. Multivariable mixed effects (grouped by clinician) logistic regression models estimated the impact of using a surrogate decision maker on choosing All Treatment, controlling for patient characteristics (age, severity of illness, sex, race/ethnicity), clinician (physician vs non-physician), and hospital (site). RESULTS: Surrogates signed 253 of the MOLSTs (43%). A multivariable logistic regression model taking into consideration patient, clinician, and site variables showed that surrogate decision makers were 60% less likely to choose All Treatment than patients who made their own decisions (odds ratio = 0.39 [95% confidence interval = 0.24-0.65]; p < .001). This model explained 44% of the variation in the dependent variable (Pseudo-R2 = 0.442; p < .001); mixed effects logistic regression grouped by clinician showed no difference between the models (LR test = 4.0e-13; p = 1.00). DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our study took into consideration variation at the patient, clinician, and site level, and showed that surrogates had a propensity to limit life-sustaining treatment. Surrogate decision makers are frequently needed for hospitalized patients, and nearly all states have adopted the POLST. Researchers may want study decision-making processes for patients versus surrogates when the POLST paradigm is employed.

Implementation of a skilled nursing facility readmission review process.

30-day readmissions for patients at skilled nursing facilities (SNF) are common and preventable. We implemented a readmission review process for patients readmitted from two SNFs, involving an electronic review tool and monthly conferences. The electronic review tool captures information related to preventability and factors contributing to readmission. The study included 128 patients, readmitted within 30 days from 1 October 2015 through 1 May 2017, at a tertiary care academic medical centre in Boston, MA, and two partnering SNFs. There was a discrepancy in preventability rating between SNF and hospital reviewers, with 79.7% of cases rated not preventable by the SNF, and 58.6% by the hospital. There was moderate positive correlation between the hospital's and SNFs' preventability ratings (rs=0.652, p<0.001). In most cases, the SNF reviewers felt that no factors contributed (57.8%), and hospital reviewers felt that issues with end-of-life planning (14.1%) and medical complexity (12.5%) were major factors. Despite the lack of strong correlation between SNF and hospital responses, several cross-continuum quality improvement projects were developed. We found that implementation of a SNF readmission review process employing bidirectional review by SNF and hospital was feasible, and facilitated systems-based improvement in the transition from hospital to postacute care.