Explore the vast range of titles available.

Covid-19 has exposed the cracks in the U.S. system of providing and funding long-term care, and there are no easy fixes. We need comprehensive policies that take the care of aging Americans seriously and fund it accordingly and in a wider range of settings.

Use of social media has become widespread across the United States. Although businesses have invested in social media to engage consumers and promote products, less is known about the extent to which hospitals are using social media to interact with patients and promote health. The aim was to investigate the relationship between hospital social media extent of adoption and utilization relative to hospital characteristics. We conducted a cross-sectional review of hospital-related activity on 4 social media platforms: Facebook, Twitter, Yelp, and Foursquare. All US hospitals were included that reported complete data for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. We reviewed hospital social media webpages to determine the extent of adoption relative to hospital characteristics, including geographic region, urban designation, bed size, ownership type, and teaching status. Social media utilization was estimated from user activity specific to each social media platform, including number of Facebook likes, Twitter followers, Foursquare check-ins, and Yelp reviews. Adoption of social media varied across hospitals with 94.41% (3351/3371) having a Facebook page and 50.82% (1713/3371) having a Twitter account. A majority of hospitals had a Yelp page (99.14%, 3342/3371) and almost all hospitals had check-ins on Foursquare (99.41%, 3351/3371). Large, urban, private nonprofit, and teaching hospitals were more likely to have higher utilization of these accounts. Although most hospitals adopted at least one social media platform, utilization of social media varied according to several hospital characteristics. This preliminary investigation of social media adoption and utilization among US hospitals provides the framework for future studies investigating the effect of social media on patient outcomes, including links between social media use and the quality of hospital care and services.

Women are less likely to be promoted and hold leadership positions in academic medicine. How often academic articles are cited is a key measure of scholarly impact and frequently assessed for professional advancement; however, it is unknown whether peer-reviewed articles written by men and women are cited differently. To evaluate whether academic articles from high-impact medical journals written by men and women are cited differently. In this cross-sectional study of all original research and commentary articles from 5 high-impact medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, JAMA, JAMA Internal Medicine, and The New England Journal of Medicine) from 2015 to 2018, the gender of the primary and senior authors of each article were identified using an online database, and the number of times each article has been cited was identified using Web of Science. The number of citations by primary and senior author gender were then compared. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to April 2021. Primary and senior authors' genders. Number of citations per article. Among 5554 articles, women wrote 1975 (35.6%) as primary author and 1273 of 4940 (25.8%) as senior author. Original research articles written by women as primary authors had fewer median (interquartile range) citations than articles written by men as primary authors (36 [17-82] citations vs 54 [22-141] citations; P < .001) and senior authors (37 [17-93] citations vs 51 [20-128] citations; P < .001). Articles written by women as both primary and senior authors had approximately half as many median (interquartile range) citations as those authored by men as both primary and senior authors (33 [15-68] citations vs 59 [23-149] citations; P < .001). Differences in citations remained in each year of the study and were less pronounced among commentary articles. In this study, articles written by women in high-impact medical journals had fewer citations than those written by men, particularly when women wrote together as primary and senior authors. These differences may have important consequences for the professional success of women and achieving gender equity in academic medicine.

Home health care is one of the fastest growing postacute services in the US and is increasingly important in the era of coronavirus disease 2019 and payment reform, yet it is unknown whether patients who need home health care are receiving it. To examine how often patients referred to home health care at hospital discharge receive it and whether there is evidence of disparities. This cross-sectional study used Medicare data regarding the postacute home health care setting from October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016. The participants were Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who were discharged alive from a hospital with a referral to home health care (2 379 506 discharges). Statistical analysis was performed from July 2019 to June 2020. Hospital referral to home health care. Primary outcomes included whether discharges received their first home health care visit within 14 days of hospital discharge and the number of days between hospital discharge and the first home health visit. Differences in the likelihood of receiving home health care across patient, zip code, and hospital characteristics were also examined. Among 2 379 506 discharges from the hospital with a home health care referral, 1 358 697 patients (57.1%) were female, 468 762 (19.7%) were non-White, and 466 383 (19.6%) were dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid; patients had a mean (SD) age of 73.9 (11.9) years and 4.1 (2.1) Elixhauser comorbidities. Only 1 284 300 patients (54.0%) discharged from the hospital with a home health referral received home health care services within 14 days of discharge. Of the remaining 1 095 206 patients (46.0%) discharged, 37.7% (896 660 discharges) never received any home health care, while 8.3% (198 546 discharges) were institutionalized or died within 14 days without a preceding home health care visit. Patients who were Black or Hispanic received home health at lower rates than did patients who were White (48.0% [95% CI, 47.8%-48.1%] of Black and 46.1% [95% CI, 45.7%-46.5%] of Hispanic discharges received home health within 14 days compared with 55.3% [95% CI, 55.2%-55.4%] of White discharges). In addition, disadvantaged patients waited longer for their first home health care visit. For example, patients living in high-unemployment zip codes waited a mean of 2.0 days (95% CI, 2.0-2.0 days), whereas those living in low-unemployment zip codes waited 1.8 days (95% CI, 1.8-1.8 days). Disparities in the use of home health care remain an issue in the US. As home health care is increasingly presented as a safer alternative to institutional postacute care during coronavirus disease 2019, and payment reforms continue to pressure hospitals to discharge patients home, ensuring the availability of safe and equitable care will be crucial to maintaining high-quality care.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publicly reports so-called process performance at all U.S. hospitals, such as whether certain recommended treatments are given to specific types of patients. We examined whether hospital performance on key process indicators improved during the three years since this reporting began. We also studied whether or not these changes improved patient outcomes or yielded other quality improvements, such as reduced hospital readmission rates. We found that, from 2004 to 2006, hospital process performance improved and was associated with better patient and quality outcomes. Most notably, for acute myocardial infarction, performance improvements were associated with declines in mortality rates, lengths-of-stay, and readmission rates. Although we cannot conclude that public reporting caused the improvement in processes or outcomes, these results are encouraging, since improving process performance may improve quality more broadly. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Home and community-based services (HCBS) are the predominant approach to delivering long-term services and supports in the US, but there are growing numbers of reports of worker shortages in this industry. Medicaid, the primary payer for long-term services and supports, has expanded HCBS coverage, resulting in a shift in the services' provision out of institutions and into homes. Yet it is unknown whether home care workforce growth has kept up with the increased use of these services. Using data from the American Community Survey and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, we compared trends in the size of the home care workforce with data on Medicaid HCBS participation between 2008 and 2020. The home care workforce grew from approximately 840,000 to 1.22 million workers between 2008 and 2013. After 2013, growth slowed, ultimately reaching 1.42 million workers in 2019. In contrast, the number of Medicaid HCBS participants grew continuously from 2008 to 2020, with accelerated growth between 2013 and 2020. As a consequence, the number of home care workers per 100 HCBS participants declined by 11.6 percent between 2013 and 2019, with preliminary estimates suggesting that further declines occurred in 2020. Improving access to HCBS will require not just expanded insurance coverage but also new workforce investments.

Nursing homes’ publicly reported star ratings increased substantially since Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’s Nursing Home Compare adopted a 5-star rating system. Our objective was to test whether the improvements in nursing home 5-star ratings were correlated with reductions in rates of hospitalization. We hypothesized that increased attention to 5-star star ratings motivated nursing homes to make changes that improved their star ratings but did not affect their hospitalization rate, resulting in a weakened association between ratings and hospitalizations. We used 2007-2010 Medicare hospital claims and nursing home clinical assessment data to compare the correlation between nursing home 5-star ratings and hospitalization rates before versus after 5-star ratings were publicly released. The correlation between the rate of hospitalization and a nursing home’s 5-star rating weakened slightly after the ratings became publicly available. This decrease in correlation was concentrated among patients receiving post-acute care, who experienced relatively more hospitalizations from best-rated nursing homes. The improvements in nursing home star ratings after the release of Medicare’s 5-star rating system were not accompanied by improvements in a broader measure of outcomes for post-acute care patients. Although this dissociation may be due to better matching of sicker patients to higher-quality nursing homes or superficial improvements by nursing homes to increase their ratings without substantial investments in quality improvement, the 5-star ratings nonetheless became less meaningful as an indicator of nursing home quality for post-acute care patients.

Informal care, or care provided by family and friends, is the most common form of care received by community-dwelling older adults with functional limitations. However, less is known about informal care provision within residential care settings including residential care facilities (for example, assisted living) and nursing homes. Using data from the Health and Retirement Study (2016) and the National Health and Aging Trends Study (2015), we found that informal care was common among older adults with functional limitations, whether they lived in the community, a residential care facility, or a nursing home. The hours of informal care provided were also nontrivial across all settings. This evidence suggests that informal caregiving and some of the associated burdens do not end when a person transitions from the community to residential care or a nursing home setting. It also points to the large role that families play in the care and well-being of these residents, which is especially important considering the recent visitor bans during the COVID-19 epidemic. Family members are an invisible workforce in nursing homes and residential care facilities, providing considerable front-line work for their loved ones. Providers and policy makers could improve the lives of both the residents and their caregivers by acknowledging, incorporating, and supporting this workforce.

The Tailored Activity Program (TAP), an intervention for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers, has been shown to reduce behavioral symptoms for PLWD and caregiver burden. While TAP is proven as an evidence-based practice (EBP), it has yet to be implemented at scale. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has prioritized the Age-Friendly Health System (AFHS) initiative, providing an opportunity to test implementation of TAP in a complex healthcare system. We conducted semi-structured pre-implementation interviews with leaders and clinicians at 6 VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) to engage key implementation partners and understand their unique implementation contexts. We utilized team-based rapid qualitative analysis to identify themes related to implementation determinants. We interviewed 65 unique informants in 58 interviews (5 VAMC leaders, 36 department leaders, and 17 frontline clinical staff). Informants identified 4 key factors critical to consider prior to implementing TAP: (1) alignment with organizational priorities; (2) perceived value and fit with existing clinical workflows; (3) competition with existing organizational and clinical priorities; and (4) considerations about the effect of caregiver burden on participation. We identified key factors to consider for successful implementation of a multicomponent intervention for PLWD and their caregivers within a complex healthcare system. As the AFHS initiative expands, there is a growing need for EBPs focused on the care of PLWD and their caregivers. These factors can guide clinicians, leaders, and implementation scientists in planning for implementation and sustainment of EBPs to bolster AFHS initiatives. Trial Registration Registered 05 May 2021, at ISRCTN #60,657,985. Reporting Guidelines The COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) checklist was used to ensure proper standards for reporting qualitative studies (see attached).

Prior research and the popular press have anecdotally reported inadequate nursing home staffing levels during the COVID-19 pandemic. Maintaining adequate staffing levels is critical to ensuring high-quality nursing home care and an effective response to the pandemic. We therefore sought to examine nursing home staffing levels during the first nine months of 2020 (compared with the same period in 2019), using auditable daily payroll-based staffing data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We found that the total number of hours of direct care nursing declined in nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic, as did the average nursing home census. When we accounted for changes in census, the number of nurse staff hours per resident day remained steady or, if anything, increased slightly during the pandemic. The observed increases in staff hours per resident day were small but concentrated in nursing homes operating in counties with high COVID-19 prevalence, in nursing homes with low Medicaid census (which typically have more financial resources), and in not-for-profit nursing homes (which typically invest more in staffing). These findings raise concerns that although the number of staff hours in nursing homes did not decline, the perception of shortages has been driven by increased stresses and demands on staff time due to the pandemic, which are harder to quantify.