Search

Older veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) often use both VHA and non-VHA providers for their care. This dual use, especially around an inpatient visit, can lead to fragmented care during the time of transition post-discharge. Interventions that target patient activation may be valuable ways to help veterans manage complex medication regimens and care plans from multiple providers. The Care Transitions Intervention (CTI) is an evidence-based model that helps older adults gain confidence and skills to achieve their health goals post-discharge. Our study examined the impact of CTI upon patient activation for veterans discharged from non-VHA hospitals. In total, 158 interventions were conducted for 87 veterans. From baseline to follow-up there was a significant 1.7-point increase in patient activation scores, from 5.4 to 7.1. This association was only found among those who completed the intervention. The most common barriers to completion were difficulty reaching the veteran by phone, patient declining the intervention, and rehospitalization during the 30 days post-discharge. Care transitions guided by social workers may be a promising way to improve patient activation. However, future research and practice should address barriers to completion and examine the impact of increased patient activation on health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Describe the implementation and effects of Mobile Acute Care for Elders (MACE) consultation at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. INTERVENTION: Veterans aged 65 or older who were admitted to the medicine service between October 1, 2012, and September 30, 2014, were screened for geriatric syndromes via review of medical records within 48 hours of admission. If the screen was positive, the MACE team offered the admitting team a same‐day consultation involving comprehensive geriatric assessment and ongoing collaboration with the admitting team and supportive services to implement patient‐centric recommendations for geriatric syndromes. RESULTS: Veterans seen by MACE (n = 421) were compared with those with positive screens but without consultation (n = 372). The two groups did not significantly differ in age, comorbidity, sex, or race. All outcomes (30‐day readmission, 30‐day mortality, readmission costs) were in the expected direction for patients receiving MACE but did not reach statistical significance. Patients receiving MACE had lower odds of 30‐day readmission (11.9% vs 14.8%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54‐1.25; p =.360) and 30‐day mortality (5.5% vs 8.6%; OR = 0.64; CI = 0.36‐1.12; p =.115), and they had lower 30‐day readmission costs (MACE $15,502; CI = $12,242‐$19,631; comparison = $18,335; CI = $14,641‐$22,962; p =.316) than those who did not receive MACE after adjusting for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. CONCLUSION: Our MACE consultation model for older veterans with geriatric syndromes leverages the limited supply of clinicians with expertise in geriatrics. Although not statistically significant in this study of 793 subjects, MACE patients had lower odds of 30‐day readmission and mortality, and lower readmission costs. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:818–824, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]