Confirmed: Intermittent use of benzodiazepines is the safest option

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 10/16/2023 - 17:49

Intermittent benzodiazepine use significantly reduces the risk for falls, fractures, and mortality in older adults compared with chronic use of these medications, results of a large-scale study show.

Investigators matched more than 57,000 chronic benzodiazepine users with nearly 114,000 intermittent users and found that, at 1 year, chronic users had an 8% increased risk for emergency department visits and/or hospitalizations for falls.

Chronic users also had a 25% increased risk for hip fracture, a 4% raised risk for ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason, and a 23% increased risk for death.

Study investigator Simon J.C. Davies, MD, PhD, MSc, Centre for Addiction & Mental Health, Toronto, said that the research shows that, where possible, patients older than 65 years with anxiety or insomnia who are taking benzodiazepines should not stay on these medications continuously.

However, he acknowledged that, “in practical terms, there will be some who can’t change or do not want to change” their treatment.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Wide range of adverse outcomes

The authors noted that benzodiazepines are used to treat anxiety and insomnia but are associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and mortality as well as tolerance and dose escalation.

“These risks are especially relevant in older adults,” they added, noting that some guidelines recommend avoiding the drugs in this population, whereas other suggest short-term benzodiazepine use for a maximum of 4 weeks.

Despite this, “benzodiazepines are widely prescribed in older adults.” One study showed that almost 15% of adults aged 65 years or older received at least one benzodiazepine prescription.

Moreover, chronic use is more common in older versus younger patients.

Benzodiazepine use among older adults “used to be higher,” Dr. Davies said in an interview, at around 20%, but the “numbers have come down,” partly because of the introduction of benzodiazepine-like sleep medications but also because of educational efforts.

“There are certainly campaigns in Ontario to educate physicians,” Dr. Davies said, “but I think more broadly people are aware of the activity of these drugs, and the tolerance and other issues.”

To compare the risk associated with chronic versus intermittent use of benzodiazepines in older adults, the team performed a population-based cohort study using linked health care databases in Ontario.

They focused on adults aged 65 years or older with a first benzodiazepine prescription after at least 1 year without taking the drugs.

Chronic benzodiazepine use was defined as 120 days of prescriptions over the first 180 days after the index prescription. Patients who met these criteria were matched with intermittent users in a 2:1 ratio by age and sex.

Patients were then propensity matched using 24 variables, including health system use in the year prior to the index prescription, clinical diagnoses, prior psychiatric health system use, falls, and income level.

The team identified 57,072 chronic benzodiazepine users and 312,468 intermittent users, of whom, 57,041 and 113,839, respectively, were propensity matched.

As expected, chronic users were prescribed benzodiazepines for more days than were the intermittent users over both the initial 180-day exposure period, at 141 days versus 33 days, and again during a further 180-day follow-up period, at 181 days versus 19 days.

Over the follow-up period, the daily lorazepam dose-equivalents of chronic users four times that of intermittent users.

Hospitalizations and/or ED visits for falls were higher among patients in the chronic benzodiazepine group, at 4.6% versus 3.2% in those who took the drugs intermittently.

After adjusting for benzodiazepine dose, the team found that chronic benzodiazepine use was associated with a significant increase in the risk for falls leading to hospital presentation over the 360-day study period, compared with intermittent use (hazard ratio, 1.08; P = .0124).
 

 

 

Sex differences

In addition, chronic use was linked to a significantly increased risk for hip fracture (HR, 1.25; P = .0095), and long-term care admission (HR, 1.32; P < .0001).

There was also a significant increase in ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason with chronic benzodiazepine use versus intermittent use (HR, 1.04; P = .0007), and an increase in the risk for death (HR, 1.23; P < .0001).

A nonsignificant increased risk for wrist fracture was also associated with chronic use of benzodiazepines (HR, 1.02; P = .8683).

Further analysis revealed some sex differences. For instance, men had a marked increase in the risk for hip fracture with chronic use (HR, 1.50; P = .0154), whereas the risk was not significant in women (HR, 1.16; P = .1332). In addition, mortality risk associated with chronic use was higher in men than in women (HR, 1.39; P < .0001 vs. HR, 1.10; P = .2245).

The decision to discontinue chronic benzodiazepine use can be challenging, said Dr. Davies. “If you’re advising people to stop, what happens to the treatment of their anxiety?”

He said that there are many other treatment options for anxiety that don’t come with tolerance or risk for addiction.

“My position would be that intermittent use is perfectly acceptable while you bide your time to explore other treatments. They may be pharmacological; they may, of course, be lifestyle changes, psychotherapies, and so on,” said Dr. Davies.

If, however, patients feel that chronic benzodiazepine use is their only option, this research informs that decision by quantifying the risks.

“We’ve always known that there was a problem, but there haven’t been high-quality epidemiological studies like this that allowed us to say what the numbers are,” said Dr. Davies.
 

Confirmatory research

In a comment, Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., noted that the risk associated with benzodiazepine use, especially in older people, has been demonstrated repeatedly.

“In that context, it is not surprising that less continuous exposure to an established risk factor attenuates the risk for these adverse outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Correll, who was not involved in the study pointed out there is nevertheless a “risk of residual confounding by indication.”

In other words, “people with intermittent benzodiazepine use may have less severe underlying illness and better healthy lifestyle behaviors than those requiring chronic benzodiazepine administration.”

Also commenting on the research, Christian Vinkers, MD, PhD, psychiatrist and professor of stress and resilience, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, said that it confirms “once again that long-term benzodiazepine use should not be encouraged.”

“The risk of falls, as well as cognitive side effects and impaired driving skills, with the risk of road accidents, make chronic overuse of benzodiazepines a public health issue. Of course, there is a small group of patients who should have access to long-term use, but it is reasonable to assume that this group is currently too large,” he added.

The study was funded through a grant from the University of Toronto Department of Psychiatry Excellence Funds. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Intermittent benzodiazepine use significantly reduces the risk for falls, fractures, and mortality in older adults compared with chronic use of these medications, results of a large-scale study show.

Investigators matched more than 57,000 chronic benzodiazepine users with nearly 114,000 intermittent users and found that, at 1 year, chronic users had an 8% increased risk for emergency department visits and/or hospitalizations for falls.

Chronic users also had a 25% increased risk for hip fracture, a 4% raised risk for ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason, and a 23% increased risk for death.

Study investigator Simon J.C. Davies, MD, PhD, MSc, Centre for Addiction & Mental Health, Toronto, said that the research shows that, where possible, patients older than 65 years with anxiety or insomnia who are taking benzodiazepines should not stay on these medications continuously.

However, he acknowledged that, “in practical terms, there will be some who can’t change or do not want to change” their treatment.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Wide range of adverse outcomes

The authors noted that benzodiazepines are used to treat anxiety and insomnia but are associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and mortality as well as tolerance and dose escalation.

“These risks are especially relevant in older adults,” they added, noting that some guidelines recommend avoiding the drugs in this population, whereas other suggest short-term benzodiazepine use for a maximum of 4 weeks.

Despite this, “benzodiazepines are widely prescribed in older adults.” One study showed that almost 15% of adults aged 65 years or older received at least one benzodiazepine prescription.

Moreover, chronic use is more common in older versus younger patients.

Benzodiazepine use among older adults “used to be higher,” Dr. Davies said in an interview, at around 20%, but the “numbers have come down,” partly because of the introduction of benzodiazepine-like sleep medications but also because of educational efforts.

“There are certainly campaigns in Ontario to educate physicians,” Dr. Davies said, “but I think more broadly people are aware of the activity of these drugs, and the tolerance and other issues.”

To compare the risk associated with chronic versus intermittent use of benzodiazepines in older adults, the team performed a population-based cohort study using linked health care databases in Ontario.

They focused on adults aged 65 years or older with a first benzodiazepine prescription after at least 1 year without taking the drugs.

Chronic benzodiazepine use was defined as 120 days of prescriptions over the first 180 days after the index prescription. Patients who met these criteria were matched with intermittent users in a 2:1 ratio by age and sex.

Patients were then propensity matched using 24 variables, including health system use in the year prior to the index prescription, clinical diagnoses, prior psychiatric health system use, falls, and income level.

The team identified 57,072 chronic benzodiazepine users and 312,468 intermittent users, of whom, 57,041 and 113,839, respectively, were propensity matched.

As expected, chronic users were prescribed benzodiazepines for more days than were the intermittent users over both the initial 180-day exposure period, at 141 days versus 33 days, and again during a further 180-day follow-up period, at 181 days versus 19 days.

Over the follow-up period, the daily lorazepam dose-equivalents of chronic users four times that of intermittent users.

Hospitalizations and/or ED visits for falls were higher among patients in the chronic benzodiazepine group, at 4.6% versus 3.2% in those who took the drugs intermittently.

After adjusting for benzodiazepine dose, the team found that chronic benzodiazepine use was associated with a significant increase in the risk for falls leading to hospital presentation over the 360-day study period, compared with intermittent use (hazard ratio, 1.08; P = .0124).
 

 

 

Sex differences

In addition, chronic use was linked to a significantly increased risk for hip fracture (HR, 1.25; P = .0095), and long-term care admission (HR, 1.32; P < .0001).

There was also a significant increase in ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason with chronic benzodiazepine use versus intermittent use (HR, 1.04; P = .0007), and an increase in the risk for death (HR, 1.23; P < .0001).

A nonsignificant increased risk for wrist fracture was also associated with chronic use of benzodiazepines (HR, 1.02; P = .8683).

Further analysis revealed some sex differences. For instance, men had a marked increase in the risk for hip fracture with chronic use (HR, 1.50; P = .0154), whereas the risk was not significant in women (HR, 1.16; P = .1332). In addition, mortality risk associated with chronic use was higher in men than in women (HR, 1.39; P < .0001 vs. HR, 1.10; P = .2245).

The decision to discontinue chronic benzodiazepine use can be challenging, said Dr. Davies. “If you’re advising people to stop, what happens to the treatment of their anxiety?”

He said that there are many other treatment options for anxiety that don’t come with tolerance or risk for addiction.

“My position would be that intermittent use is perfectly acceptable while you bide your time to explore other treatments. They may be pharmacological; they may, of course, be lifestyle changes, psychotherapies, and so on,” said Dr. Davies.

If, however, patients feel that chronic benzodiazepine use is their only option, this research informs that decision by quantifying the risks.

“We’ve always known that there was a problem, but there haven’t been high-quality epidemiological studies like this that allowed us to say what the numbers are,” said Dr. Davies.
 

Confirmatory research

In a comment, Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., noted that the risk associated with benzodiazepine use, especially in older people, has been demonstrated repeatedly.

“In that context, it is not surprising that less continuous exposure to an established risk factor attenuates the risk for these adverse outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Correll, who was not involved in the study pointed out there is nevertheless a “risk of residual confounding by indication.”

In other words, “people with intermittent benzodiazepine use may have less severe underlying illness and better healthy lifestyle behaviors than those requiring chronic benzodiazepine administration.”

Also commenting on the research, Christian Vinkers, MD, PhD, psychiatrist and professor of stress and resilience, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, said that it confirms “once again that long-term benzodiazepine use should not be encouraged.”

“The risk of falls, as well as cognitive side effects and impaired driving skills, with the risk of road accidents, make chronic overuse of benzodiazepines a public health issue. Of course, there is a small group of patients who should have access to long-term use, but it is reasonable to assume that this group is currently too large,” he added.

The study was funded through a grant from the University of Toronto Department of Psychiatry Excellence Funds. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Intermittent benzodiazepine use significantly reduces the risk for falls, fractures, and mortality in older adults compared with chronic use of these medications, results of a large-scale study show.

Investigators matched more than 57,000 chronic benzodiazepine users with nearly 114,000 intermittent users and found that, at 1 year, chronic users had an 8% increased risk for emergency department visits and/or hospitalizations for falls.

Chronic users also had a 25% increased risk for hip fracture, a 4% raised risk for ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason, and a 23% increased risk for death.

Study investigator Simon J.C. Davies, MD, PhD, MSc, Centre for Addiction & Mental Health, Toronto, said that the research shows that, where possible, patients older than 65 years with anxiety or insomnia who are taking benzodiazepines should not stay on these medications continuously.

However, he acknowledged that, “in practical terms, there will be some who can’t change or do not want to change” their treatment.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Wide range of adverse outcomes

The authors noted that benzodiazepines are used to treat anxiety and insomnia but are associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and mortality as well as tolerance and dose escalation.

“These risks are especially relevant in older adults,” they added, noting that some guidelines recommend avoiding the drugs in this population, whereas other suggest short-term benzodiazepine use for a maximum of 4 weeks.

Despite this, “benzodiazepines are widely prescribed in older adults.” One study showed that almost 15% of adults aged 65 years or older received at least one benzodiazepine prescription.

Moreover, chronic use is more common in older versus younger patients.

Benzodiazepine use among older adults “used to be higher,” Dr. Davies said in an interview, at around 20%, but the “numbers have come down,” partly because of the introduction of benzodiazepine-like sleep medications but also because of educational efforts.

“There are certainly campaigns in Ontario to educate physicians,” Dr. Davies said, “but I think more broadly people are aware of the activity of these drugs, and the tolerance and other issues.”

To compare the risk associated with chronic versus intermittent use of benzodiazepines in older adults, the team performed a population-based cohort study using linked health care databases in Ontario.

They focused on adults aged 65 years or older with a first benzodiazepine prescription after at least 1 year without taking the drugs.

Chronic benzodiazepine use was defined as 120 days of prescriptions over the first 180 days after the index prescription. Patients who met these criteria were matched with intermittent users in a 2:1 ratio by age and sex.

Patients were then propensity matched using 24 variables, including health system use in the year prior to the index prescription, clinical diagnoses, prior psychiatric health system use, falls, and income level.

The team identified 57,072 chronic benzodiazepine users and 312,468 intermittent users, of whom, 57,041 and 113,839, respectively, were propensity matched.

As expected, chronic users were prescribed benzodiazepines for more days than were the intermittent users over both the initial 180-day exposure period, at 141 days versus 33 days, and again during a further 180-day follow-up period, at 181 days versus 19 days.

Over the follow-up period, the daily lorazepam dose-equivalents of chronic users four times that of intermittent users.

Hospitalizations and/or ED visits for falls were higher among patients in the chronic benzodiazepine group, at 4.6% versus 3.2% in those who took the drugs intermittently.

After adjusting for benzodiazepine dose, the team found that chronic benzodiazepine use was associated with a significant increase in the risk for falls leading to hospital presentation over the 360-day study period, compared with intermittent use (hazard ratio, 1.08; P = .0124).
 

 

 

Sex differences

In addition, chronic use was linked to a significantly increased risk for hip fracture (HR, 1.25; P = .0095), and long-term care admission (HR, 1.32; P < .0001).

There was also a significant increase in ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason with chronic benzodiazepine use versus intermittent use (HR, 1.04; P = .0007), and an increase in the risk for death (HR, 1.23; P < .0001).

A nonsignificant increased risk for wrist fracture was also associated with chronic use of benzodiazepines (HR, 1.02; P = .8683).

Further analysis revealed some sex differences. For instance, men had a marked increase in the risk for hip fracture with chronic use (HR, 1.50; P = .0154), whereas the risk was not significant in women (HR, 1.16; P = .1332). In addition, mortality risk associated with chronic use was higher in men than in women (HR, 1.39; P < .0001 vs. HR, 1.10; P = .2245).

The decision to discontinue chronic benzodiazepine use can be challenging, said Dr. Davies. “If you’re advising people to stop, what happens to the treatment of their anxiety?”

He said that there are many other treatment options for anxiety that don’t come with tolerance or risk for addiction.

“My position would be that intermittent use is perfectly acceptable while you bide your time to explore other treatments. They may be pharmacological; they may, of course, be lifestyle changes, psychotherapies, and so on,” said Dr. Davies.

If, however, patients feel that chronic benzodiazepine use is their only option, this research informs that decision by quantifying the risks.

“We’ve always known that there was a problem, but there haven’t been high-quality epidemiological studies like this that allowed us to say what the numbers are,” said Dr. Davies.
 

Confirmatory research

In a comment, Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., noted that the risk associated with benzodiazepine use, especially in older people, has been demonstrated repeatedly.

“In that context, it is not surprising that less continuous exposure to an established risk factor attenuates the risk for these adverse outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Correll, who was not involved in the study pointed out there is nevertheless a “risk of residual confounding by indication.”

In other words, “people with intermittent benzodiazepine use may have less severe underlying illness and better healthy lifestyle behaviors than those requiring chronic benzodiazepine administration.”

Also commenting on the research, Christian Vinkers, MD, PhD, psychiatrist and professor of stress and resilience, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, said that it confirms “once again that long-term benzodiazepine use should not be encouraged.”

“The risk of falls, as well as cognitive side effects and impaired driving skills, with the risk of road accidents, make chronic overuse of benzodiazepines a public health issue. Of course, there is a small group of patients who should have access to long-term use, but it is reasonable to assume that this group is currently too large,” he added.

The study was funded through a grant from the University of Toronto Department of Psychiatry Excellence Funds. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

AT ECNP 2023

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Shifting Culture Toward Age-Friendly Care: Lessons From VHA Early Adopters

Article Type
Changed
Sat, 10/07/2023 - 12:46

Nearly 50% of living US veterans are aged ≥ 65 years compared with 18.3% of the general population.1,2 The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated health care system in the US, has a vested interest in improving the quality and effectiveness of care for older veterans.3

Health care systems are often unprepared to care for the complex needs of older adults. There are roughly 7300 certified geriatricians practicing in the US, and about 250 new geriatricians are trained each year while the American Geriatrics Society expects > 12,000 geriatricians will be required by 2030.4,5 More geriatricians are needed to serve as the primary health care professionals (HCPs) for older adults.4,6 Health care systems like the VHA must find ways to increase geriatrics skills, knowledge, and practices among their entire health care workforce. A culture shift toward age-friendly care for older adults across care settings and inclusive of all HCPs may help meet this escalating workforce need.7

table 1

The Age-Friendly Health System (AFHS) is an initiative of the John A. Hartford Foundation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) in partnership with the American Hospital Association and the Catholic Health Association of the United States.8,9 AFHS uses a what matters, medication, mentation, and mobility (4Ms) framework to ensure reliable, evidence-based care for older adults (Table 1).10,11 In an AFHS, the 4Ms are integrated into every discipline and care setting for older adults.11 The 4Ms neither replace formal training in geriatrics nor create the level of expertise needed for geriatrics teachers, researchers, and program leaders. However, the systematic approach of AFHS to assess and act on each of the 4Ms offers one solution to expand geriatrics skills and knowledge beyond geriatric care settings in all disciplines by engaging each HCP to meet the needs of older adults.12 To act on what matters, HCPs need to align the care plan with what is important to the older adult.

Hospitals and health care systems are encouraged to begin implementing the 4Ms in ≥ 1 care setting.13 Care settings may get started on a do-it-yourself track or by joining an IHI Action Community, which provides a series of webinars to help adopt the 4Ms over 7 months.14 By creating a plan for how each M will be assessed, documented, and acted on, care settings may earn level 1 recognition from the IHI.14 As of July 2023, there are at least 3100 AFHS participants and > 1900 have achieved level 2 recognition, which requires 3 months of clinical data to demonstrate the impact of the 4Ms.13,14

The main cultural shift of the AFHS movement is to focus on what matters to older adults by prioritizing each older adult’s personal health goals and care preferences across all care settings.9,11 Medication addresses age-appropropriate prescribing, making dose adjustments, if needed, and avoiding/deprescribing high-risk medications that may interfere with what matters, mentation, or mobility. The Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults is often used as a guide and includes lists of medications that are potentially harmful for older adults.11 Mentation focuses on preventing, identifying, treating, and managing dementia, depression, and delirium across care settings. Mobility includes assisting or encouraging older adults to move safely every day to maintain functional ability and do what matters.15,16 Each of the 4Ms has the potential to improve health outcomes for older adults, reduce waste from low-quality services, and increase the use of cost-effective services.11,17

In March 2020, the VHA Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care (GEC) set the goal for the VHA to be recognized by the IHI as an AFHS.18,19 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities that joined the AFHS movement in 2020 are considered early adopters. We describe early adopter AFHS implementation at Birmingham VA Health Care System (BVAHCS) hospital, geriatrics assessment clinic (GAC), and Home Based Primary Care (HBPC) and at the Atlanta VA Medical Center (AVAMC) HBPC.

 

 

Implementing 4Ms Care

eappendix 1

The IHI identifies 6 steps in the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle to reliably practice the 4Ms. eAppendix 1 provides a side-by-side comparison of the steps over a 9-month timeline independently taken by BVAHCS and AVAMC to achieve both levels of AFHS recognition.

Step 1: Understand the Current State

In March 2020 the BVAHCS enrolled in the IHI Action Community. Three BVAHCS care settings were identified for the Action Community: the inpatient hospital, GAC (an outpatient clinic), and HBPC. The AVAMC HBPC enrolled in the IHI Action Community in March 2021.

Before joining the AFHS movement, the BVAHCS implemented a hospital-wide delirium standard operating procedure (SOP) whereby every veteran admitted to the 313-bed hospital is screened for delirium risk, with positive screens linked to nursing-led interventions. Nursing leadership supported AFHS due to its recognized value and an exemplary process in place to assess mentation/delirium and background understanding for screening and acting on medication, mobility, and what matters most to the veteran. The BVAHCS GAC, which was led by a single geriatrician, integrated the 4Ms into all geriatrics assessment appointments.

For the BVAHCS HBPC, the 4Ms supported key performance measures, such as fall prevention, patient satisfaction, decreasing medication errors, and identification of cognition and mood disorders. For the AVAMC HBPC, joining the AFHS movement represented an opportunity to improve performance measures, interdisciplinary teamwork, and care coordination for patients. For both HBPC sites, the shift to virtual meeting modalities due to the COVID-19 pandemic enabled HBPC team members to garner support for AFHS and collectively develop a 4Ms plan.

Step 2: Describe 4Ms Care

In March 2020 as guided by the Action Community, BVAHCS created a plan for each of its 3 care settings that described assessment tools, frequency, documentation, and responsible team members. All BVAHCS care settings achieved level 1 recognition in April 2020. Of the approximately 300 veterans served by the AVAMC HBPC, 83% are aged > 65 years. They achieved level 1 recognition in August 2021.

Step 3: Design and Adapt Workflows

table 2

From April to August 2020, BVAHCS implemented its 4Ms plans. In the hospital, a 4Ms overview was provided with education on the delirium SOP at nursing meetings. Updates were requested to the electronic health record (EHR) templates for the GAC to streamline documentation. For the BVAHCS HBPC, 4Ms assessments were added to the EHR quarterly care plan template, which was updated by all team members (Table 2).

From April through June 2021, the AVAMC HBPC formed teams led by 4Ms champions: what matters was led by a nurse care manager, medication by a nurse practitioner and pharmacist, mentation by a social worker, and mobility by a physical therapist. The champions initially focused on a plan for each M, incorporating all 4Ms as a set for optimal effectiveness into their quarterly care plan meeting using what matters to drive the entire care plan.

Step 4: Provide Care

Each of the 4Ms was to be assessed, documented, and acted on for each veteran within a short period, such as a hospitalization or 1 or 2 outpatient visits. BVAHCS implemented 4Ms care in each care setting from August to October 2020. The AVAMC HBPC implemented 4Ms from July to September 2021.

 

 

Step 5: Study Performance

The IHI identifies 3 methods for measuring older adults who receive 4Ms care: real-time observation, chart review, or EHR report. For chart review, the IHI recommends using a random sample to calculate the number of patients who received 4Ms in 1 month, which provides evidence of progress toward reliable practice.

eappendix 2

Both facilities used chart review with random sampling. Each setting estimated the number of veterans receiving 4Ms care by multiplying the percentage of sampled charts with documented 4Ms care by unique patient encounters (eAppendix 2).

From August through October 2020, BVAHCS sites reached an estimated 97% of older veterans with complete 4Ms care: hospital, 100%; GAC, 90%; and HBPC, 85%. AVAMC HBPC increased 4Ms care from 52% to 100% between July and September 2021. Both teams demonstrated the feasibility of reliably providing 4Ms care to > 85% of older veterans in these care settings and earned level 2 recognition. Through satisfaction surveys and informal feedback, notable positive changes were evident to veterans, their families, and the VA staff providing 4Ms age-friendly care.

Step 6: Improve and Sustain Care

Each site acknowledged barriers and facilitators for adopting the 4Ms. The COVID-19 pandemic was an ongoing barrier for both sites, with teams transitioning to virtual modalities for telehealth visits and team meetings, and higher staff turnover. However, the greater use of technology facilitated 4Ms adoption by allowing physically distant team members to collaborate.

One of the largest barriers was the lack of 4Ms documentation in the EHR, which could not be implemented in the BVAHCS inpatient hospital due to existing standardized nursing templates. Both sites recognized that 4Ms documentation in the EHR for all care settings would facilitate achieving level 2 recognition and tracking and reporting 4Ms care in the future.

Discussion

The AFHS 4Ms approach offers a method to impart geriatrics knowledge, skills, and practice throughout an entire health care system in a short time. The AFHS framework provides a structured pathway to the often daunting challenge of care for complex, multimorbid, and highly heterogeneous older adults. The 4Ms approach promotes the provision of evidence-based care that is reliable, efficient, patient centered, and avoids unwanted care: worthy goals not only for geriatrics but for all members of a high-reliability organization.

Through the implementation of the 4Ms framework, consistent use of AFHS practices, measurement, and feedback, the staff in each VA care setting reported here reached a level of reliability in which at least 85% of patients had all 4Ms addressed. Notably, adoption was strong and improvements in reliably addressing all 4Ms were observed in both geriatrics (HBPC and outpatient clinics) and nongeriatrics (inpatient medicine) settings. Although one might expect that high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in geriatrics-focused VA settings were routinely addressing all 4Ms for most of their patients, our experience was consistent with prior teams indicating that this is often not the case. Although many of these teams were addressing some of the 4Ms in their usual practice, the 4Ms framework facilitated addressing all 4Ms as a set with input from all team members. Most importantly, it fostered a culture of asking the older adult what matters most and documenting, sharing, and aligning this with the care plan. Within 6 months, all VA care settings achieved level 1 recognition, and within 9 months, all achieved level 2 recognition.

 

 

Lessons Learned

Key lessons learned include the importance of identifying, preparing, and supporting a champion to lead this effort; garnering facility and system leadership support at the outset; and integration with the EHR for reliable and efficient data capture, reporting, and feedback. Preparing and supporting champions was achieved through national and individual calls and peer support. Guidance was provided on garnering leadership support, including local needs assessment and data analysis, meeting with leadership to first understand their key challenges and priorities and provide information on the AFHS movement, requesting a follow-up meeting to discuss local needs and data, and exploring how an AFHS might help address one or more of their priorities.

In September 2022, an AFHS 4Ms note template was introduced into the EHR for all VA sites for data capture and reporting, to standardize and facilitate documentation across all age-friendly VA sites, and decrease the reporting burden for staff. This effort is critically important: The ability to document, track, and analyze 4Ms measures, provide feedback, and synergize efforts across systems is vital to design studies to determine whether the AFHS 4Ms approach to care achieves substantive improvements in patient care across settings.

Limitations

Limitations of this analysis include the small sample of care settings, which did not include a skilled nursing or long-term care facility, nor general primary care. Although the short timeframe assessed did not allow us to report on the anticipated clinical outcomes of 4Ms care, it does set up a foundation for evaluation of the 4Ms and EHR integration and dashboard development.

Conclusions

The VHA provides a comprehensive spectrum of geriatrics services and innovative models of care that often serve as exemplars to other health care systems. Implementing the AFHS framework to assess and act on the 4Ms provides a structure for confronting the HCP shortage with geriatrics expertise by infusing geriatrics knowledge, skills, and practices throughout all care settings and disciplines. Enhancing patient-centered care to older veterans through AFHS implementation exemplifies the VHA as a learning health care system.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Veterans Health Administration Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care and the clinical staff from the Atlanta Veterans Affairs Healthcare System and the Birmingham Veterans Affairs Health Care System for assisting us in this work.

References

1. US Census Bureau. Older Americans month: May 2023. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/older-americans-month.html

2. Vespa J. Aging veterans: America’s veteran population in later life. July 2023. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2023/acs/acs-54.pdf

3. O’Hanlon C, Huang C, Sloss E, et al. Comparing VA and non-VA quality of care: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(1):105-121. doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3775-2

4. Fulmer T, Reuben DB, Auerbach J, Fick DM, Galambos C, Johnson KS. Actualizing better health and health care for older adults: commentary describes six vital directions to improve the care and quality of life for all older Americans. Health Aff (Millwood). 2021;40(2):219-225. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2020.01470

5. ChenMed. The physician shortage in geriatrics. March 18, 2022. Accessed September 6, 2023. https://www.chenmed.com/blog/physician-shortage-geriatrics

6. American Geriatrics Society. Projected future need for geriatricians. Updated May 2016. Accessed September 6, 2023. https://www.americangeriatrics.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/Projected-Future-Need-for-Geriatricians.pdf 7. Carmody J, Black K, Bonner A, Wolfe M, Fulmer T. Advancing gerontological nursing at the intersection of age-friendly communities, health systems, and public health. J Gerontol Nurs. 2021;47(3):13-17. doi:10.3928/00989134-20210125-01

8. Lesser S, Zakharkin S, Louie C, Escobedo MR, Whyte J, Fulmer T. Clinician knowledge and behaviors related to the 4Ms framework of Age‐Friendly Health Systems. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022;70(3):789-800. doi:10.1111/jgs.17571

9. Edelman LS, Drost J, Moone RP, et al. Applying the Age-Friendly Health System framework to long term care settings. J Nutr Health Aging. 2021;25(2):141-145. doi:10.1007/s12603-020-1558-2

10. Emery-Tiburcio EE, Mack L, Zonsius MC, Carbonell E, Newman M. The 4Ms of an Age-Friendly Health System: an evidence-based framework to ensure older adults receive the highest quality care. Home Healthc Now. 2022;40(5):252-257. doi:10.1097/NHH.0000000000001113

11. Mate K, Fulmer T, Pelton L, et al. Evidence for the 4Ms: interactions and outcomes across the care continuum. J Aging Health. 2021;33(7-8):469-481. doi:10.1177/0898264321991658

12. Mate KS, Berman A, Laderman M, Kabcenell A, Fulmer T. Creating age-friendly health systems – a vision for better care of older adults. Healthc (Amst). 2018;6(1):4-6. doi:10.1016/j.hjdsi.2017.05.005

13. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. What is an Age-Friendly Health System? Accessed September 6, 2023. https://www.ihi.org/Engage/Initiatives/Age-Friendly-Health-Systems/Pages/default.aspx

14. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Health systems recognized by IHI. Updated September 2023. Accessed September 6, 2023. https://www.ihi.org/Engage/Initiatives/Age-Friendly-Health-Systems/Pages/recognized-systems.aspx

15. Burke RE, Ashcraft LE, Manges K, et al. What matters when it comes to measuring Age‐Friendly Health System transformation. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022;70(10):2775-2785. doi:10.1111/jgs.18002

16. Wang J, Shen JY, Conwell Y, et al. How “age-friendly” are deprescribing interventions? A scoping review of deprescribing trials. Health Serv Res. 202;58(suppl 1):123-138. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.14083

17. Pohnert AM, Schiltz NK, Pino L, et al. Achievement of age‐friendly health systems committed to care excellence designation in a convenient care health care system. Health Serv Res. 2023;58 (suppl 1):89-99. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.14071

18. Church K, Munro S, Shaughnessy M, Clancy C. Age-Friendly Health Systems: improving care for older adults in the Veterans Health Administration. Health Serv Res. 2022;58(suppl 1):5-8. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.14110

19. Farrell TW, Volden TA, Butler JM, et al. Age‐friendly care in the Veterans Health Administration: past, present, and future. J Am Geriatr Soc. doi:10.1111/jgs.18070

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Megha Kalsy, PhD, MSa; Kimberly Church, MSb; Ella Bowman, MD, PhDc; Anna Mirk, MDd; Deslyn Olunuga, MDd; Thomas Edes, MDb

Correspondence:  Kimberly Church  ([email protected])

aVeterans Affairs Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland

bVeterans Health Administration, Geriatrics and Extended Care, Washington, DC

cOregon Health and Science University, Portland

dVeterans Affairs Atlanta Healthcare System, Georgia

Author disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regards to this article. This work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and the Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the U.S. Government, or any of its agencies.

Ethics and consent

This work was reviewed and deemed exempt from formal institutional review board approval as quality improvement by the US Department of Veterans Affairs departments/personnel: Program Office Lead for the Age-Friendly Health Systems, Geriatrics and Extended Care, and Patient Care Services.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(10)a
Publications
Topics
Page Number
344
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Megha Kalsy, PhD, MSa; Kimberly Church, MSb; Ella Bowman, MD, PhDc; Anna Mirk, MDd; Deslyn Olunuga, MDd; Thomas Edes, MDb

Correspondence:  Kimberly Church  ([email protected])

aVeterans Affairs Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland

bVeterans Health Administration, Geriatrics and Extended Care, Washington, DC

cOregon Health and Science University, Portland

dVeterans Affairs Atlanta Healthcare System, Georgia

Author disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regards to this article. This work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and the Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the U.S. Government, or any of its agencies.

Ethics and consent

This work was reviewed and deemed exempt from formal institutional review board approval as quality improvement by the US Department of Veterans Affairs departments/personnel: Program Office Lead for the Age-Friendly Health Systems, Geriatrics and Extended Care, and Patient Care Services.

Author and Disclosure Information

Megha Kalsy, PhD, MSa; Kimberly Church, MSb; Ella Bowman, MD, PhDc; Anna Mirk, MDd; Deslyn Olunuga, MDd; Thomas Edes, MDb

Correspondence:  Kimberly Church  ([email protected])

aVeterans Affairs Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland

bVeterans Health Administration, Geriatrics and Extended Care, Washington, DC

cOregon Health and Science University, Portland

dVeterans Affairs Atlanta Healthcare System, Georgia

Author disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regards to this article. This work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and the Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the U.S. Government, or any of its agencies.

Ethics and consent

This work was reviewed and deemed exempt from formal institutional review board approval as quality improvement by the US Department of Veterans Affairs departments/personnel: Program Office Lead for the Age-Friendly Health Systems, Geriatrics and Extended Care, and Patient Care Services.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Nearly 50% of living US veterans are aged ≥ 65 years compared with 18.3% of the general population.1,2 The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated health care system in the US, has a vested interest in improving the quality and effectiveness of care for older veterans.3

Health care systems are often unprepared to care for the complex needs of older adults. There are roughly 7300 certified geriatricians practicing in the US, and about 250 new geriatricians are trained each year while the American Geriatrics Society expects > 12,000 geriatricians will be required by 2030.4,5 More geriatricians are needed to serve as the primary health care professionals (HCPs) for older adults.4,6 Health care systems like the VHA must find ways to increase geriatrics skills, knowledge, and practices among their entire health care workforce. A culture shift toward age-friendly care for older adults across care settings and inclusive of all HCPs may help meet this escalating workforce need.7

table 1

The Age-Friendly Health System (AFHS) is an initiative of the John A. Hartford Foundation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) in partnership with the American Hospital Association and the Catholic Health Association of the United States.8,9 AFHS uses a what matters, medication, mentation, and mobility (4Ms) framework to ensure reliable, evidence-based care for older adults (Table 1).10,11 In an AFHS, the 4Ms are integrated into every discipline and care setting for older adults.11 The 4Ms neither replace formal training in geriatrics nor create the level of expertise needed for geriatrics teachers, researchers, and program leaders. However, the systematic approach of AFHS to assess and act on each of the 4Ms offers one solution to expand geriatrics skills and knowledge beyond geriatric care settings in all disciplines by engaging each HCP to meet the needs of older adults.12 To act on what matters, HCPs need to align the care plan with what is important to the older adult.

Hospitals and health care systems are encouraged to begin implementing the 4Ms in ≥ 1 care setting.13 Care settings may get started on a do-it-yourself track or by joining an IHI Action Community, which provides a series of webinars to help adopt the 4Ms over 7 months.14 By creating a plan for how each M will be assessed, documented, and acted on, care settings may earn level 1 recognition from the IHI.14 As of July 2023, there are at least 3100 AFHS participants and > 1900 have achieved level 2 recognition, which requires 3 months of clinical data to demonstrate the impact of the 4Ms.13,14

The main cultural shift of the AFHS movement is to focus on what matters to older adults by prioritizing each older adult’s personal health goals and care preferences across all care settings.9,11 Medication addresses age-appropropriate prescribing, making dose adjustments, if needed, and avoiding/deprescribing high-risk medications that may interfere with what matters, mentation, or mobility. The Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults is often used as a guide and includes lists of medications that are potentially harmful for older adults.11 Mentation focuses on preventing, identifying, treating, and managing dementia, depression, and delirium across care settings. Mobility includes assisting or encouraging older adults to move safely every day to maintain functional ability and do what matters.15,16 Each of the 4Ms has the potential to improve health outcomes for older adults, reduce waste from low-quality services, and increase the use of cost-effective services.11,17

In March 2020, the VHA Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care (GEC) set the goal for the VHA to be recognized by the IHI as an AFHS.18,19 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities that joined the AFHS movement in 2020 are considered early adopters. We describe early adopter AFHS implementation at Birmingham VA Health Care System (BVAHCS) hospital, geriatrics assessment clinic (GAC), and Home Based Primary Care (HBPC) and at the Atlanta VA Medical Center (AVAMC) HBPC.

 

 

Implementing 4Ms Care

eappendix 1

The IHI identifies 6 steps in the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle to reliably practice the 4Ms. eAppendix 1 provides a side-by-side comparison of the steps over a 9-month timeline independently taken by BVAHCS and AVAMC to achieve both levels of AFHS recognition.

Step 1: Understand the Current State

In March 2020 the BVAHCS enrolled in the IHI Action Community. Three BVAHCS care settings were identified for the Action Community: the inpatient hospital, GAC (an outpatient clinic), and HBPC. The AVAMC HBPC enrolled in the IHI Action Community in March 2021.

Before joining the AFHS movement, the BVAHCS implemented a hospital-wide delirium standard operating procedure (SOP) whereby every veteran admitted to the 313-bed hospital is screened for delirium risk, with positive screens linked to nursing-led interventions. Nursing leadership supported AFHS due to its recognized value and an exemplary process in place to assess mentation/delirium and background understanding for screening and acting on medication, mobility, and what matters most to the veteran. The BVAHCS GAC, which was led by a single geriatrician, integrated the 4Ms into all geriatrics assessment appointments.

For the BVAHCS HBPC, the 4Ms supported key performance measures, such as fall prevention, patient satisfaction, decreasing medication errors, and identification of cognition and mood disorders. For the AVAMC HBPC, joining the AFHS movement represented an opportunity to improve performance measures, interdisciplinary teamwork, and care coordination for patients. For both HBPC sites, the shift to virtual meeting modalities due to the COVID-19 pandemic enabled HBPC team members to garner support for AFHS and collectively develop a 4Ms plan.

Step 2: Describe 4Ms Care

In March 2020 as guided by the Action Community, BVAHCS created a plan for each of its 3 care settings that described assessment tools, frequency, documentation, and responsible team members. All BVAHCS care settings achieved level 1 recognition in April 2020. Of the approximately 300 veterans served by the AVAMC HBPC, 83% are aged > 65 years. They achieved level 1 recognition in August 2021.

Step 3: Design and Adapt Workflows

table 2

From April to August 2020, BVAHCS implemented its 4Ms plans. In the hospital, a 4Ms overview was provided with education on the delirium SOP at nursing meetings. Updates were requested to the electronic health record (EHR) templates for the GAC to streamline documentation. For the BVAHCS HBPC, 4Ms assessments were added to the EHR quarterly care plan template, which was updated by all team members (Table 2).

From April through June 2021, the AVAMC HBPC formed teams led by 4Ms champions: what matters was led by a nurse care manager, medication by a nurse practitioner and pharmacist, mentation by a social worker, and mobility by a physical therapist. The champions initially focused on a plan for each M, incorporating all 4Ms as a set for optimal effectiveness into their quarterly care plan meeting using what matters to drive the entire care plan.

Step 4: Provide Care

Each of the 4Ms was to be assessed, documented, and acted on for each veteran within a short period, such as a hospitalization or 1 or 2 outpatient visits. BVAHCS implemented 4Ms care in each care setting from August to October 2020. The AVAMC HBPC implemented 4Ms from July to September 2021.

 

 

Step 5: Study Performance

The IHI identifies 3 methods for measuring older adults who receive 4Ms care: real-time observation, chart review, or EHR report. For chart review, the IHI recommends using a random sample to calculate the number of patients who received 4Ms in 1 month, which provides evidence of progress toward reliable practice.

eappendix 2

Both facilities used chart review with random sampling. Each setting estimated the number of veterans receiving 4Ms care by multiplying the percentage of sampled charts with documented 4Ms care by unique patient encounters (eAppendix 2).

From August through October 2020, BVAHCS sites reached an estimated 97% of older veterans with complete 4Ms care: hospital, 100%; GAC, 90%; and HBPC, 85%. AVAMC HBPC increased 4Ms care from 52% to 100% between July and September 2021. Both teams demonstrated the feasibility of reliably providing 4Ms care to > 85% of older veterans in these care settings and earned level 2 recognition. Through satisfaction surveys and informal feedback, notable positive changes were evident to veterans, their families, and the VA staff providing 4Ms age-friendly care.

Step 6: Improve and Sustain Care

Each site acknowledged barriers and facilitators for adopting the 4Ms. The COVID-19 pandemic was an ongoing barrier for both sites, with teams transitioning to virtual modalities for telehealth visits and team meetings, and higher staff turnover. However, the greater use of technology facilitated 4Ms adoption by allowing physically distant team members to collaborate.

One of the largest barriers was the lack of 4Ms documentation in the EHR, which could not be implemented in the BVAHCS inpatient hospital due to existing standardized nursing templates. Both sites recognized that 4Ms documentation in the EHR for all care settings would facilitate achieving level 2 recognition and tracking and reporting 4Ms care in the future.

Discussion

The AFHS 4Ms approach offers a method to impart geriatrics knowledge, skills, and practice throughout an entire health care system in a short time. The AFHS framework provides a structured pathway to the often daunting challenge of care for complex, multimorbid, and highly heterogeneous older adults. The 4Ms approach promotes the provision of evidence-based care that is reliable, efficient, patient centered, and avoids unwanted care: worthy goals not only for geriatrics but for all members of a high-reliability organization.

Through the implementation of the 4Ms framework, consistent use of AFHS practices, measurement, and feedback, the staff in each VA care setting reported here reached a level of reliability in which at least 85% of patients had all 4Ms addressed. Notably, adoption was strong and improvements in reliably addressing all 4Ms were observed in both geriatrics (HBPC and outpatient clinics) and nongeriatrics (inpatient medicine) settings. Although one might expect that high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in geriatrics-focused VA settings were routinely addressing all 4Ms for most of their patients, our experience was consistent with prior teams indicating that this is often not the case. Although many of these teams were addressing some of the 4Ms in their usual practice, the 4Ms framework facilitated addressing all 4Ms as a set with input from all team members. Most importantly, it fostered a culture of asking the older adult what matters most and documenting, sharing, and aligning this with the care plan. Within 6 months, all VA care settings achieved level 1 recognition, and within 9 months, all achieved level 2 recognition.

 

 

Lessons Learned

Key lessons learned include the importance of identifying, preparing, and supporting a champion to lead this effort; garnering facility and system leadership support at the outset; and integration with the EHR for reliable and efficient data capture, reporting, and feedback. Preparing and supporting champions was achieved through national and individual calls and peer support. Guidance was provided on garnering leadership support, including local needs assessment and data analysis, meeting with leadership to first understand their key challenges and priorities and provide information on the AFHS movement, requesting a follow-up meeting to discuss local needs and data, and exploring how an AFHS might help address one or more of their priorities.

In September 2022, an AFHS 4Ms note template was introduced into the EHR for all VA sites for data capture and reporting, to standardize and facilitate documentation across all age-friendly VA sites, and decrease the reporting burden for staff. This effort is critically important: The ability to document, track, and analyze 4Ms measures, provide feedback, and synergize efforts across systems is vital to design studies to determine whether the AFHS 4Ms approach to care achieves substantive improvements in patient care across settings.

Limitations

Limitations of this analysis include the small sample of care settings, which did not include a skilled nursing or long-term care facility, nor general primary care. Although the short timeframe assessed did not allow us to report on the anticipated clinical outcomes of 4Ms care, it does set up a foundation for evaluation of the 4Ms and EHR integration and dashboard development.

Conclusions

The VHA provides a comprehensive spectrum of geriatrics services and innovative models of care that often serve as exemplars to other health care systems. Implementing the AFHS framework to assess and act on the 4Ms provides a structure for confronting the HCP shortage with geriatrics expertise by infusing geriatrics knowledge, skills, and practices throughout all care settings and disciplines. Enhancing patient-centered care to older veterans through AFHS implementation exemplifies the VHA as a learning health care system.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Veterans Health Administration Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care and the clinical staff from the Atlanta Veterans Affairs Healthcare System and the Birmingham Veterans Affairs Health Care System for assisting us in this work.

Nearly 50% of living US veterans are aged ≥ 65 years compared with 18.3% of the general population.1,2 The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated health care system in the US, has a vested interest in improving the quality and effectiveness of care for older veterans.3

Health care systems are often unprepared to care for the complex needs of older adults. There are roughly 7300 certified geriatricians practicing in the US, and about 250 new geriatricians are trained each year while the American Geriatrics Society expects > 12,000 geriatricians will be required by 2030.4,5 More geriatricians are needed to serve as the primary health care professionals (HCPs) for older adults.4,6 Health care systems like the VHA must find ways to increase geriatrics skills, knowledge, and practices among their entire health care workforce. A culture shift toward age-friendly care for older adults across care settings and inclusive of all HCPs may help meet this escalating workforce need.7

table 1

The Age-Friendly Health System (AFHS) is an initiative of the John A. Hartford Foundation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) in partnership with the American Hospital Association and the Catholic Health Association of the United States.8,9 AFHS uses a what matters, medication, mentation, and mobility (4Ms) framework to ensure reliable, evidence-based care for older adults (Table 1).10,11 In an AFHS, the 4Ms are integrated into every discipline and care setting for older adults.11 The 4Ms neither replace formal training in geriatrics nor create the level of expertise needed for geriatrics teachers, researchers, and program leaders. However, the systematic approach of AFHS to assess and act on each of the 4Ms offers one solution to expand geriatrics skills and knowledge beyond geriatric care settings in all disciplines by engaging each HCP to meet the needs of older adults.12 To act on what matters, HCPs need to align the care plan with what is important to the older adult.

Hospitals and health care systems are encouraged to begin implementing the 4Ms in ≥ 1 care setting.13 Care settings may get started on a do-it-yourself track or by joining an IHI Action Community, which provides a series of webinars to help adopt the 4Ms over 7 months.14 By creating a plan for how each M will be assessed, documented, and acted on, care settings may earn level 1 recognition from the IHI.14 As of July 2023, there are at least 3100 AFHS participants and > 1900 have achieved level 2 recognition, which requires 3 months of clinical data to demonstrate the impact of the 4Ms.13,14

The main cultural shift of the AFHS movement is to focus on what matters to older adults by prioritizing each older adult’s personal health goals and care preferences across all care settings.9,11 Medication addresses age-appropropriate prescribing, making dose adjustments, if needed, and avoiding/deprescribing high-risk medications that may interfere with what matters, mentation, or mobility. The Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults is often used as a guide and includes lists of medications that are potentially harmful for older adults.11 Mentation focuses on preventing, identifying, treating, and managing dementia, depression, and delirium across care settings. Mobility includes assisting or encouraging older adults to move safely every day to maintain functional ability and do what matters.15,16 Each of the 4Ms has the potential to improve health outcomes for older adults, reduce waste from low-quality services, and increase the use of cost-effective services.11,17

In March 2020, the VHA Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care (GEC) set the goal for the VHA to be recognized by the IHI as an AFHS.18,19 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities that joined the AFHS movement in 2020 are considered early adopters. We describe early adopter AFHS implementation at Birmingham VA Health Care System (BVAHCS) hospital, geriatrics assessment clinic (GAC), and Home Based Primary Care (HBPC) and at the Atlanta VA Medical Center (AVAMC) HBPC.

 

 

Implementing 4Ms Care

eappendix 1

The IHI identifies 6 steps in the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle to reliably practice the 4Ms. eAppendix 1 provides a side-by-side comparison of the steps over a 9-month timeline independently taken by BVAHCS and AVAMC to achieve both levels of AFHS recognition.

Step 1: Understand the Current State

In March 2020 the BVAHCS enrolled in the IHI Action Community. Three BVAHCS care settings were identified for the Action Community: the inpatient hospital, GAC (an outpatient clinic), and HBPC. The AVAMC HBPC enrolled in the IHI Action Community in March 2021.

Before joining the AFHS movement, the BVAHCS implemented a hospital-wide delirium standard operating procedure (SOP) whereby every veteran admitted to the 313-bed hospital is screened for delirium risk, with positive screens linked to nursing-led interventions. Nursing leadership supported AFHS due to its recognized value and an exemplary process in place to assess mentation/delirium and background understanding for screening and acting on medication, mobility, and what matters most to the veteran. The BVAHCS GAC, which was led by a single geriatrician, integrated the 4Ms into all geriatrics assessment appointments.

For the BVAHCS HBPC, the 4Ms supported key performance measures, such as fall prevention, patient satisfaction, decreasing medication errors, and identification of cognition and mood disorders. For the AVAMC HBPC, joining the AFHS movement represented an opportunity to improve performance measures, interdisciplinary teamwork, and care coordination for patients. For both HBPC sites, the shift to virtual meeting modalities due to the COVID-19 pandemic enabled HBPC team members to garner support for AFHS and collectively develop a 4Ms plan.

Step 2: Describe 4Ms Care

In March 2020 as guided by the Action Community, BVAHCS created a plan for each of its 3 care settings that described assessment tools, frequency, documentation, and responsible team members. All BVAHCS care settings achieved level 1 recognition in April 2020. Of the approximately 300 veterans served by the AVAMC HBPC, 83% are aged > 65 years. They achieved level 1 recognition in August 2021.

Step 3: Design and Adapt Workflows

table 2

From April to August 2020, BVAHCS implemented its 4Ms plans. In the hospital, a 4Ms overview was provided with education on the delirium SOP at nursing meetings. Updates were requested to the electronic health record (EHR) templates for the GAC to streamline documentation. For the BVAHCS HBPC, 4Ms assessments were added to the EHR quarterly care plan template, which was updated by all team members (Table 2).

From April through June 2021, the AVAMC HBPC formed teams led by 4Ms champions: what matters was led by a nurse care manager, medication by a nurse practitioner and pharmacist, mentation by a social worker, and mobility by a physical therapist. The champions initially focused on a plan for each M, incorporating all 4Ms as a set for optimal effectiveness into their quarterly care plan meeting using what matters to drive the entire care plan.

Step 4: Provide Care

Each of the 4Ms was to be assessed, documented, and acted on for each veteran within a short period, such as a hospitalization or 1 or 2 outpatient visits. BVAHCS implemented 4Ms care in each care setting from August to October 2020. The AVAMC HBPC implemented 4Ms from July to September 2021.

 

 

Step 5: Study Performance

The IHI identifies 3 methods for measuring older adults who receive 4Ms care: real-time observation, chart review, or EHR report. For chart review, the IHI recommends using a random sample to calculate the number of patients who received 4Ms in 1 month, which provides evidence of progress toward reliable practice.

eappendix 2

Both facilities used chart review with random sampling. Each setting estimated the number of veterans receiving 4Ms care by multiplying the percentage of sampled charts with documented 4Ms care by unique patient encounters (eAppendix 2).

From August through October 2020, BVAHCS sites reached an estimated 97% of older veterans with complete 4Ms care: hospital, 100%; GAC, 90%; and HBPC, 85%. AVAMC HBPC increased 4Ms care from 52% to 100% between July and September 2021. Both teams demonstrated the feasibility of reliably providing 4Ms care to > 85% of older veterans in these care settings and earned level 2 recognition. Through satisfaction surveys and informal feedback, notable positive changes were evident to veterans, their families, and the VA staff providing 4Ms age-friendly care.

Step 6: Improve and Sustain Care

Each site acknowledged barriers and facilitators for adopting the 4Ms. The COVID-19 pandemic was an ongoing barrier for both sites, with teams transitioning to virtual modalities for telehealth visits and team meetings, and higher staff turnover. However, the greater use of technology facilitated 4Ms adoption by allowing physically distant team members to collaborate.

One of the largest barriers was the lack of 4Ms documentation in the EHR, which could not be implemented in the BVAHCS inpatient hospital due to existing standardized nursing templates. Both sites recognized that 4Ms documentation in the EHR for all care settings would facilitate achieving level 2 recognition and tracking and reporting 4Ms care in the future.

Discussion

The AFHS 4Ms approach offers a method to impart geriatrics knowledge, skills, and practice throughout an entire health care system in a short time. The AFHS framework provides a structured pathway to the often daunting challenge of care for complex, multimorbid, and highly heterogeneous older adults. The 4Ms approach promotes the provision of evidence-based care that is reliable, efficient, patient centered, and avoids unwanted care: worthy goals not only for geriatrics but for all members of a high-reliability organization.

Through the implementation of the 4Ms framework, consistent use of AFHS practices, measurement, and feedback, the staff in each VA care setting reported here reached a level of reliability in which at least 85% of patients had all 4Ms addressed. Notably, adoption was strong and improvements in reliably addressing all 4Ms were observed in both geriatrics (HBPC and outpatient clinics) and nongeriatrics (inpatient medicine) settings. Although one might expect that high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in geriatrics-focused VA settings were routinely addressing all 4Ms for most of their patients, our experience was consistent with prior teams indicating that this is often not the case. Although many of these teams were addressing some of the 4Ms in their usual practice, the 4Ms framework facilitated addressing all 4Ms as a set with input from all team members. Most importantly, it fostered a culture of asking the older adult what matters most and documenting, sharing, and aligning this with the care plan. Within 6 months, all VA care settings achieved level 1 recognition, and within 9 months, all achieved level 2 recognition.

 

 

Lessons Learned

Key lessons learned include the importance of identifying, preparing, and supporting a champion to lead this effort; garnering facility and system leadership support at the outset; and integration with the EHR for reliable and efficient data capture, reporting, and feedback. Preparing and supporting champions was achieved through national and individual calls and peer support. Guidance was provided on garnering leadership support, including local needs assessment and data analysis, meeting with leadership to first understand their key challenges and priorities and provide information on the AFHS movement, requesting a follow-up meeting to discuss local needs and data, and exploring how an AFHS might help address one or more of their priorities.

In September 2022, an AFHS 4Ms note template was introduced into the EHR for all VA sites for data capture and reporting, to standardize and facilitate documentation across all age-friendly VA sites, and decrease the reporting burden for staff. This effort is critically important: The ability to document, track, and analyze 4Ms measures, provide feedback, and synergize efforts across systems is vital to design studies to determine whether the AFHS 4Ms approach to care achieves substantive improvements in patient care across settings.

Limitations

Limitations of this analysis include the small sample of care settings, which did not include a skilled nursing or long-term care facility, nor general primary care. Although the short timeframe assessed did not allow us to report on the anticipated clinical outcomes of 4Ms care, it does set up a foundation for evaluation of the 4Ms and EHR integration and dashboard development.

Conclusions

The VHA provides a comprehensive spectrum of geriatrics services and innovative models of care that often serve as exemplars to other health care systems. Implementing the AFHS framework to assess and act on the 4Ms provides a structure for confronting the HCP shortage with geriatrics expertise by infusing geriatrics knowledge, skills, and practices throughout all care settings and disciplines. Enhancing patient-centered care to older veterans through AFHS implementation exemplifies the VHA as a learning health care system.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Veterans Health Administration Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care and the clinical staff from the Atlanta Veterans Affairs Healthcare System and the Birmingham Veterans Affairs Health Care System for assisting us in this work.

References

1. US Census Bureau. Older Americans month: May 2023. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/older-americans-month.html

2. Vespa J. Aging veterans: America’s veteran population in later life. July 2023. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2023/acs/acs-54.pdf

3. O’Hanlon C, Huang C, Sloss E, et al. Comparing VA and non-VA quality of care: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(1):105-121. doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3775-2

4. Fulmer T, Reuben DB, Auerbach J, Fick DM, Galambos C, Johnson KS. Actualizing better health and health care for older adults: commentary describes six vital directions to improve the care and quality of life for all older Americans. Health Aff (Millwood). 2021;40(2):219-225. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2020.01470

5. ChenMed. The physician shortage in geriatrics. March 18, 2022. Accessed September 6, 2023. https://www.chenmed.com/blog/physician-shortage-geriatrics

6. American Geriatrics Society. Projected future need for geriatricians. Updated May 2016. Accessed September 6, 2023. https://www.americangeriatrics.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/Projected-Future-Need-for-Geriatricians.pdf 7. Carmody J, Black K, Bonner A, Wolfe M, Fulmer T. Advancing gerontological nursing at the intersection of age-friendly communities, health systems, and public health. J Gerontol Nurs. 2021;47(3):13-17. doi:10.3928/00989134-20210125-01

8. Lesser S, Zakharkin S, Louie C, Escobedo MR, Whyte J, Fulmer T. Clinician knowledge and behaviors related to the 4Ms framework of Age‐Friendly Health Systems. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022;70(3):789-800. doi:10.1111/jgs.17571

9. Edelman LS, Drost J, Moone RP, et al. Applying the Age-Friendly Health System framework to long term care settings. J Nutr Health Aging. 2021;25(2):141-145. doi:10.1007/s12603-020-1558-2

10. Emery-Tiburcio EE, Mack L, Zonsius MC, Carbonell E, Newman M. The 4Ms of an Age-Friendly Health System: an evidence-based framework to ensure older adults receive the highest quality care. Home Healthc Now. 2022;40(5):252-257. doi:10.1097/NHH.0000000000001113

11. Mate K, Fulmer T, Pelton L, et al. Evidence for the 4Ms: interactions and outcomes across the care continuum. J Aging Health. 2021;33(7-8):469-481. doi:10.1177/0898264321991658

12. Mate KS, Berman A, Laderman M, Kabcenell A, Fulmer T. Creating age-friendly health systems – a vision for better care of older adults. Healthc (Amst). 2018;6(1):4-6. doi:10.1016/j.hjdsi.2017.05.005

13. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. What is an Age-Friendly Health System? Accessed September 6, 2023. https://www.ihi.org/Engage/Initiatives/Age-Friendly-Health-Systems/Pages/default.aspx

14. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Health systems recognized by IHI. Updated September 2023. Accessed September 6, 2023. https://www.ihi.org/Engage/Initiatives/Age-Friendly-Health-Systems/Pages/recognized-systems.aspx

15. Burke RE, Ashcraft LE, Manges K, et al. What matters when it comes to measuring Age‐Friendly Health System transformation. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022;70(10):2775-2785. doi:10.1111/jgs.18002

16. Wang J, Shen JY, Conwell Y, et al. How “age-friendly” are deprescribing interventions? A scoping review of deprescribing trials. Health Serv Res. 202;58(suppl 1):123-138. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.14083

17. Pohnert AM, Schiltz NK, Pino L, et al. Achievement of age‐friendly health systems committed to care excellence designation in a convenient care health care system. Health Serv Res. 2023;58 (suppl 1):89-99. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.14071

18. Church K, Munro S, Shaughnessy M, Clancy C. Age-Friendly Health Systems: improving care for older adults in the Veterans Health Administration. Health Serv Res. 2022;58(suppl 1):5-8. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.14110

19. Farrell TW, Volden TA, Butler JM, et al. Age‐friendly care in the Veterans Health Administration: past, present, and future. J Am Geriatr Soc. doi:10.1111/jgs.18070

References

1. US Census Bureau. Older Americans month: May 2023. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/older-americans-month.html

2. Vespa J. Aging veterans: America’s veteran population in later life. July 2023. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2023/acs/acs-54.pdf

3. O’Hanlon C, Huang C, Sloss E, et al. Comparing VA and non-VA quality of care: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(1):105-121. doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3775-2

4. Fulmer T, Reuben DB, Auerbach J, Fick DM, Galambos C, Johnson KS. Actualizing better health and health care for older adults: commentary describes six vital directions to improve the care and quality of life for all older Americans. Health Aff (Millwood). 2021;40(2):219-225. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2020.01470

5. ChenMed. The physician shortage in geriatrics. March 18, 2022. Accessed September 6, 2023. https://www.chenmed.com/blog/physician-shortage-geriatrics

6. American Geriatrics Society. Projected future need for geriatricians. Updated May 2016. Accessed September 6, 2023. https://www.americangeriatrics.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/Projected-Future-Need-for-Geriatricians.pdf 7. Carmody J, Black K, Bonner A, Wolfe M, Fulmer T. Advancing gerontological nursing at the intersection of age-friendly communities, health systems, and public health. J Gerontol Nurs. 2021;47(3):13-17. doi:10.3928/00989134-20210125-01

8. Lesser S, Zakharkin S, Louie C, Escobedo MR, Whyte J, Fulmer T. Clinician knowledge and behaviors related to the 4Ms framework of Age‐Friendly Health Systems. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022;70(3):789-800. doi:10.1111/jgs.17571

9. Edelman LS, Drost J, Moone RP, et al. Applying the Age-Friendly Health System framework to long term care settings. J Nutr Health Aging. 2021;25(2):141-145. doi:10.1007/s12603-020-1558-2

10. Emery-Tiburcio EE, Mack L, Zonsius MC, Carbonell E, Newman M. The 4Ms of an Age-Friendly Health System: an evidence-based framework to ensure older adults receive the highest quality care. Home Healthc Now. 2022;40(5):252-257. doi:10.1097/NHH.0000000000001113

11. Mate K, Fulmer T, Pelton L, et al. Evidence for the 4Ms: interactions and outcomes across the care continuum. J Aging Health. 2021;33(7-8):469-481. doi:10.1177/0898264321991658

12. Mate KS, Berman A, Laderman M, Kabcenell A, Fulmer T. Creating age-friendly health systems – a vision for better care of older adults. Healthc (Amst). 2018;6(1):4-6. doi:10.1016/j.hjdsi.2017.05.005

13. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. What is an Age-Friendly Health System? Accessed September 6, 2023. https://www.ihi.org/Engage/Initiatives/Age-Friendly-Health-Systems/Pages/default.aspx

14. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Health systems recognized by IHI. Updated September 2023. Accessed September 6, 2023. https://www.ihi.org/Engage/Initiatives/Age-Friendly-Health-Systems/Pages/recognized-systems.aspx

15. Burke RE, Ashcraft LE, Manges K, et al. What matters when it comes to measuring Age‐Friendly Health System transformation. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022;70(10):2775-2785. doi:10.1111/jgs.18002

16. Wang J, Shen JY, Conwell Y, et al. How “age-friendly” are deprescribing interventions? A scoping review of deprescribing trials. Health Serv Res. 202;58(suppl 1):123-138. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.14083

17. Pohnert AM, Schiltz NK, Pino L, et al. Achievement of age‐friendly health systems committed to care excellence designation in a convenient care health care system. Health Serv Res. 2023;58 (suppl 1):89-99. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.14071

18. Church K, Munro S, Shaughnessy M, Clancy C. Age-Friendly Health Systems: improving care for older adults in the Veterans Health Administration. Health Serv Res. 2022;58(suppl 1):5-8. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.14110

19. Farrell TW, Volden TA, Butler JM, et al. Age‐friendly care in the Veterans Health Administration: past, present, and future. J Am Geriatr Soc. doi:10.1111/jgs.18070

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(10)a
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(10)a
Page Number
344
Page Number
344
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Community Nursing Home Program Oversight: Can the VA Meet Increased Demand for Community-Based Care?

Article Type
Changed
Sat, 10/07/2023 - 12:10

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Community Nursing Home (CNH) program provides 24-hour skilled nursing care for eligible veterans in public or private community-based facilities that have established a contract to care for veterans. Veteran eligibility is based on service-connected status and level of disability, covering the cost of care for veterans who need long-term care because of their service-connected disability or for veterans with disabilities rated at ≥ 70%.1 Between 2014 and 2018, the average daily census of veterans in CNHs increased by 26% and the percentage of funds obligated to this program increased by 49%.2 The VA projects that the number of veterans receiving care in a CNH program will increase by 80% between 2017 and 2037, corresponding to a 149% increase in CNH expenditures.2

CNH program oversight teams are mandated at each VA medical center (VAMC) to monitor care coordination within the CNH program. These teams include nurses and social workers (SWs) who perform regular on-site assessments to monitor the clinical, functional, and psychosocial needs of veterans. These assessments include a review of the electronic health record (EHR) and face-to-face contact with veterans and CNH staff, regardless of the purchasing authority (hospice, long-term care, short-term rehabilitation, respite care).3 These teams represent key stakeholders impacted by CNH program expansion.

While the CNH program has focused primarily on the provision of long-term care, the VA is now expanding to include short-term rehabilitation through Veteran Care Agreements.4 These agreements are authorized under the MISSION Act, designed to improve care for veterans.5 Veteran Care Agreements are expected to be less burdensome to execute than traditional contracts and will permit the VA to partner with more CNHs, as noted in a Congressional Research Service report regarding long-term care services for veterans.6 However, increasing the number of CNHs increases demands on oversight teams, particularly if the coordinators are compelled to perform monthly on-site visits to facilities required under current guidelines.3

The objective of this study was to describe the experiences of VA and CNH staff involved in care coordination and the oversight of veterans receiving CNH care amid Veteran Care Agreement implementation and in anticipation of CNH program expansion. The results are intended to inform expansion efforts within the CNH program.

 

 

METHODS

This study was a component of a larger research project examining VA-purchased CNH care; recruitment methods are available in previous publications describing this work.7 Participants provided written or verbal consent before video and phone interviews, respectively. This study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (Protocol #18-1186).

Video and phone interviews were conducted by 3 team members from October 2018 to March 2020 with CNH staff and VA CNH program oversight team members. Participant recruitment was paused from May to October 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and ambiguity about VA NH care purchasing policies following the passage of the VA MISSION Act.5 We used semistructured interview guides (eAppendix 1 for VA staff and eAppendix 2 for NH staff, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0421). Recorded and transcribed interviews ranged from 15 to 90 minutes.

Two members of the research team analyzed transcripts using both deductive and inductive content analysis.8 The interview guide informed an a priori codebook, and in vivo codes were included as they emerged. We jointly coded 6 transcripts to reach a consensus on coding approaches and analyzed the remaining transcripts independently with frequent meetings to develop themes with a qualitative methodologist. All qualitative data were analyzed using ATLAS.ti software.

This was a retrospective observational study of veterans who received VA-paid care in CNHs during the 2019 fiscal year (10/1/2018-9/30/2019) using data from the enrollment, inpatient and outpatient encounters, and other care paid for by the VA in the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. We linked Centers for Medicare and Medicaid monthly Nursing Home Compare reports and the Brown University Long Term Care: Facts on Care in the US (LTC FoCUS) annual files to identify facility addresses.9

Descriptive analyses of quantitative data were conducted in parallel with the qualitative findings.8 Distance from the contracting VAMC to CNH was calculated using the greater-circle formula to find the linear distance between geographic coordinates. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently, analyzed independently, and integrated into the interpretation of results.10

RESULTS

We conducted 36 interviews with VA and NH staff who were affiliated with 6 VAMCs and 17 CNHs. Four themes emerged concerning CNH oversight: (1) benefits of VA CNH team engagement/visits; (2) burden of VA CNH oversight; (3) burden of oversight limited the ability to contract with additional NHs; and (4) factors that ease the burden and facilitate successful oversight.

Benefits of Engagement/Visits

VA SWs and nurses visit each veteran every 30 to 45 days to review their health records, meet with them, and check in with NH staff. In addition, VA SWs and nurses coordinate each veteran’s care by working as liaisons between the VA and the NH to help NH staff problem solve veteran-related issues through care conferences. VA SWs and nurses act as extra advocates for veterans to make sure their needs are met. “This program definitely helps ensure that veterans are receiving higher quality care because if we see that they aren’t, then we do something about it,” a VA NH coordinator reported in an interview.

 

 

NH staff noted benefits to monthly VA staff visits, including having an additional person coordinating care and built-in VA liaisons. “It’s nice to have that extra set of eyes, people that you can care plan with,” an NH administrator shared. “It’s definitely a true partnership, and we have open and honest conversations so we can really provide a good service for our veterans.”

Distance & High Veteran Census Burdens

figure 1

VA participants described oversight components as burdensome. Specifically, several VA participants mentioned that the charting they completed in the facility during each visit proved time consuming and onerous, particularly for distant NHs. To accommodate veterans’ preferences to receive care in a facility close to their homes and families, VAMCs contract with NHs that are geographically spread out. “We’re just all spread out… staff have issues driving 2 and a half hours just to review charts all day,” a VA CNH coordinator explained. In 2019, the mean distance between VAMC and NH was 48 miles, with half located > 32 miles from the VAMC. One-quarter of NHs were > 70 miles and 44% were located > 50 miles from the VAMC (Figure 1).

figure 2

Participants highlighted how regular oversight visits were particularly time consuming at CNHs with a large contracted population. VA nurses and SWs spend multiple days and up to a week conducting oversight visits at facilities with large numbers of veterans. Another VA nurse highlighted how charting requirements resulted in several days of documentation outside of the NH visit for facilities with many contracted veteran residents. Multiple VA participants noted that having many veterans at an NH exacerbated the oversight burdens. In 2019, 252 (28%) of VA CNHs had > 10 contracted veterans and 1 facility had 34 veterans (Figure 2). VA participants perceived having too many veterans concentrated at 1 facility as potentially challenging for CNHs due to the complex care needs of veterans and the added need for care coordination with the VA. One VA NH coordinator noted that while some facilities were “adept at being able to handle higher numbers” of veterans, others were “overwhelmed.” Too many veterans at an NH, an SW explained, might lead the “facility to fail because we are such a cumbersome system.”

Oversight & Staffing Burden

figure 3

While several participants described wanting to contract with more NHs to avoid overwhelming existing CNHs and to increase choice for veterans, they expressed concerns about their ability to provide oversight at more facilities due to limited staffing and oversight requirements. Across VAMCs, the median number of VA CNHs varied substantially (Figure 3). One VA participant with about 35 CNHs explained that while adding more NHs could create “more opportunities and options” for veterans, it needs to be balanced with the required oversight responsibilities. One VA nurse insisted that more staff were needed to meet current and future oversight needs. “We’re all getting stretched pretty thin, and just so we don’t drop the ball on things… I would like to see a little more staff if we’re gonna have a lot more nursing homes.”

 

 

Participants had concerns related to the VA MISSION Act and the possibility of more VA-paid NHs for rehabilitation or short-term care. Participants underscored the necessity for additional staff to account for the increased oversight burden or a reduction in oversight requirements. One SW felt that increasing the number of CNHs would increase the required oversight and the need for collaboration with NH staff, which would limit her ability to establish close and trusting working relationships with NH staff. Participants also described the challenges of meeting their current oversight requirements, which limited extra visits for acute issues and care conferences. This was attributed to a lack of adequate staffing in the VA CNH program, given the time-intensive nature of VA oversight requirements.

Easing Burden & Facilitating Oversight

Participants noted how obtaining remote access to veterans’ EHRs allowed them to conduct chart reviews before oversight visits. This permitted more time for interaction with veterans and CNH staff as well as coordinating care. While providing access to the VA EHR would not change the chart review component of VA oversight, some participants felt it might improve care coordination between VA and NH staff during monthly visits.

Participants felt they were able to build strong working relationships with facilities with more veterans due to frequent communication and collaboration. VA participants also noted that CNHs with larger veteran censuses were more likely to respond to VA concerns about care to maintain the business relationship and contract. To optimize strong working relationships and decrease the challenges of having too many veterans at a facility, some VA participants suggested that CNH programs create a local policy to recommend the number of veterans placed in a CNH.

Discussion

Participants interviewed for this study echoed findings from previous work that identified the importance of developing trusted working relationships with CNHs to care for veterans.11,12 However, interorganizational care coordination, a shortage of health care professionals, and resource demands associated with caring for veterans reported in other community care settings were also noted in our findings.12,13

Building upon prior recommendations related to community care of veterans, our analysis identified key areas that could improve CNH program oversight efficiency, including: (1) improving the interoperability of EHRs to facilitate coordination of care and oversight; (2) addressing inefficiencies associated with traveling to geographically dispersed CNHs; and (3) “right-sizing” the number of veterans residing in each CNH.

The interoperability of EHRs has been cited by multiple studies of VA community care programs as critical to reducing inefficiencies and allowing more in-person time with veterans and staff in care coordination, especially at rural locations.11-15 The Veterans Health Information Exchange Program is designed to optimize data sharing as veterans are increasingly referred to non-VA care through the MISSION Act. This program is organized around patient engagement, clinician adoption, partner engagement, and technological capabilities.16

Unfortunately, significant barriers exist for the VA CNH program within each of these information exchange domains. For example, patient engagement requires veteran consent for consumer-initiated exchange of medical information, which is not practical due to the high prevalence of cognitive impairment in NHs. Similarly, VA consent requirements prohibit EHR download and sharing with non-VA facilities like CNHs, limiting use. eHealth Exchange partnerships allow organizations caring for veterans to connect with the VA via networks that provide a common trust agreement and technical compliance testing. Unfortunately, in 2017, only 257 NHs in which veterans received care nationally were eHealth Exchange partners, which indicates that while NHs could partner in this information exchange, very few did.16

Finally, while the exchange is possible, it is not practical; most CNHs lack the staff that would be required to support data transfer on their technology platform into the appropriate translational gateways. Although remote access to EHRs in CNHs improved during the pandemic, the Veterans Health Information Exchange Program is not designed to facilitate interoperability of VA and CNH records and remains a significant barrier for this and many other VA community care programs.

The dispersal of veterans across CNHs that are > 50 miles from the nearest VAMC represents an additional area to improve program efficiency and meet growing demands for rural care. While recent field guidance to CNH oversight teams reduces the frequency of visits by VA CNH teams, the burden of driving to each facility is not likely to decrease as CNHs increasingly offer rehabilitation as a part of Veteran Care Agreements.17 Visits performed by telehealth or by trained local VA staff may represent alternatives.15

Finally, interview participants described the ideal range of the number of veterans in each CNH necessary to optimize efficiencies. Veterans who rely more heavily upon VA care tend to have more medical and mental health comorbidities than average Medicare beneficiaries.18,19 This was reflected in participants’ recommendation to have enough veterans to benefit from economies of scale but to also identify a limit when efficiencies are lost. Given that most CNHs cared for 8 to 15 veterans, facilities seem to have identified how best to match the resources available with veterans’ care needs. Based on these observations, new care networks that will be established because of the MISSION Act may benefit from establishing evidence-based policies that support flexibility in oversight frequency and either allow for remote oversight or consolidate the number of CNHs to improve efficiencies in care provision and oversight.20

 

 

Limitations

Limitations include the unique relationship between VA and CNH staff overseeing the quality of care provided to veterans in CNHs, which is not replicated in other models of care. Data collection was interrupted following the passage of the MISSION Act in 2018 until guidance on changes to practice resulting from the law were clarified in 2020. Interviews were also interrupted at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions

The current quality of the CNH care oversight structure will require adaptation as demand for CNH care increases. While the VA CNH program is one of the longest-standing programs collaborating with non-VA community care partners, it is now only one of many following the MISSION Act. The success of this and other programs will depend on matching available CNH resources to the complex medical and psychological needs of veterans. At a time when strategies to ease the burden on NHs and VA CNH coordinators are desperately needed, Veterans Health Information Exchange capabilities need to improve. Evidence is needed to guide the scaling of the program to meet the needs of the rapidly expanding veteran population who are eligible for CNH care.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Amy Mochel of the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center for project management support of this project.

Files
References

1. Miller EA, Gadbois E, Gidmark S, Intrator O. Purchasing nursing home care within the Veterans Health Administration: lessons for nursing home recruitment, contracting, and oversight. J Health Admin Educ. 2015;32(2):165-197.

2. GAO. VA health care. Veterans’ use of long-term care is increasing, and VA faces challenges in meeting the demand. February 19, 2020. Accessed September 19, 2023. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-284.pdf

3. VHA Handbook 1143.2, VHA community nursing home oversight procedures. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. June 2004. https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=3740930&FileName=VA259-17-Q-0501-007.pdf

4. Community care: veteran care agreements. US Department of Veterans Affairs. 2022. Updated August 8, 2023. Accessed September 7, 2023. https://www.va.gov/COMMUNITYCARE/providers/Veterans_Care_Agreements.asp

5. Massarweh NN, Itani KMF, Morris MS. The VA MISSION Act and the future of veterans’ access to quality health care. JAMA. 2020;324(4):343-344. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.4505

6. Colello KJ, Panangala SV; Congressional Research Service. Long-term care services for veterans. February 14, 2017. Accessed September 7, 2023. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44697

7. Magid KH, Galenbeck E, Haverhals LM, et al. Purchasing high-quality community nursing home care: a will to work with VHA diminished by contracting burdens. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2022;23(11):1757-1764. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2022.03.007

8. Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 2013;15(3):398-405. doi:10.1111/nhs.12048

9. Brown University. LTC Focus. Accessed September 18, 2023. https://ltcfocus.org/about

10. Zhang W, Creswell J. The use of “mixing” procedure of mixed methods in health services research. Med Care. 2013;51(8):e51-e57. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31824642fd

11. Haverhals LM, Magid KH, Blanchard KN, Levy CR. Veterans Health Administration staff perceptions of overseeing care in community nursing homes during COVID-19. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2022;8:23337214221080307. Published 2022 Feb 15. doi:10.1177/23337214221080307

12. Garvin LA, Pugatch M, Gurewich D, Pendergast JN, Miller CJ. Interorganizational care coordination of rural veterans by Veterans Affairs and community care programs: a systematic review. Med Care. 2021;59(suppl 3):S259-S269. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000001542

13. Schlosser J, Kollisch D, Johnson D, Perkins T, Olson A. VA-community dual care: veteran and clinician perspectives. J Community Health. 2020;45(4):795-802. doi:10.1007/s10900-020-00795-y

14. Nevedal AL, Wong EP, Urech TH, Peppiatt JL, Sorie MR, Vashi AA. Veterans’ experiences with accessing community emergency care. Mil Med. 2023;188(1-2):e58-e64. doi:10.1093/milmed/usab196

15. Levenson SA. Smart case review: a model for successful remote medical direction and enhanced nursing home quality improvement. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22(10):2212-2215.e6. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2021.05.043

16. Donahue M, Bouhaddou O, Hsing N, et al. Veterans Health Information Exchange: successes and challenges of nationwide interoperability. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2018;2018:385-394. Published 2018 Dec 5.

17. US Department of Veterans Affairs. VHA Notice 2023-07. Community Nursing Home Program. September 5, 2023:1-4.

18. Helmer DA, Dwibedi N, Rowneki M, et al. Mental health conditions and hospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions among veterans with diabetes. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2020;13(2):61-71.

19. Rosen AK, Wagner TH, Pettey WBP, et al. Differences in risk scores of veterans receiving community care purchased by the Veterans Health Administration. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(suppl 3):5438-5454. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.13051

20. Mattocks KM, Kroll-Desrosiers A, Kinney R, Elwy AR, Cunningham KJ, Mengeling MA. Understanding VA’s use of and relationships with community care providers under the MISSION Act. Med Care. 2021;59(suppl 3):S252-S258. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000001545

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Cari Levy, MD, PhDa,b; Kate H. Magid, MPHa; Emily Corneau, MPHc; Portia Y. Cornell, PhD, MSPHc,d; Leah Haverhals, PhDa,b

Correspondence:  Cari Levy  ([email protected])

aRocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver-Seattle Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, Aurora, Colorado

bUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora

cProvidence Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Rhode Island

dBrown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island

Author disclosures

The authors have no conflict of interest to report. This work was supported by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Health Services Research and Development, (IIR #17-231).

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the position or policy of the Federal Practitioner, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the United States Government.

Ethics and consent

This study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (Protocol #18-1186).

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(10)a
Publications
Topics
Page Number
338
Sections
Files
Files
Author and Disclosure Information

Cari Levy, MD, PhDa,b; Kate H. Magid, MPHa; Emily Corneau, MPHc; Portia Y. Cornell, PhD, MSPHc,d; Leah Haverhals, PhDa,b

Correspondence:  Cari Levy  ([email protected])

aRocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver-Seattle Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, Aurora, Colorado

bUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora

cProvidence Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Rhode Island

dBrown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island

Author disclosures

The authors have no conflict of interest to report. This work was supported by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Health Services Research and Development, (IIR #17-231).

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the position or policy of the Federal Practitioner, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the United States Government.

Ethics and consent

This study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (Protocol #18-1186).

Author and Disclosure Information

Cari Levy, MD, PhDa,b; Kate H. Magid, MPHa; Emily Corneau, MPHc; Portia Y. Cornell, PhD, MSPHc,d; Leah Haverhals, PhDa,b

Correspondence:  Cari Levy  ([email protected])

aRocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver-Seattle Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, Aurora, Colorado

bUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora

cProvidence Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Rhode Island

dBrown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island

Author disclosures

The authors have no conflict of interest to report. This work was supported by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Health Services Research and Development, (IIR #17-231).

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the position or policy of the Federal Practitioner, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the United States Government.

Ethics and consent

This study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (Protocol #18-1186).

Article PDF
Article PDF

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Community Nursing Home (CNH) program provides 24-hour skilled nursing care for eligible veterans in public or private community-based facilities that have established a contract to care for veterans. Veteran eligibility is based on service-connected status and level of disability, covering the cost of care for veterans who need long-term care because of their service-connected disability or for veterans with disabilities rated at ≥ 70%.1 Between 2014 and 2018, the average daily census of veterans in CNHs increased by 26% and the percentage of funds obligated to this program increased by 49%.2 The VA projects that the number of veterans receiving care in a CNH program will increase by 80% between 2017 and 2037, corresponding to a 149% increase in CNH expenditures.2

CNH program oversight teams are mandated at each VA medical center (VAMC) to monitor care coordination within the CNH program. These teams include nurses and social workers (SWs) who perform regular on-site assessments to monitor the clinical, functional, and psychosocial needs of veterans. These assessments include a review of the electronic health record (EHR) and face-to-face contact with veterans and CNH staff, regardless of the purchasing authority (hospice, long-term care, short-term rehabilitation, respite care).3 These teams represent key stakeholders impacted by CNH program expansion.

While the CNH program has focused primarily on the provision of long-term care, the VA is now expanding to include short-term rehabilitation through Veteran Care Agreements.4 These agreements are authorized under the MISSION Act, designed to improve care for veterans.5 Veteran Care Agreements are expected to be less burdensome to execute than traditional contracts and will permit the VA to partner with more CNHs, as noted in a Congressional Research Service report regarding long-term care services for veterans.6 However, increasing the number of CNHs increases demands on oversight teams, particularly if the coordinators are compelled to perform monthly on-site visits to facilities required under current guidelines.3

The objective of this study was to describe the experiences of VA and CNH staff involved in care coordination and the oversight of veterans receiving CNH care amid Veteran Care Agreement implementation and in anticipation of CNH program expansion. The results are intended to inform expansion efforts within the CNH program.

 

 

METHODS

This study was a component of a larger research project examining VA-purchased CNH care; recruitment methods are available in previous publications describing this work.7 Participants provided written or verbal consent before video and phone interviews, respectively. This study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (Protocol #18-1186).

Video and phone interviews were conducted by 3 team members from October 2018 to March 2020 with CNH staff and VA CNH program oversight team members. Participant recruitment was paused from May to October 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and ambiguity about VA NH care purchasing policies following the passage of the VA MISSION Act.5 We used semistructured interview guides (eAppendix 1 for VA staff and eAppendix 2 for NH staff, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0421). Recorded and transcribed interviews ranged from 15 to 90 minutes.

Two members of the research team analyzed transcripts using both deductive and inductive content analysis.8 The interview guide informed an a priori codebook, and in vivo codes were included as they emerged. We jointly coded 6 transcripts to reach a consensus on coding approaches and analyzed the remaining transcripts independently with frequent meetings to develop themes with a qualitative methodologist. All qualitative data were analyzed using ATLAS.ti software.

This was a retrospective observational study of veterans who received VA-paid care in CNHs during the 2019 fiscal year (10/1/2018-9/30/2019) using data from the enrollment, inpatient and outpatient encounters, and other care paid for by the VA in the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. We linked Centers for Medicare and Medicaid monthly Nursing Home Compare reports and the Brown University Long Term Care: Facts on Care in the US (LTC FoCUS) annual files to identify facility addresses.9

Descriptive analyses of quantitative data were conducted in parallel with the qualitative findings.8 Distance from the contracting VAMC to CNH was calculated using the greater-circle formula to find the linear distance between geographic coordinates. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently, analyzed independently, and integrated into the interpretation of results.10

RESULTS

We conducted 36 interviews with VA and NH staff who were affiliated with 6 VAMCs and 17 CNHs. Four themes emerged concerning CNH oversight: (1) benefits of VA CNH team engagement/visits; (2) burden of VA CNH oversight; (3) burden of oversight limited the ability to contract with additional NHs; and (4) factors that ease the burden and facilitate successful oversight.

Benefits of Engagement/Visits

VA SWs and nurses visit each veteran every 30 to 45 days to review their health records, meet with them, and check in with NH staff. In addition, VA SWs and nurses coordinate each veteran’s care by working as liaisons between the VA and the NH to help NH staff problem solve veteran-related issues through care conferences. VA SWs and nurses act as extra advocates for veterans to make sure their needs are met. “This program definitely helps ensure that veterans are receiving higher quality care because if we see that they aren’t, then we do something about it,” a VA NH coordinator reported in an interview.

 

 

NH staff noted benefits to monthly VA staff visits, including having an additional person coordinating care and built-in VA liaisons. “It’s nice to have that extra set of eyes, people that you can care plan with,” an NH administrator shared. “It’s definitely a true partnership, and we have open and honest conversations so we can really provide a good service for our veterans.”

Distance & High Veteran Census Burdens

figure 1

VA participants described oversight components as burdensome. Specifically, several VA participants mentioned that the charting they completed in the facility during each visit proved time consuming and onerous, particularly for distant NHs. To accommodate veterans’ preferences to receive care in a facility close to their homes and families, VAMCs contract with NHs that are geographically spread out. “We’re just all spread out… staff have issues driving 2 and a half hours just to review charts all day,” a VA CNH coordinator explained. In 2019, the mean distance between VAMC and NH was 48 miles, with half located > 32 miles from the VAMC. One-quarter of NHs were > 70 miles and 44% were located > 50 miles from the VAMC (Figure 1).

figure 2

Participants highlighted how regular oversight visits were particularly time consuming at CNHs with a large contracted population. VA nurses and SWs spend multiple days and up to a week conducting oversight visits at facilities with large numbers of veterans. Another VA nurse highlighted how charting requirements resulted in several days of documentation outside of the NH visit for facilities with many contracted veteran residents. Multiple VA participants noted that having many veterans at an NH exacerbated the oversight burdens. In 2019, 252 (28%) of VA CNHs had > 10 contracted veterans and 1 facility had 34 veterans (Figure 2). VA participants perceived having too many veterans concentrated at 1 facility as potentially challenging for CNHs due to the complex care needs of veterans and the added need for care coordination with the VA. One VA NH coordinator noted that while some facilities were “adept at being able to handle higher numbers” of veterans, others were “overwhelmed.” Too many veterans at an NH, an SW explained, might lead the “facility to fail because we are such a cumbersome system.”

Oversight & Staffing Burden

figure 3

While several participants described wanting to contract with more NHs to avoid overwhelming existing CNHs and to increase choice for veterans, they expressed concerns about their ability to provide oversight at more facilities due to limited staffing and oversight requirements. Across VAMCs, the median number of VA CNHs varied substantially (Figure 3). One VA participant with about 35 CNHs explained that while adding more NHs could create “more opportunities and options” for veterans, it needs to be balanced with the required oversight responsibilities. One VA nurse insisted that more staff were needed to meet current and future oversight needs. “We’re all getting stretched pretty thin, and just so we don’t drop the ball on things… I would like to see a little more staff if we’re gonna have a lot more nursing homes.”

 

 

Participants had concerns related to the VA MISSION Act and the possibility of more VA-paid NHs for rehabilitation or short-term care. Participants underscored the necessity for additional staff to account for the increased oversight burden or a reduction in oversight requirements. One SW felt that increasing the number of CNHs would increase the required oversight and the need for collaboration with NH staff, which would limit her ability to establish close and trusting working relationships with NH staff. Participants also described the challenges of meeting their current oversight requirements, which limited extra visits for acute issues and care conferences. This was attributed to a lack of adequate staffing in the VA CNH program, given the time-intensive nature of VA oversight requirements.

Easing Burden & Facilitating Oversight

Participants noted how obtaining remote access to veterans’ EHRs allowed them to conduct chart reviews before oversight visits. This permitted more time for interaction with veterans and CNH staff as well as coordinating care. While providing access to the VA EHR would not change the chart review component of VA oversight, some participants felt it might improve care coordination between VA and NH staff during monthly visits.

Participants felt they were able to build strong working relationships with facilities with more veterans due to frequent communication and collaboration. VA participants also noted that CNHs with larger veteran censuses were more likely to respond to VA concerns about care to maintain the business relationship and contract. To optimize strong working relationships and decrease the challenges of having too many veterans at a facility, some VA participants suggested that CNH programs create a local policy to recommend the number of veterans placed in a CNH.

Discussion

Participants interviewed for this study echoed findings from previous work that identified the importance of developing trusted working relationships with CNHs to care for veterans.11,12 However, interorganizational care coordination, a shortage of health care professionals, and resource demands associated with caring for veterans reported in other community care settings were also noted in our findings.12,13

Building upon prior recommendations related to community care of veterans, our analysis identified key areas that could improve CNH program oversight efficiency, including: (1) improving the interoperability of EHRs to facilitate coordination of care and oversight; (2) addressing inefficiencies associated with traveling to geographically dispersed CNHs; and (3) “right-sizing” the number of veterans residing in each CNH.

The interoperability of EHRs has been cited by multiple studies of VA community care programs as critical to reducing inefficiencies and allowing more in-person time with veterans and staff in care coordination, especially at rural locations.11-15 The Veterans Health Information Exchange Program is designed to optimize data sharing as veterans are increasingly referred to non-VA care through the MISSION Act. This program is organized around patient engagement, clinician adoption, partner engagement, and technological capabilities.16

Unfortunately, significant barriers exist for the VA CNH program within each of these information exchange domains. For example, patient engagement requires veteran consent for consumer-initiated exchange of medical information, which is not practical due to the high prevalence of cognitive impairment in NHs. Similarly, VA consent requirements prohibit EHR download and sharing with non-VA facilities like CNHs, limiting use. eHealth Exchange partnerships allow organizations caring for veterans to connect with the VA via networks that provide a common trust agreement and technical compliance testing. Unfortunately, in 2017, only 257 NHs in which veterans received care nationally were eHealth Exchange partners, which indicates that while NHs could partner in this information exchange, very few did.16

Finally, while the exchange is possible, it is not practical; most CNHs lack the staff that would be required to support data transfer on their technology platform into the appropriate translational gateways. Although remote access to EHRs in CNHs improved during the pandemic, the Veterans Health Information Exchange Program is not designed to facilitate interoperability of VA and CNH records and remains a significant barrier for this and many other VA community care programs.

The dispersal of veterans across CNHs that are > 50 miles from the nearest VAMC represents an additional area to improve program efficiency and meet growing demands for rural care. While recent field guidance to CNH oversight teams reduces the frequency of visits by VA CNH teams, the burden of driving to each facility is not likely to decrease as CNHs increasingly offer rehabilitation as a part of Veteran Care Agreements.17 Visits performed by telehealth or by trained local VA staff may represent alternatives.15

Finally, interview participants described the ideal range of the number of veterans in each CNH necessary to optimize efficiencies. Veterans who rely more heavily upon VA care tend to have more medical and mental health comorbidities than average Medicare beneficiaries.18,19 This was reflected in participants’ recommendation to have enough veterans to benefit from economies of scale but to also identify a limit when efficiencies are lost. Given that most CNHs cared for 8 to 15 veterans, facilities seem to have identified how best to match the resources available with veterans’ care needs. Based on these observations, new care networks that will be established because of the MISSION Act may benefit from establishing evidence-based policies that support flexibility in oversight frequency and either allow for remote oversight or consolidate the number of CNHs to improve efficiencies in care provision and oversight.20

 

 

Limitations

Limitations include the unique relationship between VA and CNH staff overseeing the quality of care provided to veterans in CNHs, which is not replicated in other models of care. Data collection was interrupted following the passage of the MISSION Act in 2018 until guidance on changes to practice resulting from the law were clarified in 2020. Interviews were also interrupted at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions

The current quality of the CNH care oversight structure will require adaptation as demand for CNH care increases. While the VA CNH program is one of the longest-standing programs collaborating with non-VA community care partners, it is now only one of many following the MISSION Act. The success of this and other programs will depend on matching available CNH resources to the complex medical and psychological needs of veterans. At a time when strategies to ease the burden on NHs and VA CNH coordinators are desperately needed, Veterans Health Information Exchange capabilities need to improve. Evidence is needed to guide the scaling of the program to meet the needs of the rapidly expanding veteran population who are eligible for CNH care.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Amy Mochel of the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center for project management support of this project.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Community Nursing Home (CNH) program provides 24-hour skilled nursing care for eligible veterans in public or private community-based facilities that have established a contract to care for veterans. Veteran eligibility is based on service-connected status and level of disability, covering the cost of care for veterans who need long-term care because of their service-connected disability or for veterans with disabilities rated at ≥ 70%.1 Between 2014 and 2018, the average daily census of veterans in CNHs increased by 26% and the percentage of funds obligated to this program increased by 49%.2 The VA projects that the number of veterans receiving care in a CNH program will increase by 80% between 2017 and 2037, corresponding to a 149% increase in CNH expenditures.2

CNH program oversight teams are mandated at each VA medical center (VAMC) to monitor care coordination within the CNH program. These teams include nurses and social workers (SWs) who perform regular on-site assessments to monitor the clinical, functional, and psychosocial needs of veterans. These assessments include a review of the electronic health record (EHR) and face-to-face contact with veterans and CNH staff, regardless of the purchasing authority (hospice, long-term care, short-term rehabilitation, respite care).3 These teams represent key stakeholders impacted by CNH program expansion.

While the CNH program has focused primarily on the provision of long-term care, the VA is now expanding to include short-term rehabilitation through Veteran Care Agreements.4 These agreements are authorized under the MISSION Act, designed to improve care for veterans.5 Veteran Care Agreements are expected to be less burdensome to execute than traditional contracts and will permit the VA to partner with more CNHs, as noted in a Congressional Research Service report regarding long-term care services for veterans.6 However, increasing the number of CNHs increases demands on oversight teams, particularly if the coordinators are compelled to perform monthly on-site visits to facilities required under current guidelines.3

The objective of this study was to describe the experiences of VA and CNH staff involved in care coordination and the oversight of veterans receiving CNH care amid Veteran Care Agreement implementation and in anticipation of CNH program expansion. The results are intended to inform expansion efforts within the CNH program.

 

 

METHODS

This study was a component of a larger research project examining VA-purchased CNH care; recruitment methods are available in previous publications describing this work.7 Participants provided written or verbal consent before video and phone interviews, respectively. This study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (Protocol #18-1186).

Video and phone interviews were conducted by 3 team members from October 2018 to March 2020 with CNH staff and VA CNH program oversight team members. Participant recruitment was paused from May to October 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and ambiguity about VA NH care purchasing policies following the passage of the VA MISSION Act.5 We used semistructured interview guides (eAppendix 1 for VA staff and eAppendix 2 for NH staff, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0421). Recorded and transcribed interviews ranged from 15 to 90 minutes.

Two members of the research team analyzed transcripts using both deductive and inductive content analysis.8 The interview guide informed an a priori codebook, and in vivo codes were included as they emerged. We jointly coded 6 transcripts to reach a consensus on coding approaches and analyzed the remaining transcripts independently with frequent meetings to develop themes with a qualitative methodologist. All qualitative data were analyzed using ATLAS.ti software.

This was a retrospective observational study of veterans who received VA-paid care in CNHs during the 2019 fiscal year (10/1/2018-9/30/2019) using data from the enrollment, inpatient and outpatient encounters, and other care paid for by the VA in the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. We linked Centers for Medicare and Medicaid monthly Nursing Home Compare reports and the Brown University Long Term Care: Facts on Care in the US (LTC FoCUS) annual files to identify facility addresses.9

Descriptive analyses of quantitative data were conducted in parallel with the qualitative findings.8 Distance from the contracting VAMC to CNH was calculated using the greater-circle formula to find the linear distance between geographic coordinates. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently, analyzed independently, and integrated into the interpretation of results.10

RESULTS

We conducted 36 interviews with VA and NH staff who were affiliated with 6 VAMCs and 17 CNHs. Four themes emerged concerning CNH oversight: (1) benefits of VA CNH team engagement/visits; (2) burden of VA CNH oversight; (3) burden of oversight limited the ability to contract with additional NHs; and (4) factors that ease the burden and facilitate successful oversight.

Benefits of Engagement/Visits

VA SWs and nurses visit each veteran every 30 to 45 days to review their health records, meet with them, and check in with NH staff. In addition, VA SWs and nurses coordinate each veteran’s care by working as liaisons between the VA and the NH to help NH staff problem solve veteran-related issues through care conferences. VA SWs and nurses act as extra advocates for veterans to make sure their needs are met. “This program definitely helps ensure that veterans are receiving higher quality care because if we see that they aren’t, then we do something about it,” a VA NH coordinator reported in an interview.

 

 

NH staff noted benefits to monthly VA staff visits, including having an additional person coordinating care and built-in VA liaisons. “It’s nice to have that extra set of eyes, people that you can care plan with,” an NH administrator shared. “It’s definitely a true partnership, and we have open and honest conversations so we can really provide a good service for our veterans.”

Distance & High Veteran Census Burdens

figure 1

VA participants described oversight components as burdensome. Specifically, several VA participants mentioned that the charting they completed in the facility during each visit proved time consuming and onerous, particularly for distant NHs. To accommodate veterans’ preferences to receive care in a facility close to their homes and families, VAMCs contract with NHs that are geographically spread out. “We’re just all spread out… staff have issues driving 2 and a half hours just to review charts all day,” a VA CNH coordinator explained. In 2019, the mean distance between VAMC and NH was 48 miles, with half located > 32 miles from the VAMC. One-quarter of NHs were > 70 miles and 44% were located > 50 miles from the VAMC (Figure 1).

figure 2

Participants highlighted how regular oversight visits were particularly time consuming at CNHs with a large contracted population. VA nurses and SWs spend multiple days and up to a week conducting oversight visits at facilities with large numbers of veterans. Another VA nurse highlighted how charting requirements resulted in several days of documentation outside of the NH visit for facilities with many contracted veteran residents. Multiple VA participants noted that having many veterans at an NH exacerbated the oversight burdens. In 2019, 252 (28%) of VA CNHs had > 10 contracted veterans and 1 facility had 34 veterans (Figure 2). VA participants perceived having too many veterans concentrated at 1 facility as potentially challenging for CNHs due to the complex care needs of veterans and the added need for care coordination with the VA. One VA NH coordinator noted that while some facilities were “adept at being able to handle higher numbers” of veterans, others were “overwhelmed.” Too many veterans at an NH, an SW explained, might lead the “facility to fail because we are such a cumbersome system.”

Oversight & Staffing Burden

figure 3

While several participants described wanting to contract with more NHs to avoid overwhelming existing CNHs and to increase choice for veterans, they expressed concerns about their ability to provide oversight at more facilities due to limited staffing and oversight requirements. Across VAMCs, the median number of VA CNHs varied substantially (Figure 3). One VA participant with about 35 CNHs explained that while adding more NHs could create “more opportunities and options” for veterans, it needs to be balanced with the required oversight responsibilities. One VA nurse insisted that more staff were needed to meet current and future oversight needs. “We’re all getting stretched pretty thin, and just so we don’t drop the ball on things… I would like to see a little more staff if we’re gonna have a lot more nursing homes.”

 

 

Participants had concerns related to the VA MISSION Act and the possibility of more VA-paid NHs for rehabilitation or short-term care. Participants underscored the necessity for additional staff to account for the increased oversight burden or a reduction in oversight requirements. One SW felt that increasing the number of CNHs would increase the required oversight and the need for collaboration with NH staff, which would limit her ability to establish close and trusting working relationships with NH staff. Participants also described the challenges of meeting their current oversight requirements, which limited extra visits for acute issues and care conferences. This was attributed to a lack of adequate staffing in the VA CNH program, given the time-intensive nature of VA oversight requirements.

Easing Burden & Facilitating Oversight

Participants noted how obtaining remote access to veterans’ EHRs allowed them to conduct chart reviews before oversight visits. This permitted more time for interaction with veterans and CNH staff as well as coordinating care. While providing access to the VA EHR would not change the chart review component of VA oversight, some participants felt it might improve care coordination between VA and NH staff during monthly visits.

Participants felt they were able to build strong working relationships with facilities with more veterans due to frequent communication and collaboration. VA participants also noted that CNHs with larger veteran censuses were more likely to respond to VA concerns about care to maintain the business relationship and contract. To optimize strong working relationships and decrease the challenges of having too many veterans at a facility, some VA participants suggested that CNH programs create a local policy to recommend the number of veterans placed in a CNH.

Discussion

Participants interviewed for this study echoed findings from previous work that identified the importance of developing trusted working relationships with CNHs to care for veterans.11,12 However, interorganizational care coordination, a shortage of health care professionals, and resource demands associated with caring for veterans reported in other community care settings were also noted in our findings.12,13

Building upon prior recommendations related to community care of veterans, our analysis identified key areas that could improve CNH program oversight efficiency, including: (1) improving the interoperability of EHRs to facilitate coordination of care and oversight; (2) addressing inefficiencies associated with traveling to geographically dispersed CNHs; and (3) “right-sizing” the number of veterans residing in each CNH.

The interoperability of EHRs has been cited by multiple studies of VA community care programs as critical to reducing inefficiencies and allowing more in-person time with veterans and staff in care coordination, especially at rural locations.11-15 The Veterans Health Information Exchange Program is designed to optimize data sharing as veterans are increasingly referred to non-VA care through the MISSION Act. This program is organized around patient engagement, clinician adoption, partner engagement, and technological capabilities.16

Unfortunately, significant barriers exist for the VA CNH program within each of these information exchange domains. For example, patient engagement requires veteran consent for consumer-initiated exchange of medical information, which is not practical due to the high prevalence of cognitive impairment in NHs. Similarly, VA consent requirements prohibit EHR download and sharing with non-VA facilities like CNHs, limiting use. eHealth Exchange partnerships allow organizations caring for veterans to connect with the VA via networks that provide a common trust agreement and technical compliance testing. Unfortunately, in 2017, only 257 NHs in which veterans received care nationally were eHealth Exchange partners, which indicates that while NHs could partner in this information exchange, very few did.16

Finally, while the exchange is possible, it is not practical; most CNHs lack the staff that would be required to support data transfer on their technology platform into the appropriate translational gateways. Although remote access to EHRs in CNHs improved during the pandemic, the Veterans Health Information Exchange Program is not designed to facilitate interoperability of VA and CNH records and remains a significant barrier for this and many other VA community care programs.

The dispersal of veterans across CNHs that are > 50 miles from the nearest VAMC represents an additional area to improve program efficiency and meet growing demands for rural care. While recent field guidance to CNH oversight teams reduces the frequency of visits by VA CNH teams, the burden of driving to each facility is not likely to decrease as CNHs increasingly offer rehabilitation as a part of Veteran Care Agreements.17 Visits performed by telehealth or by trained local VA staff may represent alternatives.15

Finally, interview participants described the ideal range of the number of veterans in each CNH necessary to optimize efficiencies. Veterans who rely more heavily upon VA care tend to have more medical and mental health comorbidities than average Medicare beneficiaries.18,19 This was reflected in participants’ recommendation to have enough veterans to benefit from economies of scale but to also identify a limit when efficiencies are lost. Given that most CNHs cared for 8 to 15 veterans, facilities seem to have identified how best to match the resources available with veterans’ care needs. Based on these observations, new care networks that will be established because of the MISSION Act may benefit from establishing evidence-based policies that support flexibility in oversight frequency and either allow for remote oversight or consolidate the number of CNHs to improve efficiencies in care provision and oversight.20

 

 

Limitations

Limitations include the unique relationship between VA and CNH staff overseeing the quality of care provided to veterans in CNHs, which is not replicated in other models of care. Data collection was interrupted following the passage of the MISSION Act in 2018 until guidance on changes to practice resulting from the law were clarified in 2020. Interviews were also interrupted at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions

The current quality of the CNH care oversight structure will require adaptation as demand for CNH care increases. While the VA CNH program is one of the longest-standing programs collaborating with non-VA community care partners, it is now only one of many following the MISSION Act. The success of this and other programs will depend on matching available CNH resources to the complex medical and psychological needs of veterans. At a time when strategies to ease the burden on NHs and VA CNH coordinators are desperately needed, Veterans Health Information Exchange capabilities need to improve. Evidence is needed to guide the scaling of the program to meet the needs of the rapidly expanding veteran population who are eligible for CNH care.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Amy Mochel of the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center for project management support of this project.

References

1. Miller EA, Gadbois E, Gidmark S, Intrator O. Purchasing nursing home care within the Veterans Health Administration: lessons for nursing home recruitment, contracting, and oversight. J Health Admin Educ. 2015;32(2):165-197.

2. GAO. VA health care. Veterans’ use of long-term care is increasing, and VA faces challenges in meeting the demand. February 19, 2020. Accessed September 19, 2023. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-284.pdf

3. VHA Handbook 1143.2, VHA community nursing home oversight procedures. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. June 2004. https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=3740930&FileName=VA259-17-Q-0501-007.pdf

4. Community care: veteran care agreements. US Department of Veterans Affairs. 2022. Updated August 8, 2023. Accessed September 7, 2023. https://www.va.gov/COMMUNITYCARE/providers/Veterans_Care_Agreements.asp

5. Massarweh NN, Itani KMF, Morris MS. The VA MISSION Act and the future of veterans’ access to quality health care. JAMA. 2020;324(4):343-344. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.4505

6. Colello KJ, Panangala SV; Congressional Research Service. Long-term care services for veterans. February 14, 2017. Accessed September 7, 2023. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44697

7. Magid KH, Galenbeck E, Haverhals LM, et al. Purchasing high-quality community nursing home care: a will to work with VHA diminished by contracting burdens. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2022;23(11):1757-1764. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2022.03.007

8. Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 2013;15(3):398-405. doi:10.1111/nhs.12048

9. Brown University. LTC Focus. Accessed September 18, 2023. https://ltcfocus.org/about

10. Zhang W, Creswell J. The use of “mixing” procedure of mixed methods in health services research. Med Care. 2013;51(8):e51-e57. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31824642fd

11. Haverhals LM, Magid KH, Blanchard KN, Levy CR. Veterans Health Administration staff perceptions of overseeing care in community nursing homes during COVID-19. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2022;8:23337214221080307. Published 2022 Feb 15. doi:10.1177/23337214221080307

12. Garvin LA, Pugatch M, Gurewich D, Pendergast JN, Miller CJ. Interorganizational care coordination of rural veterans by Veterans Affairs and community care programs: a systematic review. Med Care. 2021;59(suppl 3):S259-S269. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000001542

13. Schlosser J, Kollisch D, Johnson D, Perkins T, Olson A. VA-community dual care: veteran and clinician perspectives. J Community Health. 2020;45(4):795-802. doi:10.1007/s10900-020-00795-y

14. Nevedal AL, Wong EP, Urech TH, Peppiatt JL, Sorie MR, Vashi AA. Veterans’ experiences with accessing community emergency care. Mil Med. 2023;188(1-2):e58-e64. doi:10.1093/milmed/usab196

15. Levenson SA. Smart case review: a model for successful remote medical direction and enhanced nursing home quality improvement. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22(10):2212-2215.e6. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2021.05.043

16. Donahue M, Bouhaddou O, Hsing N, et al. Veterans Health Information Exchange: successes and challenges of nationwide interoperability. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2018;2018:385-394. Published 2018 Dec 5.

17. US Department of Veterans Affairs. VHA Notice 2023-07. Community Nursing Home Program. September 5, 2023:1-4.

18. Helmer DA, Dwibedi N, Rowneki M, et al. Mental health conditions and hospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions among veterans with diabetes. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2020;13(2):61-71.

19. Rosen AK, Wagner TH, Pettey WBP, et al. Differences in risk scores of veterans receiving community care purchased by the Veterans Health Administration. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(suppl 3):5438-5454. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.13051

20. Mattocks KM, Kroll-Desrosiers A, Kinney R, Elwy AR, Cunningham KJ, Mengeling MA. Understanding VA’s use of and relationships with community care providers under the MISSION Act. Med Care. 2021;59(suppl 3):S252-S258. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000001545

References

1. Miller EA, Gadbois E, Gidmark S, Intrator O. Purchasing nursing home care within the Veterans Health Administration: lessons for nursing home recruitment, contracting, and oversight. J Health Admin Educ. 2015;32(2):165-197.

2. GAO. VA health care. Veterans’ use of long-term care is increasing, and VA faces challenges in meeting the demand. February 19, 2020. Accessed September 19, 2023. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-284.pdf

3. VHA Handbook 1143.2, VHA community nursing home oversight procedures. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. June 2004. https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=3740930&FileName=VA259-17-Q-0501-007.pdf

4. Community care: veteran care agreements. US Department of Veterans Affairs. 2022. Updated August 8, 2023. Accessed September 7, 2023. https://www.va.gov/COMMUNITYCARE/providers/Veterans_Care_Agreements.asp

5. Massarweh NN, Itani KMF, Morris MS. The VA MISSION Act and the future of veterans’ access to quality health care. JAMA. 2020;324(4):343-344. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.4505

6. Colello KJ, Panangala SV; Congressional Research Service. Long-term care services for veterans. February 14, 2017. Accessed September 7, 2023. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44697

7. Magid KH, Galenbeck E, Haverhals LM, et al. Purchasing high-quality community nursing home care: a will to work with VHA diminished by contracting burdens. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2022;23(11):1757-1764. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2022.03.007

8. Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 2013;15(3):398-405. doi:10.1111/nhs.12048

9. Brown University. LTC Focus. Accessed September 18, 2023. https://ltcfocus.org/about

10. Zhang W, Creswell J. The use of “mixing” procedure of mixed methods in health services research. Med Care. 2013;51(8):e51-e57. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31824642fd

11. Haverhals LM, Magid KH, Blanchard KN, Levy CR. Veterans Health Administration staff perceptions of overseeing care in community nursing homes during COVID-19. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2022;8:23337214221080307. Published 2022 Feb 15. doi:10.1177/23337214221080307

12. Garvin LA, Pugatch M, Gurewich D, Pendergast JN, Miller CJ. Interorganizational care coordination of rural veterans by Veterans Affairs and community care programs: a systematic review. Med Care. 2021;59(suppl 3):S259-S269. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000001542

13. Schlosser J, Kollisch D, Johnson D, Perkins T, Olson A. VA-community dual care: veteran and clinician perspectives. J Community Health. 2020;45(4):795-802. doi:10.1007/s10900-020-00795-y

14. Nevedal AL, Wong EP, Urech TH, Peppiatt JL, Sorie MR, Vashi AA. Veterans’ experiences with accessing community emergency care. Mil Med. 2023;188(1-2):e58-e64. doi:10.1093/milmed/usab196

15. Levenson SA. Smart case review: a model for successful remote medical direction and enhanced nursing home quality improvement. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22(10):2212-2215.e6. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2021.05.043

16. Donahue M, Bouhaddou O, Hsing N, et al. Veterans Health Information Exchange: successes and challenges of nationwide interoperability. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2018;2018:385-394. Published 2018 Dec 5.

17. US Department of Veterans Affairs. VHA Notice 2023-07. Community Nursing Home Program. September 5, 2023:1-4.

18. Helmer DA, Dwibedi N, Rowneki M, et al. Mental health conditions and hospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions among veterans with diabetes. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2020;13(2):61-71.

19. Rosen AK, Wagner TH, Pettey WBP, et al. Differences in risk scores of veterans receiving community care purchased by the Veterans Health Administration. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(suppl 3):5438-5454. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.13051

20. Mattocks KM, Kroll-Desrosiers A, Kinney R, Elwy AR, Cunningham KJ, Mengeling MA. Understanding VA’s use of and relationships with community care providers under the MISSION Act. Med Care. 2021;59(suppl 3):S252-S258. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000001545

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(10)a
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(10)a
Page Number
338
Page Number
338
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media
Media Files

Do new Alzheimer’s drugs get us closer to solving the Alzheimer’s disease riddle?

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 10/06/2023 - 10:21

Two antiamyloid drugs were recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating early-stage Alzheimer’s disease (AD). In trials of both lecanemab (Leqembi) and donanemab, a long-held neuropharmacologic dream was realized: Most amyloid plaques – the primary pathologic marker for AD – were eliminated from the brains of patients with late pre-AD or early AD.

Implications for the amyloid hypothesis

The reduction of amyloid plaques has been argued by many scientists and clinical authorities to be the likely pharmacologic solution for AD. These trials are appropriately viewed as a test of the hypothesis that amyloid bodies are a primary cause of the neurobehavioral symptoms we call AD.

In parallel with that striking reduction in amyloid bodies, drug-treated patients had an initially slower progression of neurobehavioral decline than did placebo-treated control patients. That slowing in symptom progression was accompanied by a modest but statistically significant difference in neurobehavioral ability. After several months in treatment, the rate of decline again paralleled that recorded in the control group. The sustained difference of about a half point on cognitive assessment scores separating treatment and control participants was well short of the 1.5-point difference typically considered clinically significant.

A small number of unexpected and unexplained deaths occurred in the treatment groups. Brain swelling and/or micro-hemorrhages were seen in 20%-30% of treated individuals. Significant brain shrinkage was recorded. These adverse findings are indicative of drug-induced trauma in the target organ for these drugs (i.e., the brain) and were the basis for a boxed warning label for drug usage. Antiamyloid drug treatment was not effective in patients who had higher initial numbers of amyloid plaques, indicating that these drugs would not measurably help the majority of AD patients, who are at more advanced disease stages.

These drugs do not appear to be an “answer” for AD. A modest delay in progression does not mean that we’re on a path to a “cure.” Treatment cost estimates are high – more than $80,000 per year. With requisite PET exams and high copays, patient accessibility issues will be daunting.

Of note, in my view, the trials of these drugs do not support the hypothesis that amyloid is the primary neuropathologic agent underlying the progressive neurobehavioral decline in AD. To the contrary, they add strong support for the counterargument that the emergence of amyloid plaques is an effect and not a fundamental cause of that progressive loss of neurologic function that we ultimately define as “Alzheimer’s disease.”
 

Time to switch gears

The more obvious path to winning the battle against this human scourge is prevention. A recent analysis published in The Lancet argued that about 40% of AD and other dementias are potentially preventable. I disagree. I believe that 80%-90% of prospective cases can be substantially delayed or prevented. Studies have shown that progression to AD or other dementias is driven primarily by the progressive deterioration of organic brain health, expressed by the loss of what psychologists have termed “cognitive reserve.” Cognitive reserve is resilience arising from active brain usage, akin to physical resilience attributable to a physically active life. Scientific studies have shown us that an individual’s cognitive resilience (reserve) is a greater predictor of risk for dementia than are amyloid plaques – indeed, greater than any combination of pathologic markers in dementia patients.

 

 

Building up cognitive reserve

It’s increasingly clear to this observer that cognitive reserve is synonymous with organic brain health. The primary factors that underlie cognitive reserve are processing speed in the brain, executive control, response withholding, memory acquisition, reasoning, and attention abilities. Faster, more accurate brains are necessarily more physically optimized. They necessarily sustain brain system connectivity. They are necessarily healthier. Such brains bear a relatively low risk of developing AD or other dementias, just as physically healthier bodies bear a lower risk of being prematurely banished to semi-permanent residence in an easy chair or a bed.

Brain health can be sustained by deploying inexpensive, self-administered, app-based assessments of neurologic performance limits, which inform patients and their medical teams about general brain health status. These assessments can help doctors guide their patients to adopt more intelligent brain-healthy lifestyles, or direct them to the “brain gym” to progressively exercise their brains in ways that contribute to rapid, potentially large-scale, rejuvenating improvements in physical and functional brain health.

Randomized controlled trials incorporating different combinations of physical exercise, diet, and cognitive training have recorded significant improvements in physical and functional neurologic status, indicating substantially advanced brain health. Consistent moderate-to-intense physical exercise, brain- and heart-healthy eating habits, and, particularly, computerized brain training have repeatedly been shown to improve cognitive function and physically rejuvenate the brain. With cognitive training in the right forms, improvements in processing speed and other measures manifest improving brain health and greater safety.

In the National Institutes of Health–funded ACTIVE study with more than 2,800 older adults, just 10-18 hours of a specific speed of processing training (now part of BrainHQ, a program that I was involved in developing) reduced the probability of a progression to dementia over the following 10 years by 29%, and by 48% in those who did the most training.

This approach is several orders of magnitude less expensive than the pricey new AD drugs. It presents less serious issues of accessibility and has no side effects. It delivers far more powerful therapeutic benefits in older normal and at-risk populations.

Sustained wellness supporting prevention is the far more sensible medical way forward to save people from AD and other dementias – at a far lower medical and societal cost.

Dr. Merzenich is professor emeritus, department of neuroscience, University of California, San Francisco. He reported conflicts of interest with Posit Science, Stronger Brains, and the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Two antiamyloid drugs were recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating early-stage Alzheimer’s disease (AD). In trials of both lecanemab (Leqembi) and donanemab, a long-held neuropharmacologic dream was realized: Most amyloid plaques – the primary pathologic marker for AD – were eliminated from the brains of patients with late pre-AD or early AD.

Implications for the amyloid hypothesis

The reduction of amyloid plaques has been argued by many scientists and clinical authorities to be the likely pharmacologic solution for AD. These trials are appropriately viewed as a test of the hypothesis that amyloid bodies are a primary cause of the neurobehavioral symptoms we call AD.

In parallel with that striking reduction in amyloid bodies, drug-treated patients had an initially slower progression of neurobehavioral decline than did placebo-treated control patients. That slowing in symptom progression was accompanied by a modest but statistically significant difference in neurobehavioral ability. After several months in treatment, the rate of decline again paralleled that recorded in the control group. The sustained difference of about a half point on cognitive assessment scores separating treatment and control participants was well short of the 1.5-point difference typically considered clinically significant.

A small number of unexpected and unexplained deaths occurred in the treatment groups. Brain swelling and/or micro-hemorrhages were seen in 20%-30% of treated individuals. Significant brain shrinkage was recorded. These adverse findings are indicative of drug-induced trauma in the target organ for these drugs (i.e., the brain) and were the basis for a boxed warning label for drug usage. Antiamyloid drug treatment was not effective in patients who had higher initial numbers of amyloid plaques, indicating that these drugs would not measurably help the majority of AD patients, who are at more advanced disease stages.

These drugs do not appear to be an “answer” for AD. A modest delay in progression does not mean that we’re on a path to a “cure.” Treatment cost estimates are high – more than $80,000 per year. With requisite PET exams and high copays, patient accessibility issues will be daunting.

Of note, in my view, the trials of these drugs do not support the hypothesis that amyloid is the primary neuropathologic agent underlying the progressive neurobehavioral decline in AD. To the contrary, they add strong support for the counterargument that the emergence of amyloid plaques is an effect and not a fundamental cause of that progressive loss of neurologic function that we ultimately define as “Alzheimer’s disease.”
 

Time to switch gears

The more obvious path to winning the battle against this human scourge is prevention. A recent analysis published in The Lancet argued that about 40% of AD and other dementias are potentially preventable. I disagree. I believe that 80%-90% of prospective cases can be substantially delayed or prevented. Studies have shown that progression to AD or other dementias is driven primarily by the progressive deterioration of organic brain health, expressed by the loss of what psychologists have termed “cognitive reserve.” Cognitive reserve is resilience arising from active brain usage, akin to physical resilience attributable to a physically active life. Scientific studies have shown us that an individual’s cognitive resilience (reserve) is a greater predictor of risk for dementia than are amyloid plaques – indeed, greater than any combination of pathologic markers in dementia patients.

 

 

Building up cognitive reserve

It’s increasingly clear to this observer that cognitive reserve is synonymous with organic brain health. The primary factors that underlie cognitive reserve are processing speed in the brain, executive control, response withholding, memory acquisition, reasoning, and attention abilities. Faster, more accurate brains are necessarily more physically optimized. They necessarily sustain brain system connectivity. They are necessarily healthier. Such brains bear a relatively low risk of developing AD or other dementias, just as physically healthier bodies bear a lower risk of being prematurely banished to semi-permanent residence in an easy chair or a bed.

Brain health can be sustained by deploying inexpensive, self-administered, app-based assessments of neurologic performance limits, which inform patients and their medical teams about general brain health status. These assessments can help doctors guide their patients to adopt more intelligent brain-healthy lifestyles, or direct them to the “brain gym” to progressively exercise their brains in ways that contribute to rapid, potentially large-scale, rejuvenating improvements in physical and functional brain health.

Randomized controlled trials incorporating different combinations of physical exercise, diet, and cognitive training have recorded significant improvements in physical and functional neurologic status, indicating substantially advanced brain health. Consistent moderate-to-intense physical exercise, brain- and heart-healthy eating habits, and, particularly, computerized brain training have repeatedly been shown to improve cognitive function and physically rejuvenate the brain. With cognitive training in the right forms, improvements in processing speed and other measures manifest improving brain health and greater safety.

In the National Institutes of Health–funded ACTIVE study with more than 2,800 older adults, just 10-18 hours of a specific speed of processing training (now part of BrainHQ, a program that I was involved in developing) reduced the probability of a progression to dementia over the following 10 years by 29%, and by 48% in those who did the most training.

This approach is several orders of magnitude less expensive than the pricey new AD drugs. It presents less serious issues of accessibility and has no side effects. It delivers far more powerful therapeutic benefits in older normal and at-risk populations.

Sustained wellness supporting prevention is the far more sensible medical way forward to save people from AD and other dementias – at a far lower medical and societal cost.

Dr. Merzenich is professor emeritus, department of neuroscience, University of California, San Francisco. He reported conflicts of interest with Posit Science, Stronger Brains, and the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two antiamyloid drugs were recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating early-stage Alzheimer’s disease (AD). In trials of both lecanemab (Leqembi) and donanemab, a long-held neuropharmacologic dream was realized: Most amyloid plaques – the primary pathologic marker for AD – were eliminated from the brains of patients with late pre-AD or early AD.

Implications for the amyloid hypothesis

The reduction of amyloid plaques has been argued by many scientists and clinical authorities to be the likely pharmacologic solution for AD. These trials are appropriately viewed as a test of the hypothesis that amyloid bodies are a primary cause of the neurobehavioral symptoms we call AD.

In parallel with that striking reduction in amyloid bodies, drug-treated patients had an initially slower progression of neurobehavioral decline than did placebo-treated control patients. That slowing in symptom progression was accompanied by a modest but statistically significant difference in neurobehavioral ability. After several months in treatment, the rate of decline again paralleled that recorded in the control group. The sustained difference of about a half point on cognitive assessment scores separating treatment and control participants was well short of the 1.5-point difference typically considered clinically significant.

A small number of unexpected and unexplained deaths occurred in the treatment groups. Brain swelling and/or micro-hemorrhages were seen in 20%-30% of treated individuals. Significant brain shrinkage was recorded. These adverse findings are indicative of drug-induced trauma in the target organ for these drugs (i.e., the brain) and were the basis for a boxed warning label for drug usage. Antiamyloid drug treatment was not effective in patients who had higher initial numbers of amyloid plaques, indicating that these drugs would not measurably help the majority of AD patients, who are at more advanced disease stages.

These drugs do not appear to be an “answer” for AD. A modest delay in progression does not mean that we’re on a path to a “cure.” Treatment cost estimates are high – more than $80,000 per year. With requisite PET exams and high copays, patient accessibility issues will be daunting.

Of note, in my view, the trials of these drugs do not support the hypothesis that amyloid is the primary neuropathologic agent underlying the progressive neurobehavioral decline in AD. To the contrary, they add strong support for the counterargument that the emergence of amyloid plaques is an effect and not a fundamental cause of that progressive loss of neurologic function that we ultimately define as “Alzheimer’s disease.”
 

Time to switch gears

The more obvious path to winning the battle against this human scourge is prevention. A recent analysis published in The Lancet argued that about 40% of AD and other dementias are potentially preventable. I disagree. I believe that 80%-90% of prospective cases can be substantially delayed or prevented. Studies have shown that progression to AD or other dementias is driven primarily by the progressive deterioration of organic brain health, expressed by the loss of what psychologists have termed “cognitive reserve.” Cognitive reserve is resilience arising from active brain usage, akin to physical resilience attributable to a physically active life. Scientific studies have shown us that an individual’s cognitive resilience (reserve) is a greater predictor of risk for dementia than are amyloid plaques – indeed, greater than any combination of pathologic markers in dementia patients.

 

 

Building up cognitive reserve

It’s increasingly clear to this observer that cognitive reserve is synonymous with organic brain health. The primary factors that underlie cognitive reserve are processing speed in the brain, executive control, response withholding, memory acquisition, reasoning, and attention abilities. Faster, more accurate brains are necessarily more physically optimized. They necessarily sustain brain system connectivity. They are necessarily healthier. Such brains bear a relatively low risk of developing AD or other dementias, just as physically healthier bodies bear a lower risk of being prematurely banished to semi-permanent residence in an easy chair or a bed.

Brain health can be sustained by deploying inexpensive, self-administered, app-based assessments of neurologic performance limits, which inform patients and their medical teams about general brain health status. These assessments can help doctors guide their patients to adopt more intelligent brain-healthy lifestyles, or direct them to the “brain gym” to progressively exercise their brains in ways that contribute to rapid, potentially large-scale, rejuvenating improvements in physical and functional brain health.

Randomized controlled trials incorporating different combinations of physical exercise, diet, and cognitive training have recorded significant improvements in physical and functional neurologic status, indicating substantially advanced brain health. Consistent moderate-to-intense physical exercise, brain- and heart-healthy eating habits, and, particularly, computerized brain training have repeatedly been shown to improve cognitive function and physically rejuvenate the brain. With cognitive training in the right forms, improvements in processing speed and other measures manifest improving brain health and greater safety.

In the National Institutes of Health–funded ACTIVE study with more than 2,800 older adults, just 10-18 hours of a specific speed of processing training (now part of BrainHQ, a program that I was involved in developing) reduced the probability of a progression to dementia over the following 10 years by 29%, and by 48% in those who did the most training.

This approach is several orders of magnitude less expensive than the pricey new AD drugs. It presents less serious issues of accessibility and has no side effects. It delivers far more powerful therapeutic benefits in older normal and at-risk populations.

Sustained wellness supporting prevention is the far more sensible medical way forward to save people from AD and other dementias – at a far lower medical and societal cost.

Dr. Merzenich is professor emeritus, department of neuroscience, University of California, San Francisco. He reported conflicts of interest with Posit Science, Stronger Brains, and the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Loneliness tied to increased risk for Parkinson’s disease

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 10/04/2023 - 12:13

 

TOPLINE:

Loneliness is associated with a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease (PD) across demographic groups and independent of other risk factors, data from nearly 500,000 U.K. adults suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

  • Loneliness is associated with illness and death, including higher risk of neurodegenerative diseases, but no study has examined whether the association between loneliness and detrimental outcomes extends to PD.
  • The current analysis included 491,603 U.K. Biobank participants (mean age, 56; 54% women) without a diagnosis of PD at baseline.
  • Loneliness was assessed by a single question at baseline and incident PD was ascertained via health records over 15 years.
  • Researchers assessed whether the association between loneliness and PD was moderated by age, sex, or genetic risk and whether the association was accounted for by sociodemographic factors; behavioral, mental, physical, or social factors; or genetic risk.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Roughly 19% of the cohort reported being lonely. Compared with those who were not lonely, those who did report being lonely were slightly younger and were more likely to be women. They also had fewer resources, more health risk behaviors (current smoker and physically inactive), and worse physical and mental health.
  • Over 15+ years of follow-up, 2,822 participants developed PD (incidence rate: 47 per 100,000 person-years). Compared with those who did not develop PD, those who did were older and more likely to be male, former smokers, have higher BMI and PD polygenetic risk score, and to have diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction or stroke, anxiety, or depression.
  • In the primary analysis, individuals who reported being lonely had a higher risk for PD (hazard ratio, 1.37) – an association that remained after accounting for demographic and socioeconomic status, social isolation, PD polygenetic risk score, smoking, physical activity, BMI, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, myocardial infarction, depression, and having ever seen a psychiatrist (fully adjusted HR, 1.25). 
  • The association between loneliness and incident PD was not moderated by sex, age, or polygenetic risk score.
  • Contrary to expectations for a prodromal syndrome, loneliness was not associated with incident PD in the first 5 years after baseline but was associated with PD risk in the subsequent 10 years of follow-up (HR, 1.32).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings complement other evidence that loneliness is a psychosocial determinant of health associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality [and] supports recent calls for the protective and healing effects of personally meaningful social connection,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Antonio Terracciano, PhD, of Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, was published online  in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

This observational study could not determine causality or whether reverse causality could explain the association. Loneliness was assessed by a single yes/no question. PD diagnosis relied on hospital admission and death records and may have missed early PD diagnoses.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

TOPLINE:

Loneliness is associated with a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease (PD) across demographic groups and independent of other risk factors, data from nearly 500,000 U.K. adults suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

  • Loneliness is associated with illness and death, including higher risk of neurodegenerative diseases, but no study has examined whether the association between loneliness and detrimental outcomes extends to PD.
  • The current analysis included 491,603 U.K. Biobank participants (mean age, 56; 54% women) without a diagnosis of PD at baseline.
  • Loneliness was assessed by a single question at baseline and incident PD was ascertained via health records over 15 years.
  • Researchers assessed whether the association between loneliness and PD was moderated by age, sex, or genetic risk and whether the association was accounted for by sociodemographic factors; behavioral, mental, physical, or social factors; or genetic risk.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Roughly 19% of the cohort reported being lonely. Compared with those who were not lonely, those who did report being lonely were slightly younger and were more likely to be women. They also had fewer resources, more health risk behaviors (current smoker and physically inactive), and worse physical and mental health.
  • Over 15+ years of follow-up, 2,822 participants developed PD (incidence rate: 47 per 100,000 person-years). Compared with those who did not develop PD, those who did were older and more likely to be male, former smokers, have higher BMI and PD polygenetic risk score, and to have diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction or stroke, anxiety, or depression.
  • In the primary analysis, individuals who reported being lonely had a higher risk for PD (hazard ratio, 1.37) – an association that remained after accounting for demographic and socioeconomic status, social isolation, PD polygenetic risk score, smoking, physical activity, BMI, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, myocardial infarction, depression, and having ever seen a psychiatrist (fully adjusted HR, 1.25). 
  • The association between loneliness and incident PD was not moderated by sex, age, or polygenetic risk score.
  • Contrary to expectations for a prodromal syndrome, loneliness was not associated with incident PD in the first 5 years after baseline but was associated with PD risk in the subsequent 10 years of follow-up (HR, 1.32).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings complement other evidence that loneliness is a psychosocial determinant of health associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality [and] supports recent calls for the protective and healing effects of personally meaningful social connection,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Antonio Terracciano, PhD, of Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, was published online  in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

This observational study could not determine causality or whether reverse causality could explain the association. Loneliness was assessed by a single yes/no question. PD diagnosis relied on hospital admission and death records and may have missed early PD diagnoses.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

 

TOPLINE:

Loneliness is associated with a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease (PD) across demographic groups and independent of other risk factors, data from nearly 500,000 U.K. adults suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

  • Loneliness is associated with illness and death, including higher risk of neurodegenerative diseases, but no study has examined whether the association between loneliness and detrimental outcomes extends to PD.
  • The current analysis included 491,603 U.K. Biobank participants (mean age, 56; 54% women) without a diagnosis of PD at baseline.
  • Loneliness was assessed by a single question at baseline and incident PD was ascertained via health records over 15 years.
  • Researchers assessed whether the association between loneliness and PD was moderated by age, sex, or genetic risk and whether the association was accounted for by sociodemographic factors; behavioral, mental, physical, or social factors; or genetic risk.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Roughly 19% of the cohort reported being lonely. Compared with those who were not lonely, those who did report being lonely were slightly younger and were more likely to be women. They also had fewer resources, more health risk behaviors (current smoker and physically inactive), and worse physical and mental health.
  • Over 15+ years of follow-up, 2,822 participants developed PD (incidence rate: 47 per 100,000 person-years). Compared with those who did not develop PD, those who did were older and more likely to be male, former smokers, have higher BMI and PD polygenetic risk score, and to have diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction or stroke, anxiety, or depression.
  • In the primary analysis, individuals who reported being lonely had a higher risk for PD (hazard ratio, 1.37) – an association that remained after accounting for demographic and socioeconomic status, social isolation, PD polygenetic risk score, smoking, physical activity, BMI, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, myocardial infarction, depression, and having ever seen a psychiatrist (fully adjusted HR, 1.25). 
  • The association between loneliness and incident PD was not moderated by sex, age, or polygenetic risk score.
  • Contrary to expectations for a prodromal syndrome, loneliness was not associated with incident PD in the first 5 years after baseline but was associated with PD risk in the subsequent 10 years of follow-up (HR, 1.32).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings complement other evidence that loneliness is a psychosocial determinant of health associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality [and] supports recent calls for the protective and healing effects of personally meaningful social connection,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Antonio Terracciano, PhD, of Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, was published online  in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

This observational study could not determine causality or whether reverse causality could explain the association. Loneliness was assessed by a single yes/no question. PD diagnosis relied on hospital admission and death records and may have missed early PD diagnoses.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Decoding AFib recurrence: PCPs’ role in personalized care

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 10/04/2023 - 06:34

One in three patients who experience their first bout of atrial fibrillation (AFib) during hospitalization can expect to experience a recurrence of the arrhythmia within the year, new research shows.

The findings, reported in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest these patients may be good candidates for oral anticoagulants to reduce their risk for stroke.

“Atrial fibrillation is very common in patients for the very first time in their life when they’re sick and in the hospital,” said William F. McIntyre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who led the study. These new insights into AFib management suggest there is a need for primary care physicians to be on the lookout for potential recurrence.

AFib is strongly linked to stroke, and patients at greater risk for stroke may be prescribed oral anticoagulants. Although the arrhythmia can be reversed before the patient is discharged from the hospital, risk for recurrence was unclear, Dr. McIntyre said.

“We wanted to know if the patient was in atrial fibrillation because of the physiologic stress that they were under, or if they just have the disease called atrial fibrillation, which should usually be followed lifelong by a specialist,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues followed 139 patients (mean age, 71 years) at three medical centers in Ontario who experienced new-onset AFib during their hospital stay, along with an equal number of patients who had no history of AFib and who served as controls. The research team used a Holter monitor to record study participants’ heart rhythm for 14 days to detect incident AFib at 1 and 6 months after discharge. They also followed up with periodic phone calls for up to 12 months. Among the study participants, half were admitted for noncardiac surgeries, and the other half were admitted for medical illnesses, including infections and pneumonia. Participants with a prior history of AFib were excluded from the analysis.

The primary outcome of the study was an episode of AFib that lasted at least 30 seconds on the monitor or one detected during routine care at the 12-month mark.

Patients who experienced AFib for the first time in the hospital had roughly a 33% risk for recurrence within a year, nearly sevenfold higher than their age- and sex-matched counterparts who had not had an arrhythmia during their hospital stay (3%; confidence interval, 0%-6.4%).

“This study has important implications for management of patients who have a first presentation of AFib that is concurrent with a reversible physiologic stressor,” the authors wrote. “An AFib recurrence risk of 33.1% at 1 year is neither low enough to conclude that transient new-onset AFib in the setting of another illness is benign nor high enough that all such transient new-onset AFib can be assumed to be paroxysmal AFib. Instead, these results call for risk stratification and follow-up in these patients.”

The researchers reported that among people with recurrent AFib in the study, the median total time in arrhythmia was 9 hours. “This far exceeds the cutoff of 6 minutes that was established as being associated with stroke using simulated AFib screening in patients with implanted continuous monitors,” they wrote. “These results suggest that the patients in our study who had AFib detected in follow-up are similar to contemporary patients with AFib for whom evidence-based therapies, including oral anticoagulation, are warranted.”

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues were able to track outcomes and treatments for the patients in the study. In the group with recurrent AFib, 1 had a stroke, 2 experienced systemic embolism, 3 had a heart failure event, 6 experienced bleeding, and 11 died. In the other group, there was one case of stroke, one of heart failure, four cases involving bleeding, and seven deaths. “The proportion of participants with new-onset AFib during their initial hospitalization who were taking oral anticoagulants was 47.1% at 6 months and 49.2% at 12 months. This included 73% of participants with AFib detected during follow-up and 39% who did not have AFib detected during follow-up,” they wrote.

The uncertain nature of AFib recurrence complicates predictions about patients’ posthospitalization experiences within the following year. “We cannot just say: ‘Hey, this is just a reversible illness, and now we can forget about it,’ ” Dr. McIntyre said. “Nor is the risk of recurrence so strong in the other direction that you can give patients a lifelong diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.”
 

 

 

Role for primary care

Without that certainty, physicians cannot refer everyone who experiences new-onset AFib to a cardiologist for long-term care. The variability in recurrence rates necessitates a more nuanced and personalized approach. Here, primary care physicians step in, offering tailored care based on their established, long-term patient relationships, Dr. McIntyre said.

The study participants already have chronic health conditions that bring them into regular contact with their family physician. This gives primary care physicians a golden opportunity to be on lookout and to recommend care from a cardiologist at the appropriate time if it becomes necessary, he said.

“I have certainly seen cases of recurrent atrial fibrillation in patients who had an episode while hospitalized, and consistent with this study, this is a common clinical occurrence,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York. Primary care physicians must remain vigilant and avoid the temptation to attribute AFib solely to illness or surgery

“Ideally, we would have randomized clinical trial data to guide the decision about whether to use prophylactic anticoagulation,” said Dr. Bhatt, who added that a cardiology consultation may also be appropriate.

Dr. McIntyre reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bhatt reported numerous relationships with industry.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

One in three patients who experience their first bout of atrial fibrillation (AFib) during hospitalization can expect to experience a recurrence of the arrhythmia within the year, new research shows.

The findings, reported in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest these patients may be good candidates for oral anticoagulants to reduce their risk for stroke.

“Atrial fibrillation is very common in patients for the very first time in their life when they’re sick and in the hospital,” said William F. McIntyre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who led the study. These new insights into AFib management suggest there is a need for primary care physicians to be on the lookout for potential recurrence.

AFib is strongly linked to stroke, and patients at greater risk for stroke may be prescribed oral anticoagulants. Although the arrhythmia can be reversed before the patient is discharged from the hospital, risk for recurrence was unclear, Dr. McIntyre said.

“We wanted to know if the patient was in atrial fibrillation because of the physiologic stress that they were under, or if they just have the disease called atrial fibrillation, which should usually be followed lifelong by a specialist,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues followed 139 patients (mean age, 71 years) at three medical centers in Ontario who experienced new-onset AFib during their hospital stay, along with an equal number of patients who had no history of AFib and who served as controls. The research team used a Holter monitor to record study participants’ heart rhythm for 14 days to detect incident AFib at 1 and 6 months after discharge. They also followed up with periodic phone calls for up to 12 months. Among the study participants, half were admitted for noncardiac surgeries, and the other half were admitted for medical illnesses, including infections and pneumonia. Participants with a prior history of AFib were excluded from the analysis.

The primary outcome of the study was an episode of AFib that lasted at least 30 seconds on the monitor or one detected during routine care at the 12-month mark.

Patients who experienced AFib for the first time in the hospital had roughly a 33% risk for recurrence within a year, nearly sevenfold higher than their age- and sex-matched counterparts who had not had an arrhythmia during their hospital stay (3%; confidence interval, 0%-6.4%).

“This study has important implications for management of patients who have a first presentation of AFib that is concurrent with a reversible physiologic stressor,” the authors wrote. “An AFib recurrence risk of 33.1% at 1 year is neither low enough to conclude that transient new-onset AFib in the setting of another illness is benign nor high enough that all such transient new-onset AFib can be assumed to be paroxysmal AFib. Instead, these results call for risk stratification and follow-up in these patients.”

The researchers reported that among people with recurrent AFib in the study, the median total time in arrhythmia was 9 hours. “This far exceeds the cutoff of 6 minutes that was established as being associated with stroke using simulated AFib screening in patients with implanted continuous monitors,” they wrote. “These results suggest that the patients in our study who had AFib detected in follow-up are similar to contemporary patients with AFib for whom evidence-based therapies, including oral anticoagulation, are warranted.”

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues were able to track outcomes and treatments for the patients in the study. In the group with recurrent AFib, 1 had a stroke, 2 experienced systemic embolism, 3 had a heart failure event, 6 experienced bleeding, and 11 died. In the other group, there was one case of stroke, one of heart failure, four cases involving bleeding, and seven deaths. “The proportion of participants with new-onset AFib during their initial hospitalization who were taking oral anticoagulants was 47.1% at 6 months and 49.2% at 12 months. This included 73% of participants with AFib detected during follow-up and 39% who did not have AFib detected during follow-up,” they wrote.

The uncertain nature of AFib recurrence complicates predictions about patients’ posthospitalization experiences within the following year. “We cannot just say: ‘Hey, this is just a reversible illness, and now we can forget about it,’ ” Dr. McIntyre said. “Nor is the risk of recurrence so strong in the other direction that you can give patients a lifelong diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.”
 

 

 

Role for primary care

Without that certainty, physicians cannot refer everyone who experiences new-onset AFib to a cardiologist for long-term care. The variability in recurrence rates necessitates a more nuanced and personalized approach. Here, primary care physicians step in, offering tailored care based on their established, long-term patient relationships, Dr. McIntyre said.

The study participants already have chronic health conditions that bring them into regular contact with their family physician. This gives primary care physicians a golden opportunity to be on lookout and to recommend care from a cardiologist at the appropriate time if it becomes necessary, he said.

“I have certainly seen cases of recurrent atrial fibrillation in patients who had an episode while hospitalized, and consistent with this study, this is a common clinical occurrence,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York. Primary care physicians must remain vigilant and avoid the temptation to attribute AFib solely to illness or surgery

“Ideally, we would have randomized clinical trial data to guide the decision about whether to use prophylactic anticoagulation,” said Dr. Bhatt, who added that a cardiology consultation may also be appropriate.

Dr. McIntyre reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bhatt reported numerous relationships with industry.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One in three patients who experience their first bout of atrial fibrillation (AFib) during hospitalization can expect to experience a recurrence of the arrhythmia within the year, new research shows.

The findings, reported in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest these patients may be good candidates for oral anticoagulants to reduce their risk for stroke.

“Atrial fibrillation is very common in patients for the very first time in their life when they’re sick and in the hospital,” said William F. McIntyre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who led the study. These new insights into AFib management suggest there is a need for primary care physicians to be on the lookout for potential recurrence.

AFib is strongly linked to stroke, and patients at greater risk for stroke may be prescribed oral anticoagulants. Although the arrhythmia can be reversed before the patient is discharged from the hospital, risk for recurrence was unclear, Dr. McIntyre said.

“We wanted to know if the patient was in atrial fibrillation because of the physiologic stress that they were under, or if they just have the disease called atrial fibrillation, which should usually be followed lifelong by a specialist,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues followed 139 patients (mean age, 71 years) at three medical centers in Ontario who experienced new-onset AFib during their hospital stay, along with an equal number of patients who had no history of AFib and who served as controls. The research team used a Holter monitor to record study participants’ heart rhythm for 14 days to detect incident AFib at 1 and 6 months after discharge. They also followed up with periodic phone calls for up to 12 months. Among the study participants, half were admitted for noncardiac surgeries, and the other half were admitted for medical illnesses, including infections and pneumonia. Participants with a prior history of AFib were excluded from the analysis.

The primary outcome of the study was an episode of AFib that lasted at least 30 seconds on the monitor or one detected during routine care at the 12-month mark.

Patients who experienced AFib for the first time in the hospital had roughly a 33% risk for recurrence within a year, nearly sevenfold higher than their age- and sex-matched counterparts who had not had an arrhythmia during their hospital stay (3%; confidence interval, 0%-6.4%).

“This study has important implications for management of patients who have a first presentation of AFib that is concurrent with a reversible physiologic stressor,” the authors wrote. “An AFib recurrence risk of 33.1% at 1 year is neither low enough to conclude that transient new-onset AFib in the setting of another illness is benign nor high enough that all such transient new-onset AFib can be assumed to be paroxysmal AFib. Instead, these results call for risk stratification and follow-up in these patients.”

The researchers reported that among people with recurrent AFib in the study, the median total time in arrhythmia was 9 hours. “This far exceeds the cutoff of 6 minutes that was established as being associated with stroke using simulated AFib screening in patients with implanted continuous monitors,” they wrote. “These results suggest that the patients in our study who had AFib detected in follow-up are similar to contemporary patients with AFib for whom evidence-based therapies, including oral anticoagulation, are warranted.”

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues were able to track outcomes and treatments for the patients in the study. In the group with recurrent AFib, 1 had a stroke, 2 experienced systemic embolism, 3 had a heart failure event, 6 experienced bleeding, and 11 died. In the other group, there was one case of stroke, one of heart failure, four cases involving bleeding, and seven deaths. “The proportion of participants with new-onset AFib during their initial hospitalization who were taking oral anticoagulants was 47.1% at 6 months and 49.2% at 12 months. This included 73% of participants with AFib detected during follow-up and 39% who did not have AFib detected during follow-up,” they wrote.

The uncertain nature of AFib recurrence complicates predictions about patients’ posthospitalization experiences within the following year. “We cannot just say: ‘Hey, this is just a reversible illness, and now we can forget about it,’ ” Dr. McIntyre said. “Nor is the risk of recurrence so strong in the other direction that you can give patients a lifelong diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.”
 

 

 

Role for primary care

Without that certainty, physicians cannot refer everyone who experiences new-onset AFib to a cardiologist for long-term care. The variability in recurrence rates necessitates a more nuanced and personalized approach. Here, primary care physicians step in, offering tailored care based on their established, long-term patient relationships, Dr. McIntyre said.

The study participants already have chronic health conditions that bring them into regular contact with their family physician. This gives primary care physicians a golden opportunity to be on lookout and to recommend care from a cardiologist at the appropriate time if it becomes necessary, he said.

“I have certainly seen cases of recurrent atrial fibrillation in patients who had an episode while hospitalized, and consistent with this study, this is a common clinical occurrence,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York. Primary care physicians must remain vigilant and avoid the temptation to attribute AFib solely to illness or surgery

“Ideally, we would have randomized clinical trial data to guide the decision about whether to use prophylactic anticoagulation,” said Dr. Bhatt, who added that a cardiology consultation may also be appropriate.

Dr. McIntyre reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bhatt reported numerous relationships with industry.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Support tool reduces hypoglycemia risk in type 2 diabetes

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 10/02/2023 - 09:49

 

TOPLINE:

Use of a novel clinical-decision support tool and shared decision-making in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care practice and at high risk for hypoglycemic episodes led to a 46% decrease in the number of at-risk patients and discontinuation of hypoglycemic agents in 20% in a prospective, 6-month, single-arm study with 94 patients.

METHODOLOGY:

  • The HypoPrevent study enrolled 94 people from a Pennsylvania primary care practice who were at least 65 years old with type 2 diabetes and at risk for hypoglycemia because of treatment with insulin or sulfonylureas, and having a hemoglobin A1c of less than 7.0%.
  • Clinicians and patients used a newly devised hypoglycemia reduction clinical-decision support tool developed by the Endocrine Society and a health care consulting company to help guide shared decision-making for a goal A1c level, potential changes to treatment, and other steps to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.
  • Primary outcomes during 6-month follow-up were impact of the intervention on A1c, changes in use of insulin or sulfonylureas, change in the number of study patients at risk for hypoglycemia, and impact on the incidence of nonsevere hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) measured with the Treatment-Related Impact Measure–Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO) survey.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Patients averaged 74 years old, 57% were women, 95% were White, 61% had diabetes for more than 10 years, 48% had chronic kidney disease, 51% were on insulin, 47% on a sulfonylurea, and 80 of the 94 enrolled patients completed all three study visits.
  • Nineteen patients (20%) reduced their dose of or discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea.
  • In patients with both baseline and follow-up A1c measures, A1c rose from 6.29% at baseline to 6.82%.
  • Fifty patients set an A1c goal and had a timely follow-up A1c measurement, and in this subgroup the number of patients at risk for hypoglycemia decreased by 46%, a significant change.
  • Patients who reported at least one NSHE at baseline had a significant reduction between the baseline survey and follow-up visits in both the total score as well as each of the five scored domains.

IN PRACTICE:

The HypoPrevent study results “show the potential of a decision support tool and shared decision making to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia in older persons with type 2 diabetes,” and that “the tested decision tool can be effectively used by a busy primary care practice with positive results,” concluded the researchers in their report.

SOURCE:

The HypoPrevent study was funded and organized by the Endocrine Society in collaboration with a multicenter team of researchers. The report appeared in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

Lack of a control group makes it impossible to conclusively determine whether the intervention led to the observed increases in A1c levels, nor can the study exclude regression to the mean as the cause for lowered A1c levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from Abbott, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Two coauthors had individual disclosures listed in the report; the other six coauthors had no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

TOPLINE:

Use of a novel clinical-decision support tool and shared decision-making in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care practice and at high risk for hypoglycemic episodes led to a 46% decrease in the number of at-risk patients and discontinuation of hypoglycemic agents in 20% in a prospective, 6-month, single-arm study with 94 patients.

METHODOLOGY:

  • The HypoPrevent study enrolled 94 people from a Pennsylvania primary care practice who were at least 65 years old with type 2 diabetes and at risk for hypoglycemia because of treatment with insulin or sulfonylureas, and having a hemoglobin A1c of less than 7.0%.
  • Clinicians and patients used a newly devised hypoglycemia reduction clinical-decision support tool developed by the Endocrine Society and a health care consulting company to help guide shared decision-making for a goal A1c level, potential changes to treatment, and other steps to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.
  • Primary outcomes during 6-month follow-up were impact of the intervention on A1c, changes in use of insulin or sulfonylureas, change in the number of study patients at risk for hypoglycemia, and impact on the incidence of nonsevere hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) measured with the Treatment-Related Impact Measure–Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO) survey.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Patients averaged 74 years old, 57% were women, 95% were White, 61% had diabetes for more than 10 years, 48% had chronic kidney disease, 51% were on insulin, 47% on a sulfonylurea, and 80 of the 94 enrolled patients completed all three study visits.
  • Nineteen patients (20%) reduced their dose of or discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea.
  • In patients with both baseline and follow-up A1c measures, A1c rose from 6.29% at baseline to 6.82%.
  • Fifty patients set an A1c goal and had a timely follow-up A1c measurement, and in this subgroup the number of patients at risk for hypoglycemia decreased by 46%, a significant change.
  • Patients who reported at least one NSHE at baseline had a significant reduction between the baseline survey and follow-up visits in both the total score as well as each of the five scored domains.

IN PRACTICE:

The HypoPrevent study results “show the potential of a decision support tool and shared decision making to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia in older persons with type 2 diabetes,” and that “the tested decision tool can be effectively used by a busy primary care practice with positive results,” concluded the researchers in their report.

SOURCE:

The HypoPrevent study was funded and organized by the Endocrine Society in collaboration with a multicenter team of researchers. The report appeared in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

Lack of a control group makes it impossible to conclusively determine whether the intervention led to the observed increases in A1c levels, nor can the study exclude regression to the mean as the cause for lowered A1c levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from Abbott, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Two coauthors had individual disclosures listed in the report; the other six coauthors had no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

 

TOPLINE:

Use of a novel clinical-decision support tool and shared decision-making in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care practice and at high risk for hypoglycemic episodes led to a 46% decrease in the number of at-risk patients and discontinuation of hypoglycemic agents in 20% in a prospective, 6-month, single-arm study with 94 patients.

METHODOLOGY:

  • The HypoPrevent study enrolled 94 people from a Pennsylvania primary care practice who were at least 65 years old with type 2 diabetes and at risk for hypoglycemia because of treatment with insulin or sulfonylureas, and having a hemoglobin A1c of less than 7.0%.
  • Clinicians and patients used a newly devised hypoglycemia reduction clinical-decision support tool developed by the Endocrine Society and a health care consulting company to help guide shared decision-making for a goal A1c level, potential changes to treatment, and other steps to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.
  • Primary outcomes during 6-month follow-up were impact of the intervention on A1c, changes in use of insulin or sulfonylureas, change in the number of study patients at risk for hypoglycemia, and impact on the incidence of nonsevere hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) measured with the Treatment-Related Impact Measure–Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO) survey.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Patients averaged 74 years old, 57% were women, 95% were White, 61% had diabetes for more than 10 years, 48% had chronic kidney disease, 51% were on insulin, 47% on a sulfonylurea, and 80 of the 94 enrolled patients completed all three study visits.
  • Nineteen patients (20%) reduced their dose of or discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea.
  • In patients with both baseline and follow-up A1c measures, A1c rose from 6.29% at baseline to 6.82%.
  • Fifty patients set an A1c goal and had a timely follow-up A1c measurement, and in this subgroup the number of patients at risk for hypoglycemia decreased by 46%, a significant change.
  • Patients who reported at least one NSHE at baseline had a significant reduction between the baseline survey and follow-up visits in both the total score as well as each of the five scored domains.

IN PRACTICE:

The HypoPrevent study results “show the potential of a decision support tool and shared decision making to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia in older persons with type 2 diabetes,” and that “the tested decision tool can be effectively used by a busy primary care practice with positive results,” concluded the researchers in their report.

SOURCE:

The HypoPrevent study was funded and organized by the Endocrine Society in collaboration with a multicenter team of researchers. The report appeared in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

Lack of a control group makes it impossible to conclusively determine whether the intervention led to the observed increases in A1c levels, nor can the study exclude regression to the mean as the cause for lowered A1c levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from Abbott, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Two coauthors had individual disclosures listed in the report; the other six coauthors had no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Are ketogenic supplements the key to healthy aging?

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 10/10/2023 - 16:39

A century ago, pediatricians began prescribing for children with intractable seizures the “keto diet,” which they also used to treat diabetes in children and adults. The low-carbohydrate, high-fat meals were designed to induce a near hypoglycemic state, forcing the body to use ketones for fuel instead of glucose.

The strategy fell out of favor after the discovery of insulin in the 1920s and the development of better antiseizure medications. But the epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States have revived interest in low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets. The global market for the ketogenic diet topped $11 billion in 2022.

Is it just a fad, or has the public – and science – caught up with the 100-year-old approach?

Although scientists still don’t know why the ketogenic diet was effective for controlling seizures, they have documented the effectiveness of ketogenic diets for the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome. An extensive body of literature has documented their use in athletes, but less is known regarding conditions such as heart disease and dementia.

Although the data are promising, much of the research has been conducted with mice or has come from trials of short-term use in humans. But recently, the National Institutes of Health awarded a $3.5 million federal grant for a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial to understand the effects of the long-term use of ketone ester supplementation on frailty. Developed 20 years ago, ketone esters are precursor molecules that the body quickly breaks down into ketone bodies when carbohydrates aren’t available.

“We’ve learned so much recently about how ketone bodies interact with aging biology,” John Newman, MD, PhD, of the Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Novato, Calif., and the study’s principal investigator, said in an interview. “And we’re only just starting to translate that out of the laboratory and into human studies to see how we can take advantage of ketone bodies to improve people’s health.”

Researchers from the Ohio State University and the University of Connecticut will also participate in the TAKEOFF (Targeting Aging With Ketone Ester in Older Adults for Function in Frailty) trial, which seeks to recruit a total of 180 people across the three sites.

Dr. Newman, assistant professor at the Buck Institute and associate professor in the division of geriatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said ketone bodies might have helpful applications in a variety of conditions of aging.

One of the common things that happen during aging is that tissues – such as of the heart, brain, and muscle – lose the ability to metabolize glucose effectively. Over time, resistance to insulin can develop.

Researchers can map out areas of the brain affected by Alzheimer’s disease, for example, by assessing where patients’ glucose uptake drops. In heart failure, the heart has difficulty obtaining enough energy from glucose and instead burns fats and ketone bodies.

How might ketones affect frailty in the elderly?

As a practicing geriatrician, Dr. Newman measures frailty by evaluating patients’ strength, endurance, and how they react to stresses. He and his colleagues believe certain molecular and cellular changes may make patients more likely to fall, to recover more slowly from surgery, or to lose mobility.

The main hypothesis of the TAKEOFF study is “that if you target these fundamental mechanisms of aging, you would be able to impact many different diseases of aging across different organ systems.”

Dr. Newman and Brianna Stubbs, DPhil, lead translational scientist at the Buck Institute, are still finishing up the BIKE (Buck Institute Ketone Ester) pilot study, which was the first double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the use of ketone ester supplements in adults older than 65 years. “The BIKE study is 12 weeks long. That’s actually the longest that anyone has studied ketone ester supplements in humans,” Dr. Stubbs said. The results will help them firm up the protocol for the TAKEOFF trial, which will likely treat patients for up to 24 weeks.

The primary outcome measure at all three study sites will be leg press strength. Researchers will also assess a variety of secondary outcomes that cover geriatric and cognitive function – measures such as gait speed and walking endurance, cognitive tests, and quality of life. And at the Buck, Dr. Newman and Dr. Stubbs will be evaluating the use of biomarkers that are often available in clinical labs – insulin, C-reactive protein, cystatin, and natriuretic peptide tests – for use as outcome measures that are responsive to treatment interventions and that can be used to track outcomes in future research on aging.

To achieve the goal of looking broadly at different organ systems likely to be affected by ketogenic supplements, they have assembled a team of coinvestigators with wide-ranging expertise in ketone and aging research.

Jeff Volek, PhD, professor in the department of human sciences at the Ohio State University, in Columbus, has contributed extensively to the literature on the use of ketogenic diets and supplements in a variety of populations, such as endurance athletes and patients with insulin resistance or diabetes.

Dr. Volek has demonstrated that ketones can have an anticatabolic effect on muscle tissue. “They could help offset some of the muscle loss with aging, which would in turn improve their physical functioning and ability to do daily activities,” he said.

The anti-inflammatory property of ketones may provide another benefit to older people. They can reduce oxidative stress, which is considered one of the chief pathologic mechanisms responsible for conditions such as heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, asthma, and arthritis.

In addition to the main study outcomes, Dr. Volek’s lab will study muscle physiology by performing biopsies at baseline and after consumption of ketogenic supplements to assess metabolic changes in muscle cells as they consume energy. Study participants will also undergo MRIs to detect subtle changes in muscle size before and after treatment.
 

 

 

From elite athletes to everyday agers

As a graduate student in Dr. Volek’s lab, Jenna Bartley, PhD, studied the effects of a ketogenic diet on elite athletes. But her work has taken a turn. Now an assistant professor in the department of immunology and the center on aging at the University of Connecticut in Farmington, she focuses on how immune responses and physical function decline with age.

“Ketogenic diets and the main ketone bodies – mainly beta-hydroxybutyrate – have been shown to have really powerful influences on a lot of things that go wrong with aging,” Dr. Bartley said. The decline in immune function in the elderly is not isolated to one cell type or even one arm of the immune system. There is reason to believe ketone supplementation could improve immune function.

“T cells really love ketones for energy,” Dr. Bartley said. Some data show that production of ketone bodies is impaired in individuals with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mouse models of SARS-CoV-2 infection have found that ketogenic diets led to improvement in the response to antiviral therapy.

In her lab, she’ll assess serum markers of inflammation in patients, as well as cytokine secretion following stimulation of T cells. T cells in culture from older people produce more inflammatory cytokines than those from younger people, leading to a dysfunctional immune response. Dr. Bartley is curious to see whether ketones can fix that. Additional work will include single-cell RNA sequencing of different classes of immune cells to investigate how ketones might change metabolic pathways.

Why use ketogenic supplements instead of having people consume ketogenic diets? “There are no cheat days in the keto diet,” Dr. Bartley said. Administering the diet requires intense supervision of research participants to enforce adherence. Use of supplements will improve compliance and likely make any findings translatable to more of the population, she said.

Drawbacks of the initial formulations of ketone esters, first developed 20 years ago, included high cost and terrible taste. Dr, Stubbs, a former world class rowing champion who competed in the Ironman World Championship last year, has firsthand experience with them as a research participant.

“It tasted like drinking nail polish,” she said. Recent advances in manufacturing have made them cheaper – roughly $5 per day – and more palatable, enabling research studies such as TAKEOFF.

For Dr. Newman, the studies are early building blocks in the emerging field of geroscience, which aims to translate fundamental mechanisms of aging into therapies to treat disease.

“We’re hoping that this will be an example of a proof-of-concept geroscience study that will really help to translate ketone body biology out of the laboratory and hopefully into a diversity of clinical applications,” he said. “There’s a lot we don’t understand still about the molecular mechanisms of frailty.”

Dr. Newman and Dr. Stubbs own stock in BHB Therapeutics Ltd, the company providing the product being studied, and are inventors on patents that relate to the product being studied. The Buck Institute has an ownership interest in BHB Therapeutics. Dr. Bartley and Dr. Volek report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Publications
Topics
Sections

A century ago, pediatricians began prescribing for children with intractable seizures the “keto diet,” which they also used to treat diabetes in children and adults. The low-carbohydrate, high-fat meals were designed to induce a near hypoglycemic state, forcing the body to use ketones for fuel instead of glucose.

The strategy fell out of favor after the discovery of insulin in the 1920s and the development of better antiseizure medications. But the epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States have revived interest in low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets. The global market for the ketogenic diet topped $11 billion in 2022.

Is it just a fad, or has the public – and science – caught up with the 100-year-old approach?

Although scientists still don’t know why the ketogenic diet was effective for controlling seizures, they have documented the effectiveness of ketogenic diets for the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome. An extensive body of literature has documented their use in athletes, but less is known regarding conditions such as heart disease and dementia.

Although the data are promising, much of the research has been conducted with mice or has come from trials of short-term use in humans. But recently, the National Institutes of Health awarded a $3.5 million federal grant for a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial to understand the effects of the long-term use of ketone ester supplementation on frailty. Developed 20 years ago, ketone esters are precursor molecules that the body quickly breaks down into ketone bodies when carbohydrates aren’t available.

“We’ve learned so much recently about how ketone bodies interact with aging biology,” John Newman, MD, PhD, of the Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Novato, Calif., and the study’s principal investigator, said in an interview. “And we’re only just starting to translate that out of the laboratory and into human studies to see how we can take advantage of ketone bodies to improve people’s health.”

Researchers from the Ohio State University and the University of Connecticut will also participate in the TAKEOFF (Targeting Aging With Ketone Ester in Older Adults for Function in Frailty) trial, which seeks to recruit a total of 180 people across the three sites.

Dr. Newman, assistant professor at the Buck Institute and associate professor in the division of geriatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said ketone bodies might have helpful applications in a variety of conditions of aging.

One of the common things that happen during aging is that tissues – such as of the heart, brain, and muscle – lose the ability to metabolize glucose effectively. Over time, resistance to insulin can develop.

Researchers can map out areas of the brain affected by Alzheimer’s disease, for example, by assessing where patients’ glucose uptake drops. In heart failure, the heart has difficulty obtaining enough energy from glucose and instead burns fats and ketone bodies.

How might ketones affect frailty in the elderly?

As a practicing geriatrician, Dr. Newman measures frailty by evaluating patients’ strength, endurance, and how they react to stresses. He and his colleagues believe certain molecular and cellular changes may make patients more likely to fall, to recover more slowly from surgery, or to lose mobility.

The main hypothesis of the TAKEOFF study is “that if you target these fundamental mechanisms of aging, you would be able to impact many different diseases of aging across different organ systems.”

Dr. Newman and Brianna Stubbs, DPhil, lead translational scientist at the Buck Institute, are still finishing up the BIKE (Buck Institute Ketone Ester) pilot study, which was the first double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the use of ketone ester supplements in adults older than 65 years. “The BIKE study is 12 weeks long. That’s actually the longest that anyone has studied ketone ester supplements in humans,” Dr. Stubbs said. The results will help them firm up the protocol for the TAKEOFF trial, which will likely treat patients for up to 24 weeks.

The primary outcome measure at all three study sites will be leg press strength. Researchers will also assess a variety of secondary outcomes that cover geriatric and cognitive function – measures such as gait speed and walking endurance, cognitive tests, and quality of life. And at the Buck, Dr. Newman and Dr. Stubbs will be evaluating the use of biomarkers that are often available in clinical labs – insulin, C-reactive protein, cystatin, and natriuretic peptide tests – for use as outcome measures that are responsive to treatment interventions and that can be used to track outcomes in future research on aging.

To achieve the goal of looking broadly at different organ systems likely to be affected by ketogenic supplements, they have assembled a team of coinvestigators with wide-ranging expertise in ketone and aging research.

Jeff Volek, PhD, professor in the department of human sciences at the Ohio State University, in Columbus, has contributed extensively to the literature on the use of ketogenic diets and supplements in a variety of populations, such as endurance athletes and patients with insulin resistance or diabetes.

Dr. Volek has demonstrated that ketones can have an anticatabolic effect on muscle tissue. “They could help offset some of the muscle loss with aging, which would in turn improve their physical functioning and ability to do daily activities,” he said.

The anti-inflammatory property of ketones may provide another benefit to older people. They can reduce oxidative stress, which is considered one of the chief pathologic mechanisms responsible for conditions such as heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, asthma, and arthritis.

In addition to the main study outcomes, Dr. Volek’s lab will study muscle physiology by performing biopsies at baseline and after consumption of ketogenic supplements to assess metabolic changes in muscle cells as they consume energy. Study participants will also undergo MRIs to detect subtle changes in muscle size before and after treatment.
 

 

 

From elite athletes to everyday agers

As a graduate student in Dr. Volek’s lab, Jenna Bartley, PhD, studied the effects of a ketogenic diet on elite athletes. But her work has taken a turn. Now an assistant professor in the department of immunology and the center on aging at the University of Connecticut in Farmington, she focuses on how immune responses and physical function decline with age.

“Ketogenic diets and the main ketone bodies – mainly beta-hydroxybutyrate – have been shown to have really powerful influences on a lot of things that go wrong with aging,” Dr. Bartley said. The decline in immune function in the elderly is not isolated to one cell type or even one arm of the immune system. There is reason to believe ketone supplementation could improve immune function.

“T cells really love ketones for energy,” Dr. Bartley said. Some data show that production of ketone bodies is impaired in individuals with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mouse models of SARS-CoV-2 infection have found that ketogenic diets led to improvement in the response to antiviral therapy.

In her lab, she’ll assess serum markers of inflammation in patients, as well as cytokine secretion following stimulation of T cells. T cells in culture from older people produce more inflammatory cytokines than those from younger people, leading to a dysfunctional immune response. Dr. Bartley is curious to see whether ketones can fix that. Additional work will include single-cell RNA sequencing of different classes of immune cells to investigate how ketones might change metabolic pathways.

Why use ketogenic supplements instead of having people consume ketogenic diets? “There are no cheat days in the keto diet,” Dr. Bartley said. Administering the diet requires intense supervision of research participants to enforce adherence. Use of supplements will improve compliance and likely make any findings translatable to more of the population, she said.

Drawbacks of the initial formulations of ketone esters, first developed 20 years ago, included high cost and terrible taste. Dr, Stubbs, a former world class rowing champion who competed in the Ironman World Championship last year, has firsthand experience with them as a research participant.

“It tasted like drinking nail polish,” she said. Recent advances in manufacturing have made them cheaper – roughly $5 per day – and more palatable, enabling research studies such as TAKEOFF.

For Dr. Newman, the studies are early building blocks in the emerging field of geroscience, which aims to translate fundamental mechanisms of aging into therapies to treat disease.

“We’re hoping that this will be an example of a proof-of-concept geroscience study that will really help to translate ketone body biology out of the laboratory and hopefully into a diversity of clinical applications,” he said. “There’s a lot we don’t understand still about the molecular mechanisms of frailty.”

Dr. Newman and Dr. Stubbs own stock in BHB Therapeutics Ltd, the company providing the product being studied, and are inventors on patents that relate to the product being studied. The Buck Institute has an ownership interest in BHB Therapeutics. Dr. Bartley and Dr. Volek report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A century ago, pediatricians began prescribing for children with intractable seizures the “keto diet,” which they also used to treat diabetes in children and adults. The low-carbohydrate, high-fat meals were designed to induce a near hypoglycemic state, forcing the body to use ketones for fuel instead of glucose.

The strategy fell out of favor after the discovery of insulin in the 1920s and the development of better antiseizure medications. But the epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States have revived interest in low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets. The global market for the ketogenic diet topped $11 billion in 2022.

Is it just a fad, or has the public – and science – caught up with the 100-year-old approach?

Although scientists still don’t know why the ketogenic diet was effective for controlling seizures, they have documented the effectiveness of ketogenic diets for the treatment of diabetes and metabolic syndrome. An extensive body of literature has documented their use in athletes, but less is known regarding conditions such as heart disease and dementia.

Although the data are promising, much of the research has been conducted with mice or has come from trials of short-term use in humans. But recently, the National Institutes of Health awarded a $3.5 million federal grant for a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial to understand the effects of the long-term use of ketone ester supplementation on frailty. Developed 20 years ago, ketone esters are precursor molecules that the body quickly breaks down into ketone bodies when carbohydrates aren’t available.

“We’ve learned so much recently about how ketone bodies interact with aging biology,” John Newman, MD, PhD, of the Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Novato, Calif., and the study’s principal investigator, said in an interview. “And we’re only just starting to translate that out of the laboratory and into human studies to see how we can take advantage of ketone bodies to improve people’s health.”

Researchers from the Ohio State University and the University of Connecticut will also participate in the TAKEOFF (Targeting Aging With Ketone Ester in Older Adults for Function in Frailty) trial, which seeks to recruit a total of 180 people across the three sites.

Dr. Newman, assistant professor at the Buck Institute and associate professor in the division of geriatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said ketone bodies might have helpful applications in a variety of conditions of aging.

One of the common things that happen during aging is that tissues – such as of the heart, brain, and muscle – lose the ability to metabolize glucose effectively. Over time, resistance to insulin can develop.

Researchers can map out areas of the brain affected by Alzheimer’s disease, for example, by assessing where patients’ glucose uptake drops. In heart failure, the heart has difficulty obtaining enough energy from glucose and instead burns fats and ketone bodies.

How might ketones affect frailty in the elderly?

As a practicing geriatrician, Dr. Newman measures frailty by evaluating patients’ strength, endurance, and how they react to stresses. He and his colleagues believe certain molecular and cellular changes may make patients more likely to fall, to recover more slowly from surgery, or to lose mobility.

The main hypothesis of the TAKEOFF study is “that if you target these fundamental mechanisms of aging, you would be able to impact many different diseases of aging across different organ systems.”

Dr. Newman and Brianna Stubbs, DPhil, lead translational scientist at the Buck Institute, are still finishing up the BIKE (Buck Institute Ketone Ester) pilot study, which was the first double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the use of ketone ester supplements in adults older than 65 years. “The BIKE study is 12 weeks long. That’s actually the longest that anyone has studied ketone ester supplements in humans,” Dr. Stubbs said. The results will help them firm up the protocol for the TAKEOFF trial, which will likely treat patients for up to 24 weeks.

The primary outcome measure at all three study sites will be leg press strength. Researchers will also assess a variety of secondary outcomes that cover geriatric and cognitive function – measures such as gait speed and walking endurance, cognitive tests, and quality of life. And at the Buck, Dr. Newman and Dr. Stubbs will be evaluating the use of biomarkers that are often available in clinical labs – insulin, C-reactive protein, cystatin, and natriuretic peptide tests – for use as outcome measures that are responsive to treatment interventions and that can be used to track outcomes in future research on aging.

To achieve the goal of looking broadly at different organ systems likely to be affected by ketogenic supplements, they have assembled a team of coinvestigators with wide-ranging expertise in ketone and aging research.

Jeff Volek, PhD, professor in the department of human sciences at the Ohio State University, in Columbus, has contributed extensively to the literature on the use of ketogenic diets and supplements in a variety of populations, such as endurance athletes and patients with insulin resistance or diabetes.

Dr. Volek has demonstrated that ketones can have an anticatabolic effect on muscle tissue. “They could help offset some of the muscle loss with aging, which would in turn improve their physical functioning and ability to do daily activities,” he said.

The anti-inflammatory property of ketones may provide another benefit to older people. They can reduce oxidative stress, which is considered one of the chief pathologic mechanisms responsible for conditions such as heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, asthma, and arthritis.

In addition to the main study outcomes, Dr. Volek’s lab will study muscle physiology by performing biopsies at baseline and after consumption of ketogenic supplements to assess metabolic changes in muscle cells as they consume energy. Study participants will also undergo MRIs to detect subtle changes in muscle size before and after treatment.
 

 

 

From elite athletes to everyday agers

As a graduate student in Dr. Volek’s lab, Jenna Bartley, PhD, studied the effects of a ketogenic diet on elite athletes. But her work has taken a turn. Now an assistant professor in the department of immunology and the center on aging at the University of Connecticut in Farmington, she focuses on how immune responses and physical function decline with age.

“Ketogenic diets and the main ketone bodies – mainly beta-hydroxybutyrate – have been shown to have really powerful influences on a lot of things that go wrong with aging,” Dr. Bartley said. The decline in immune function in the elderly is not isolated to one cell type or even one arm of the immune system. There is reason to believe ketone supplementation could improve immune function.

“T cells really love ketones for energy,” Dr. Bartley said. Some data show that production of ketone bodies is impaired in individuals with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mouse models of SARS-CoV-2 infection have found that ketogenic diets led to improvement in the response to antiviral therapy.

In her lab, she’ll assess serum markers of inflammation in patients, as well as cytokine secretion following stimulation of T cells. T cells in culture from older people produce more inflammatory cytokines than those from younger people, leading to a dysfunctional immune response. Dr. Bartley is curious to see whether ketones can fix that. Additional work will include single-cell RNA sequencing of different classes of immune cells to investigate how ketones might change metabolic pathways.

Why use ketogenic supplements instead of having people consume ketogenic diets? “There are no cheat days in the keto diet,” Dr. Bartley said. Administering the diet requires intense supervision of research participants to enforce adherence. Use of supplements will improve compliance and likely make any findings translatable to more of the population, she said.

Drawbacks of the initial formulations of ketone esters, first developed 20 years ago, included high cost and terrible taste. Dr, Stubbs, a former world class rowing champion who competed in the Ironman World Championship last year, has firsthand experience with them as a research participant.

“It tasted like drinking nail polish,” she said. Recent advances in manufacturing have made them cheaper – roughly $5 per day – and more palatable, enabling research studies such as TAKEOFF.

For Dr. Newman, the studies are early building blocks in the emerging field of geroscience, which aims to translate fundamental mechanisms of aging into therapies to treat disease.

“We’re hoping that this will be an example of a proof-of-concept geroscience study that will really help to translate ketone body biology out of the laboratory and hopefully into a diversity of clinical applications,” he said. “There’s a lot we don’t understand still about the molecular mechanisms of frailty.”

Dr. Newman and Dr. Stubbs own stock in BHB Therapeutics Ltd, the company providing the product being studied, and are inventors on patents that relate to the product being studied. The Buck Institute has an ownership interest in BHB Therapeutics. Dr. Bartley and Dr. Volek report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Older women who get mammograms risk overdiagnosis

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 09/27/2023 - 09:31

 

TOPLINE:

Women who continue breast cancer screening after age 70 face a considerable risk for overdiagnosis.

METHODOLOGY:

  • Overdiagnosis – the risk of detecting and treating cancers that would never have caused issues in a person’s lifetime – is increasingly recognized as a harm of breast cancer screening; however, the scope of the problem among older women remains uncertain. 
  • To get an idea, investigators linked Medicare claims data with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data for 54,635 women 70 years or older to compare the incidence of breast cancer and breast cancer–specific death among women who continued screening mammography with those who did not.
  • The women all had undergone recent screening mammograms and had no history of breast cancer at study entry. Those who had a subsequent mammogram within 3 years were classified as undergoing continued screening while those who did not were classified as not undergoing continued screening.
  • Overdiagnosis was defined as the difference in cumulative incidence of breast cancer between screened and unscreened women divided by the cumulative incidence among screened women. 
  • Results were adjusted for potential confounders, including age, race, and ethnicity.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Over 80% of women 70-84 years old and more than 60% of women 85 years or older continued screening.
  • Among women 70-74 years old, the adjusted cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 6.1 cases per 100 screened women vs. 4.2 cases per 100 unscreened women; for women aged 75-84 years old, the cumulative incidence was 4.9 per 100 screened women vs. 2.6 per 100 unscreened women, and for women 85 years and older, the cumulative incidence was 2.8 vs. 1.3 per 100, respectively.
  • Estimates of overdiagnosis ranged from 31% of breast cancer cases among screened women in the 70-74 age group to 54% of cases in the 85 and older group.
  • The researchers found no statistically significant reduction in breast cancer–specific death associated with screening in any age or life-expectancy group. Overdiagnosis appeared to be driven by in situ and localized invasive breast cancer, not advanced breast cancer.

IN PRACTICE:

The proportion of older women who continue to receive screening mammograms and may experience breast cancer overdiagnosis is “considerable” and “increases with advancing age and with decreasing life expectancy,” the authors conclude. Given potential benefits and harms of screening in this population, “patient preferences, including risk tolerance, comfort with uncertainty, and willingness to undergo treatment, are important for informing screening decisions.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ilana Richman, MD, MHS, of the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The definition of screening mammography in the study may have misclassified some diagnostic mammograms as screening. Using a more conservative definition of screening mammogram, which largely accounted for this misclassification, estimates for overdiagnosis were smaller, ranging from 15% of cases in the 70-74 age group to 44% of cases in the 85 and older group. Results could not be adjusted for breast density, family history, and other breast cancer risk factors not captured by the data.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute. One author reported funding from Genentech and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

TOPLINE:

Women who continue breast cancer screening after age 70 face a considerable risk for overdiagnosis.

METHODOLOGY:

  • Overdiagnosis – the risk of detecting and treating cancers that would never have caused issues in a person’s lifetime – is increasingly recognized as a harm of breast cancer screening; however, the scope of the problem among older women remains uncertain. 
  • To get an idea, investigators linked Medicare claims data with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data for 54,635 women 70 years or older to compare the incidence of breast cancer and breast cancer–specific death among women who continued screening mammography with those who did not.
  • The women all had undergone recent screening mammograms and had no history of breast cancer at study entry. Those who had a subsequent mammogram within 3 years were classified as undergoing continued screening while those who did not were classified as not undergoing continued screening.
  • Overdiagnosis was defined as the difference in cumulative incidence of breast cancer between screened and unscreened women divided by the cumulative incidence among screened women. 
  • Results were adjusted for potential confounders, including age, race, and ethnicity.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Over 80% of women 70-84 years old and more than 60% of women 85 years or older continued screening.
  • Among women 70-74 years old, the adjusted cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 6.1 cases per 100 screened women vs. 4.2 cases per 100 unscreened women; for women aged 75-84 years old, the cumulative incidence was 4.9 per 100 screened women vs. 2.6 per 100 unscreened women, and for women 85 years and older, the cumulative incidence was 2.8 vs. 1.3 per 100, respectively.
  • Estimates of overdiagnosis ranged from 31% of breast cancer cases among screened women in the 70-74 age group to 54% of cases in the 85 and older group.
  • The researchers found no statistically significant reduction in breast cancer–specific death associated with screening in any age or life-expectancy group. Overdiagnosis appeared to be driven by in situ and localized invasive breast cancer, not advanced breast cancer.

IN PRACTICE:

The proportion of older women who continue to receive screening mammograms and may experience breast cancer overdiagnosis is “considerable” and “increases with advancing age and with decreasing life expectancy,” the authors conclude. Given potential benefits and harms of screening in this population, “patient preferences, including risk tolerance, comfort with uncertainty, and willingness to undergo treatment, are important for informing screening decisions.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ilana Richman, MD, MHS, of the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The definition of screening mammography in the study may have misclassified some diagnostic mammograms as screening. Using a more conservative definition of screening mammogram, which largely accounted for this misclassification, estimates for overdiagnosis were smaller, ranging from 15% of cases in the 70-74 age group to 44% of cases in the 85 and older group. Results could not be adjusted for breast density, family history, and other breast cancer risk factors not captured by the data.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute. One author reported funding from Genentech and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

 

TOPLINE:

Women who continue breast cancer screening after age 70 face a considerable risk for overdiagnosis.

METHODOLOGY:

  • Overdiagnosis – the risk of detecting and treating cancers that would never have caused issues in a person’s lifetime – is increasingly recognized as a harm of breast cancer screening; however, the scope of the problem among older women remains uncertain. 
  • To get an idea, investigators linked Medicare claims data with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data for 54,635 women 70 years or older to compare the incidence of breast cancer and breast cancer–specific death among women who continued screening mammography with those who did not.
  • The women all had undergone recent screening mammograms and had no history of breast cancer at study entry. Those who had a subsequent mammogram within 3 years were classified as undergoing continued screening while those who did not were classified as not undergoing continued screening.
  • Overdiagnosis was defined as the difference in cumulative incidence of breast cancer between screened and unscreened women divided by the cumulative incidence among screened women. 
  • Results were adjusted for potential confounders, including age, race, and ethnicity.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Over 80% of women 70-84 years old and more than 60% of women 85 years or older continued screening.
  • Among women 70-74 years old, the adjusted cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 6.1 cases per 100 screened women vs. 4.2 cases per 100 unscreened women; for women aged 75-84 years old, the cumulative incidence was 4.9 per 100 screened women vs. 2.6 per 100 unscreened women, and for women 85 years and older, the cumulative incidence was 2.8 vs. 1.3 per 100, respectively.
  • Estimates of overdiagnosis ranged from 31% of breast cancer cases among screened women in the 70-74 age group to 54% of cases in the 85 and older group.
  • The researchers found no statistically significant reduction in breast cancer–specific death associated with screening in any age or life-expectancy group. Overdiagnosis appeared to be driven by in situ and localized invasive breast cancer, not advanced breast cancer.

IN PRACTICE:

The proportion of older women who continue to receive screening mammograms and may experience breast cancer overdiagnosis is “considerable” and “increases with advancing age and with decreasing life expectancy,” the authors conclude. Given potential benefits and harms of screening in this population, “patient preferences, including risk tolerance, comfort with uncertainty, and willingness to undergo treatment, are important for informing screening decisions.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ilana Richman, MD, MHS, of the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The definition of screening mammography in the study may have misclassified some diagnostic mammograms as screening. Using a more conservative definition of screening mammogram, which largely accounted for this misclassification, estimates for overdiagnosis were smaller, ranging from 15% of cases in the 70-74 age group to 44% of cases in the 85 and older group. Results could not be adjusted for breast density, family history, and other breast cancer risk factors not captured by the data.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute. One author reported funding from Genentech and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Atypical antipsychotics no safer than haloperidol for postoperative delirium: Study

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 09/14/2023 - 09:22

A new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine found atypical antipsychotics were not safer than haloperidol when it comes to treating postoperative delirium in older patients.

Dae Hyun Kim, MD, ScD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, who is the lead author of the study, said the findings were especially relevant, as the use of atypical antipsychotics, such as quetiapine, olanzapine, and risperidone, has increased while use of haloperidol has fallen.

A separate but related study led by Dr. Kim, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, showed that between 2008 and 2018, use of haloperidol and benzodiazepines in community hospitals and academic medical centers decreased while use of atypical antipsychotics, antidepressants, antiepileptics, and dexmedetomidine rose (P < .01).

“Clinicians should not think atypical antipsychotics are the safer option to haloperidol,” Dr. Kim said. “We should focus on reducing prescriptions.”
 

Postoperative delirium

Postoperative delirium is the among the most common complications of surgery in older adults, affecting between 15% and 50% of those patients who undergo major operations. Postoperative delirium is associated with longer hospital stays, poor functional recovery, institutionalization, dementia, and death.

According to research from Harvard Medical School, postoperative delirium is linked to a 40% faster rate of cognitive decline among patients who develop the condition, compared with those who do not experience the complication.

While older patients often feel tired or a bit off after surgery, marked changes in mental function, such as confusion, disorientation, agitation, aggression, hallucinations, or persistent sleepiness, could indicate postoperative delirium.

“Antipsychotic medications are most commonly used off label for managing those symptoms of delirium,” Dr. Kim said. “What we’ve done is look at the comparative safety of two other drugs.”
 

Results

In the retrospective cohort study, researchers analyzed data from 17,115 patients aged 65 years and older who were without psychiatric disorders and who received oral antipsychotics after major surgery requiring general anesthesia.

“These results don’t apply to people in emergent situations where there is severe behavior that threatens their safety and others,” Dr. Kim noted.

There was no statistically significant difference in the risk for in-hospital death among patients treated with haloperidol (3.7%), olanzapine (2.8%; relative risk, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.27), quetiapine (2.6%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04), or risperidone (3.3%; RR, 0.90; CI, 0.53-1.41).

The study also found statistically insignificant differences in the risk for nonfatal clinical events. Those risks ranged from 2% to 2.6% for a cardiac arrhythmia, from 4.2% to 4.6% for pneumonia, and from 0.6% to 1.2% for strokes or transient ischemic attacks.

Esther Oh, MD, PhD, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that caring for patients who experience acute changes in mental status or behaviors during hospitalization can be difficult.

“Although there is a lot of evidence in the literature that nonpharmacological methods to address these problems are effective, staff shortages of recent years have made it even more difficult for the care team to institute these methods,” Dr. Oh said in an interview.
 

 

 

Prevention

Dr. Oh and Dr. Kim agreed that nonpharmacologic strategies, such as ensuring good nutrition and hydration, daily walking, cognitive-stimulating activities, and good sleep hygiene, are effective and safe in preventing postoperative delirium.

“These are common sense interventions, but they require a lot of staffing and training,” Dr. Kim said. “It’s a resource-intensive intervention that requires really changing the way hospital staff interacts with older patients in the hospital.”

Second-generation antipsychotic medications often are thought to be safer than haloperidol in terms of side effects, Dr. Oh said, but the new findings challenge that assumption.

“Based on the findings from this study and on prior studies of antipsychotic use for older adults, use of all antipsychotics, both first and second generation, should be reviewed carefully to ensure they are being administered at the lowest effective dose for the shortest duration possible,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kim and Dr. Oh disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

A new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine found atypical antipsychotics were not safer than haloperidol when it comes to treating postoperative delirium in older patients.

Dae Hyun Kim, MD, ScD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, who is the lead author of the study, said the findings were especially relevant, as the use of atypical antipsychotics, such as quetiapine, olanzapine, and risperidone, has increased while use of haloperidol has fallen.

A separate but related study led by Dr. Kim, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, showed that between 2008 and 2018, use of haloperidol and benzodiazepines in community hospitals and academic medical centers decreased while use of atypical antipsychotics, antidepressants, antiepileptics, and dexmedetomidine rose (P < .01).

“Clinicians should not think atypical antipsychotics are the safer option to haloperidol,” Dr. Kim said. “We should focus on reducing prescriptions.”
 

Postoperative delirium

Postoperative delirium is the among the most common complications of surgery in older adults, affecting between 15% and 50% of those patients who undergo major operations. Postoperative delirium is associated with longer hospital stays, poor functional recovery, institutionalization, dementia, and death.

According to research from Harvard Medical School, postoperative delirium is linked to a 40% faster rate of cognitive decline among patients who develop the condition, compared with those who do not experience the complication.

While older patients often feel tired or a bit off after surgery, marked changes in mental function, such as confusion, disorientation, agitation, aggression, hallucinations, or persistent sleepiness, could indicate postoperative delirium.

“Antipsychotic medications are most commonly used off label for managing those symptoms of delirium,” Dr. Kim said. “What we’ve done is look at the comparative safety of two other drugs.”
 

Results

In the retrospective cohort study, researchers analyzed data from 17,115 patients aged 65 years and older who were without psychiatric disorders and who received oral antipsychotics after major surgery requiring general anesthesia.

“These results don’t apply to people in emergent situations where there is severe behavior that threatens their safety and others,” Dr. Kim noted.

There was no statistically significant difference in the risk for in-hospital death among patients treated with haloperidol (3.7%), olanzapine (2.8%; relative risk, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.27), quetiapine (2.6%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04), or risperidone (3.3%; RR, 0.90; CI, 0.53-1.41).

The study also found statistically insignificant differences in the risk for nonfatal clinical events. Those risks ranged from 2% to 2.6% for a cardiac arrhythmia, from 4.2% to 4.6% for pneumonia, and from 0.6% to 1.2% for strokes or transient ischemic attacks.

Esther Oh, MD, PhD, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that caring for patients who experience acute changes in mental status or behaviors during hospitalization can be difficult.

“Although there is a lot of evidence in the literature that nonpharmacological methods to address these problems are effective, staff shortages of recent years have made it even more difficult for the care team to institute these methods,” Dr. Oh said in an interview.
 

 

 

Prevention

Dr. Oh and Dr. Kim agreed that nonpharmacologic strategies, such as ensuring good nutrition and hydration, daily walking, cognitive-stimulating activities, and good sleep hygiene, are effective and safe in preventing postoperative delirium.

“These are common sense interventions, but they require a lot of staffing and training,” Dr. Kim said. “It’s a resource-intensive intervention that requires really changing the way hospital staff interacts with older patients in the hospital.”

Second-generation antipsychotic medications often are thought to be safer than haloperidol in terms of side effects, Dr. Oh said, but the new findings challenge that assumption.

“Based on the findings from this study and on prior studies of antipsychotic use for older adults, use of all antipsychotics, both first and second generation, should be reviewed carefully to ensure they are being administered at the lowest effective dose for the shortest duration possible,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kim and Dr. Oh disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine found atypical antipsychotics were not safer than haloperidol when it comes to treating postoperative delirium in older patients.

Dae Hyun Kim, MD, ScD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, who is the lead author of the study, said the findings were especially relevant, as the use of atypical antipsychotics, such as quetiapine, olanzapine, and risperidone, has increased while use of haloperidol has fallen.

A separate but related study led by Dr. Kim, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, showed that between 2008 and 2018, use of haloperidol and benzodiazepines in community hospitals and academic medical centers decreased while use of atypical antipsychotics, antidepressants, antiepileptics, and dexmedetomidine rose (P < .01).

“Clinicians should not think atypical antipsychotics are the safer option to haloperidol,” Dr. Kim said. “We should focus on reducing prescriptions.”
 

Postoperative delirium

Postoperative delirium is the among the most common complications of surgery in older adults, affecting between 15% and 50% of those patients who undergo major operations. Postoperative delirium is associated with longer hospital stays, poor functional recovery, institutionalization, dementia, and death.

According to research from Harvard Medical School, postoperative delirium is linked to a 40% faster rate of cognitive decline among patients who develop the condition, compared with those who do not experience the complication.

While older patients often feel tired or a bit off after surgery, marked changes in mental function, such as confusion, disorientation, agitation, aggression, hallucinations, or persistent sleepiness, could indicate postoperative delirium.

“Antipsychotic medications are most commonly used off label for managing those symptoms of delirium,” Dr. Kim said. “What we’ve done is look at the comparative safety of two other drugs.”
 

Results

In the retrospective cohort study, researchers analyzed data from 17,115 patients aged 65 years and older who were without psychiatric disorders and who received oral antipsychotics after major surgery requiring general anesthesia.

“These results don’t apply to people in emergent situations where there is severe behavior that threatens their safety and others,” Dr. Kim noted.

There was no statistically significant difference in the risk for in-hospital death among patients treated with haloperidol (3.7%), olanzapine (2.8%; relative risk, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.27), quetiapine (2.6%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04), or risperidone (3.3%; RR, 0.90; CI, 0.53-1.41).

The study also found statistically insignificant differences in the risk for nonfatal clinical events. Those risks ranged from 2% to 2.6% for a cardiac arrhythmia, from 4.2% to 4.6% for pneumonia, and from 0.6% to 1.2% for strokes or transient ischemic attacks.

Esther Oh, MD, PhD, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that caring for patients who experience acute changes in mental status or behaviors during hospitalization can be difficult.

“Although there is a lot of evidence in the literature that nonpharmacological methods to address these problems are effective, staff shortages of recent years have made it even more difficult for the care team to institute these methods,” Dr. Oh said in an interview.
 

 

 

Prevention

Dr. Oh and Dr. Kim agreed that nonpharmacologic strategies, such as ensuring good nutrition and hydration, daily walking, cognitive-stimulating activities, and good sleep hygiene, are effective and safe in preventing postoperative delirium.

“These are common sense interventions, but they require a lot of staffing and training,” Dr. Kim said. “It’s a resource-intensive intervention that requires really changing the way hospital staff interacts with older patients in the hospital.”

Second-generation antipsychotic medications often are thought to be safer than haloperidol in terms of side effects, Dr. Oh said, but the new findings challenge that assumption.

“Based on the findings from this study and on prior studies of antipsychotic use for older adults, use of all antipsychotics, both first and second generation, should be reviewed carefully to ensure they are being administered at the lowest effective dose for the shortest duration possible,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kim and Dr. Oh disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article