Search

The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) has consistently advocated for a healthcare system that meets the needs of older adults, including addressing impacts of ageism in healthcare. The intersection of structural racism and ageism compounds the disadvantage experienced by historically marginalized communities. Structural racism and ageism have long been ingrained in all aspects of US society, including healthcare. This intersection exacerbates disparities in social determinants of health, including poor access to healthcare and poor outcomes. These deeply rooted societal injustices have been brought to the forefront of the collective public consciousness at different points throughout history. The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare and exacerbated existing inequities inflicted on historically marginalized communities. Ageist rhetoric and policies during the COVID-19 pandemic further marginalized older adults. Although the detrimental impact of structural racism on health has been well-documented in the literature, generative research on the intersection of structural racism and ageism is limited. The AGS is working to identify and dismantle the healthcare structures that create and perpetuate these combined injustices and, in so doing, create a more just US healthcare system. This paper is intended to provide an overview of important frameworks and guide future efforts to both identify and eliminate bias within healthcare delivery systems and health professions training with a particular focus on the intersection of structural racism and ageism.

The article evaluates medical therapies in the nursing home (NH) population in 2024. Topics covered include concerns on the issues of inadequately trained and insufficient staff, high staff turnover, and lack of accountability and transparency, the need for clinical trials in NHs and their possible filling of gaps therein, the challenges in conducting trials, and addressing them through interventions and trial design. Also noted is a framework for realizing a NH clinical trials network.

ContextMeasuring What Matters (MWM) for palliative care has prioritized data collection efforts for evaluating quality in clinical practice. How these measures can be implemented across diverse clinical settings using point-of-care data collection on quality is unknown.ObjectivesTo evaluate the implementation of MWM measures by exploring documentation of quality measure adherence across six diverse clinical settings inherent to palliative care practice.MethodsWe deployed a point-of-care quality data collection system, the Quality Data Collection Tool, across five organizations within the Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group. Quality measures were recorded by clinicians or assistants near care delivery.ResultsDuring the study period, 1989 first visits were included for analysis. Our population was mostly white, female, and with moderate performance status. About half of consultations were seen on hospital general floors. We observed a wide range of adherence. The lowest adherence involved comprehensive assessments during the first visit in hospitalized patients in the intensive care unit (2.71%); the highest adherence across all settings, with an implementation of >95%, involved documentation of management of moderate/severe pain. We observed differences in adherence across clinical settings especially with MWM Measure #2 (Screening for Physical Symptoms, range 45.7%-81.8%); MWM Measure #5 (Discussion of Emotional Needs, range 46.1%-96.1%); and MWM Measure #6 (Documentation of Spiritual/Religious Concerns, range 0-69.6%).ConclusionVariations in clinician documentation of adherence to MWM quality measures are seen across clinical settings. Additional studies are needed to better understand benchmarks and acceptable ranges for adherence tailored to various clinical settings.

Purpose: To compile the literature on the effects of rural hospital closures on the community and summarize the evidence, specifically the health and economic impacts, and identify gaps for future research. Methods: A systematic review of the relevant peer‐reviewed literature, published from January 2005 through December 2021, included in the EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, EconLit, and Business Source Complete databases, as well as "gray" literature published during the same time period. A total of 21 articles were identified for inclusion. Findings: Over 90% of the included studies were published in the last 8 years, with nearly three‐fourths published in the last 4 years. The most common outcomes studied were economic outcomes and employment (76%), emergent, and non‐emergent transportation, which includes transport miles and travel time (42.8%), access to and supply of health care providers (38%), and quality of patient outcomes (19%). Eighty‐nine percent of the studies that examined economic impacts found unfavorable results, including decreased income, population, and community economic growth, and increased poverty. Between 11 and 15.7 additional minutes were required to transport patients to the nearest emergency facility after closures. A lack of consistency in measures and definition of rurality challenges comparability across studies. Conclusions: The comprehensive impact of rural hospital closures on communities has not been well studied. Research shows predominantly negative economic outcomes as well as increased time and distance required to access health care services. Additional research and consistency in the outcome measures and definition of rurality is needed to characterize the downstream impact of rural hospital closures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Incomplete communication between staff and providers may cause adverse outcomes for nursing home residents. The Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation (SBAR) tool is designed to improve communication around changes in condition (CIC). An adapted SBAR was developed for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services demonstration project, OPTIMISTIC, to increase its use during a resident CIC and to improve documentation. Methods: Four Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to develop and refine successive protocol implementation of the OPTIMISTIC SBAR were deployed in four Indiana nursing homes. Use of SBAR, documentation quality, and participant surveys were assessed pre- and post-intervention implementation. Results: OPTIMISTIC SBAR use and documentation quality improved in three of the four buildings. Participants reported improved collaboration between nurses and providers after SBAR intervention. Conclusion: Successive PDSA cycles implementing changes in an OPTIMISTIC SBAR protocol for resident CIC led to an increase in SBAR use, improved documentation, and better collaboration between nursing staff and providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]