Search

Background: Collective caregiving, performed by caregivers working in pairs (informal primary and secondary caregivers working together), is common in the hospice setting. Research suggests that caregiving pairs may experience different caregiver outcomes. However, little is known about how caregiving pairs differ from solo caregivers (informal primary caregivers) on outcome measures. Objective: The goal of this study was to determine whether being in a caregiver pair affected caregiver anxiety and depression and how outcomes changed over time. Design: A mixed model analysis was used. Setting/subjects: Hospice caregivers (260 solo caregivers and 44 caregivers in 22 pairs) who participated in a larger, randomized controlled trial completed caregiver measures upon hospice admission and periodically until the death of the patient or hospice decertification. Measurements: Measured were caregiver quality of life, social support, anxiety, and depression. Results: Caregiver pairs had higher anxiety and depression scores than solo caregivers. Emotional, financial, and physical quality of life were associated with decreased depression, whereas only emotional and financial quality of life were correlated with lower levels of anxiety. Social support was associated with lower levels of depression and anxiety. Conclusions: Despite assumptions that social support is positively facilitated vis-a-vis collective caregiving, caregiving pairs may be at higher risk for anxiety and depression. Future research is needed to address why individuals become anxious and/or depressed when working as part of a caregiving pair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To explore patterns of change in nursing home ( NH) residents' activities of daily living ( ADLs), particularly surrounding acute hospital stays. Design Longitudinal study using Medicare and Minimum Data Set ( MDS) assessments. Setting National sample of long-stay NH residents. Participants NH residents who were hospitalized for the seven most-common inpatient diagnoses (N = 40,128). Each hospital admission was at least 90 days after any prior hospitalization and had at least two preceding MDS assessments. Measurements The MDS ADL long-form score, a simple sum of seven self-care variables coded from 0 (independent) to 4 (totally dependent) was used to indicate resident ADL function. Scores ranged from 0 to 28, with higher scores indicating greater impairment. A linear mixed model describing ADL trajectories was jointly estimated with time-to-event models for mortality and hospital readmission. Results Before hospitalization, the most common trajectory was stable (53.7%), with 27.5% of residents worsening and 18.8% improving. ADL function after hospital discharge was most often characterized as stable (43.1%) or worsening (39.2%). Mortality (20.3%) was higher for those with worsening prehospital ADL function (28.9%) than for those with stable (19.1%) or improving (11.3%) trajectories. Hospital diagnosis was associated with amount of ADL worsening and rate of subsequent ADL change. Most residents with the best initial function continued to worsen after hospital discharge. Cognitive impairment was associated with poorer ADL function and accelerated worsening of ADLs. Conclusion For many long-stay NH residents, substantial and sustained ADL worsening accompanies acute hospitalization, so acute hospitalization presents an opportunity to revisit care goals; the results of the current study can help inform decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: In some nursing home populations, antibiotic treatment may not reduce mortality following lower respiratory infection (LRI). To better inform treatment decisions, we determined influences on mortality following LRI among antibiotic-treated and non–antibiotic-treated residents in 2 populations. Design: Observational, prospective, cohort studies. Setting: Ninety-seven nursing homes (36 US, 61 Netherlands). Participants: Residents (1044 US, 513 Netherlands) who met a standardized study definition for LRI. Measurements: Demographics, symptoms and physical findings of LRI, functional status, major illness diagnoses, dementia status, treatments, and date of death within 6 months after diagnosis. Methods: We estimated a 2-period (0–14/15–90 days) weighted proportional hazards model of mortality for antibiotic-treated (n = 1280) and non–antibiotic-treated (n = 277) residents; both weights and regressors provide “doubly robust” risk adjustment—for LRI (illness) severity using a prognostic score and for nonrandom receipt of antibiotic treatment using a propensity score. Results: In both the United States and the Netherlands, 14-day mortality was associated with three factors—LRI severity, water intake at diagnosis, and antibiotic use (not directly by severe dementia)—that accounted for 82% or, sequentially, 39%, 42%, and 1% of the cross-national mortality difference. The LRI Severity Score (based only on at-diagnosis eating dependency, pulse rate, decreased alertness, and breathing difficulty, with adequate discrimination [c ≥ 0.74] and calibration, and cross-indexed to commonly used LRI mortality measures) was related to mortality through 90 days, regardless of treatment. With sufficient water intake at diagnosis, 14-day mortality was unrelated to not receiving antibiotic treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.70–2.04); insufficient water intake was related to increased 14-day mortality with antibiotics (AHR, 1.90; 1.38–2.60) or without (AHR, 7.12; 4.83–10.5). After 14 days, relative mortality worsened for antibiotic-treated residents with insufficient water intake. Inadequate water intake was related to increased eating dependence at onset of the LRI (OR, 4.2; 3.0–5.8). Conclusion: LRI severity, water intake, and antibiotic use explain mortality in both studies and reconcile cross-study Dutch/US 14-day mortality differences. LRI severity, derived at 14 days, is related to mortality through 90 days, regardless of treatment, and is key to risk adjustment. With adequate hydration, the survival benefit from antibiotic use is nonsignificant. Conversely, hydration, even without antibiotic treatment, appears central to curative treatment. In LRI guidelines, treatment, and research, the relative benefits of antibiotics and hydration for curative treatment should be addressed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective Assess the association between caregiver supervision and acute unintentional injury in young children; evaluate whether lower levels of supervision result in more severe injury. Methods A case cross-over study was conducted. Parents of children aged ≤4 years whose injuries required emergency department (ED sample) treatment or admission to the hospital (inpatient sample) were interviewed. Information on supervision (3 dimensions: proximity, attention, continuity) at the time of injury and 1 h before the injury (control time) was collected. An overall supervision score was created; a higher score indicates closer supervision. Hospital admission served as a proxy for injury severity. ORs and 95% CIs were calculated. Results Interviews were completed by 222 participants; 50 (23%) were in the inpatient sample. For each supervision dimension the inpatient sample had higher odds of injury, indicating effect modification requiring separate analyses for inpatient and ED samples. For both samples, proximity ‘beyond reach' was associated with the highest odds of injury; compared with 1 h before injury, children were more likely to be beyond reach of their caregiver at the time of injury (inpatient sample: OR 11.5, 95% CI 2.7 to 48.8; ED sample: OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.9). Children with lower supervision scores had the greatest odds of injury (inpatient sample: OR 8.0, 95% CI 2.4 to 26.6; ED sample: OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.9 to 5.6). Conclusions Lower levels of adult supervision are associated with higher odds of more severe injury in young children. Proximity is the most important supervision dimension for reducing injury risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Even though more than 25% of Americans die in nursing homes, end-of-life care has consistently been found to be less than adequate in this setting. Even for those residents on hospice, end-of-life care has been found to be problematic. This study had 2 research questions; (1) How do family members of hospice nursing home residents differ in their anxiety, depression, quality of life, social networks, perceptions of pain medication, and health compared with family members of community dwelling hospice patients? (2) What are family members’ perceptions of and experiences with end-of-life care in the nursing home setting? Methods This study is a secondary mixed methods analysis of interviews with family members of hospice nursing home residents and a comparative statistical analysis of standard outcome measures between family members of hospice patients in the nursing home and family members of hospice patients residing in the community. Results Outcome measures for family members of nursing home residents were compared (n = 176) with family members of community-dwelling hospice patients (n = 267). The family members of nursing home residents reported higher quality of life; however, levels of anxiety, depression, perceptions of pain medicine, and health were similar for hospice family members in the nursing home and in the community. Lending an understanding to the stress for hospice family members of nursing home residents, concerns were found with collaboration between the nursing home and the hospice, nursing home care that did not meet family expectations, communication problems, and resident care concerns including pain management. Some family members reported positive end-of-life care experiences in the nursing home setting. Conclusion These interviews identify a multitude of barriers to quality end-of-life care in the nursing home setting, and demonstrate that support for family members is an essential part of quality end-of-life care for residents. This study suggests that nursing homes should embrace the opportunity to demonstrate the value of family participation in the care-planning process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has emerged as a less invasive alternative to open repair for ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms (rAAA), but comparisons to traditional open rAAA repair and late complications leading to readmission are limited. Materials and Methods: Hospitalizations for patients undergoing repair for rAAA were selected from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). In-hospital mortality, complications, 30-day readmission, readmission diagnoses, and charges were evaluated. Design-adjusted chi-square, Wilcoxon test, and logistic regression were used for analysis. Results: During 2014-2016, 3,629 open rAAA and 5,037 EVAR were identified. The index mortality rate was 21.4% for EVAR vs. 33.5% for open (p <.0001). Median index length of stay (LOS) was 4.9 days for EVAR vs. 8.6 days for open repair (p < 0.001). All-cause 30-day readmission after rAAA was higher following EVAR (18.9%) than open (14.3%, p =.007). Time to readmission and charges for readmission stays did not differ between procedure groups. Respiratory complications were more common following open repair than EVAR (20.4% vs 11.4%, respectively; p =.008). Patients who underwent open repair suffered more infectious complications than patients treated with EVAR during readmission (49.2% vs 39.8%, respectively; p = 0.054). In multivariable analysis, factors associated with readmission included having EVAR during the index stay (Odds ratio [OR] = 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.88; p =.003), increased length of index stay (OR = 1.01; 95% CI 1.01-1.02; p = 0.002), chronic kidney disease (OR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.18-1.94; p =.001), and coronary artery disease (OR = 1.32; 95% CI 1.02-1.71; p =.034). Aggregate readmission charges totaled $79 million. Readmissions were most often infectious complications for both repair types. Conclusions: EVAR was used more often than open repair for rAAA. In-hospital mortality and length of the index stay were significantly lower following EVAR. After multivariable adjustment, the odds of readmission were 1.5 times higher after EVAR, costing the health system more over time when prevalence and readmission are considered. Coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and index length of stay were also associated with 30-day readmission. Further investigation into reasons why a less invasive procedure, EVAR, has a higher readmission rate and understanding post-discharge infectious complications may help lower overall health care utilization after rAAA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We evaluated rates and identified predictors of readmission in the Medicare population after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) compared to carotid artery stenting (CAS). Methods: MedPAR data (2005-2009) were used to select patients who underwent CEA or CAS (utilizing International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes). Readmission was evaluated using chi-square and multivariable logistic regression. Results: A total of 235 247 carotid interventions were performed (211 118 CEA and 24 129 CAS). Readmission rates (%) for patients undergoing CEA and CAS, respectively, were 8.84 and 11.11 (30 days; P < .0001); 13.31 and 17.98 (60 days; P < .0001); and 16.86 and 22.68 (90 days; P < .0001). Patients aged >80 (odds ratio [OR] ¼ 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] ¼ 1.20-1.30) and patients with renal failure (OR ¼ 1.6 95%; CI ¼ 1.56-1.73), congestive heart failure (OR ¼ 1.6; 95%CI ¼ 1.57-1.73), diabetes (OR ¼ 1.4; 95% CI 1.27-1.52), and CAS (OR ¼ 1.2; 95%CI ¼ 1.15-1.25) were more likely to be readmitted. Conclusions: Interventions for carotid artery disease had high overall readmission rates. After adjustment for comorbidities, utilization of less invasive techniques (CAS) did not result in lower readmission rates. Further evaluation is needed to determine strategies to reduce hospital readmission rates after carotid interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although there is poor communication about pain management between informal caregivers and hospice providers, little research has examined these interactions. Objective: This study explored communication between informal caregivers and hospice team members by investigating the use of medical words in care planning discussions. Design: Transcripts of clinical communication between caregivers and hospice team members were reviewed for use of medical words, word placement (statement or question), whether or not the word was explained, and the caregiver's response to the word. Setting/subjects: As part of an ongoing randomized clinical trial in the midwestern United States, informal hospice caregivers participated in recorded hospice care planning discussions. Measures: A selection of videorecorded interactions from an ongoing study was analyzed. Results: Hospice team members used six times as many medical words compared to caregivers. The majority of medical words used by caregivers and team members were drug names. Medical words were predominantly used as statements rather than questions that sought clarification. Three-fourths of medical words used by team members were not explained to caregivers. Caregivers provided little response to medical word use, indicating a lack of understanding. Conclusions: The propensity to use medical words during clinical communication with family caregivers is cautioned. In order to recognize the caregiver as a contributing team member, clinicians should limit the use of medical words, provide lay explanation alongside medical terminology, and use questions to check for understanding. More research is needed to determine assessment tools to capture the caregiver's level of understanding of medication and pain management protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]