Search

Importance: Nursing home residents with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) often receive burdensome care at the end of life. Nurse practitioners (NPs) provide an increasing share of primary care in nursing homes, but how NP care is associated with end-of-life outcomes for this population is unknown., Objectives: To examine the association of NP care with end-of-life outcomes for nursing home residents with ADRD and assess whether these associations differ according to state-level NP scope of practice regulations., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study using fee-for-service Medicare claims included 334 618 US nursing home residents with ADRD who died between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from April 6, 2015, to December 31, 2018., Exposures: Share of nursing home primary care visits by NPs, classified as minimal (<10% of visits), moderate (10%-50% of visits), and extensive (>50% of visits). State NP scope of practice regulations were classified as full vs restrictive in 2 domains: practice authority (authorization to practice and prescribe independently) and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) authority (authorization to sign DNR orders)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalization within the last 30 days of life and death with hospice. Linear probability models with hospital referral region fixed effects controlling for resident characteristics, visit volume, and geographic factors were used to estimate whether the associations between NP care and outcomes varied across states with different scope of practice regulations., Results: Among 334 618 nursing home decedents (mean [SD] age at death, 86.6 [8.2] years; 69.3% female), 40.5% received minimal NP care, 21.4% received moderate NP care, and 38.0% received extensive NP care. Adjusted hospitalization rates were lower for residents with extensive NP care (31.6% [95% CI, 31.4%-31.9%]) vs minimal NP care (32.3% [95% CI, 32.1%-32.6%]), whereas adjusted hospice rates were higher for residents with extensive (55.6% [95% CI, 55.3%-55.9%]) vs minimal (53.6% [95% CI, 53.3%-53.8%]) NP care. However, there was significant variation by state scope of practice. For example, in full practice authority states, adjusted hospice rates were 2.88 percentage points higher (95% CI, 1.99-3.77; P < .001) for residents with extensive vs minimal NP care, but the difference between these same groups was 1.77 percentage points (95% CI, 1.32-2.23; P < .001) in restricted practice states. Hospitalization rates were 1.76 percentage points lower (95% CI, -2.52 to -1.00; P < .001) for decedents with extensive vs minimal NP care in full practice authority states, but the difference between these same groups in restricted practice states was only 0.43 percentage points (95% CI, -0.84 to -0.01; P < .04). Similar patterns were observed in analyses focused on DNR authority., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that NPs appear to be important care providers during the end-of-life period for many nursing home residents with ADRD and that regulations governing NP scope of practice may have implications for end-of-life hospitalizations and hospice use in this population.

Objective: The study aimed to assess whether individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) experience restricted access to hospitals' high‐volume preferred skilled nursing facility (SNF) partners. Data Sources: The data source includes acute care hospital to SNF transitions identified using 100% Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files, 2017–2019. Study Design: We model and compare the estimated effect of facility "preferredness" on SNF choice for patients with and without ADRD. We use conditional logistic regression with a 1:1 patient sample otherwise matched on demographic and encounter characteristics. Data Collection: Our matched sample included 58,190 patients, selected from a total observed population of 3,019,260 Medicare hospitalizations that resulted in an SNF transfer between 2017 and 2019. Principal Findings: Overall, patients with ADRD have a lower probability of being discharged to a preferred SNF (52.0% vs. 54.4%, p < 0.001). Choice model estimation using our matched sample suggests similarly that the marginal effect of preferredness on a patient choosing a proximate SNF is 2.4 percentage points lower for patients with ADRD compared with those without (p < 0.001). The differential effect of preferredness based on ADRD status increases when considering (a) the cumulative effect of multiple SNFs in close geographic proximity, (b) the magnitude of the strength of hospital‐SNF relationship, and (c) comparing patients with more versus less advanced ADRD. Conclusions: Preferred relationships are significantly predictive of where a patient receives SNF care, but this effect is weaker for patients with ADRD. To the extent that these high‐volume relationships are indicative of more targeted transitional care improvements from hospitals, ADRD patients may not be fully benefiting from these investments. Hospital leaders can leverage integrated care relationships to reduce SNFs' perceived need to engage in selection behavior (i.e., enhanced resource sharing and transparency in placement practices). Policy intervention may be needed to address selection behavior and to support hospitals in making systemic improvements that can better benefit all SNF partners (i.e., more robust information sharing systems). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]