Alicia I Arbaje1, Qilu Yu, Karina A Newhall, Bruce Leff. 1. *Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine †Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Baltimore ‡Westat, Rockville, MD §Department of Surgery, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH ∥Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health ¶Department of Community and Public Health, Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The availability of hospital services for older adults nationwide is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To present the development of the Senior Care Services Scale (SCSS) through: (1) identification of hospital services relevant to the care of older adults; (2) development of a taxonomy classifying these services; and (3) description of prevalence, geographic variation, and trends in service provision in US hospitals over time. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of US hospitals in 1999 and 2006 rounds of American Hospital Association Annual Survey of Hospitals (n=4998 and 4831 hospitals, respectively). Exploratory factor analysis was used to create the SCSS, and confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine services over time. The paper reports prevalence of services nationwide. RESULTS: The SCSS consisted of 2 service groups: (1) Inpatient Specialty Care (IP): geriatrics, palliative care, psychiatric geriatrics, pain management, social work, case management, rehabilitation, and hospice; and (2) Postacute Community Care (PA): skilled nursing, intermediate care, other long-term care, assisted living, retirement housing, adult day care, and home health services. Over time, hospitals offered more IP services and fewer PA services. The distribution of services did not mirror the distribution of where older adults reside in the United States. CONCLUSIONS: The development of the SCSS provides important information about senior care services before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The apparent mismatch of hospital services and demographic trends suggests that many US hospitals may not provide a seamless continuum of care for an increasing population of older adults.
BACKGROUND: The availability of hospital services for older adults nationwide is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To present the development of the Senior Care Services Scale (SCSS) through: (1) identification of hospital services relevant to the care of older adults; (2) development of a taxonomy classifying these services; and (3) description of prevalence, geographic variation, and trends in service provision in US hospitals over time. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of US hospitals in 1999 and 2006 rounds of American Hospital Association Annual Survey of Hospitals (n=4998 and 4831 hospitals, respectively). Exploratory factor analysis was used to create the SCSS, and confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine services over time. The paper reports prevalence of services nationwide. RESULTS: The SCSS consisted of 2 service groups: (1) Inpatient Specialty Care (IP): geriatrics, palliative care, psychiatric geriatrics, pain management, social work, case management, rehabilitation, and hospice; and (2) Postacute Community Care (PA): skilled nursing, intermediate care, other long-term care, assisted living, retirement housing, adult day care, and home health services. Over time, hospitals offered more IP services and fewer PA services. The distribution of services did not mirror the distribution of where older adults reside in the United States. CONCLUSIONS: The development of the SCSS provides important information about senior care services before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The apparent mismatch of hospital services and demographic trends suggests that many US hospitals may not provide a seamless continuum of care for an increasing population of older adults.
Authors: Jerry H Gurwitz; Terry S Field; Leslie R Harrold; Jeffrey Rothschild; Kristin Debellis; Andrew C Seger; Cynthia Cadoret; Leslie S Fish; Lawrence Garber; Michael Kelleher; David W Bates Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-03-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Alicia I Arbaje; David D Maron; Qilu Yu; V Inez Wendel; Elizabeth Tanner; Chad Boult; Kathryn J Eubank; Samuel C Durso Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Mary D Naylor; Linda H Aiken; Ellen T Kurtzman; Danielle M Olds; Karen B Hirschman Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Nancy L Schoenborn; Alicia I Arbaje; Kathryn J Eubank; Kenric Maynor; Joseph A Carrese Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 5.562