Melissa D Aldridge1, Andrew J Epstein, Abraham A Brody, Eric J Lee, Emily Cherlin, Elizabeth H Bradley. 1. *Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York †Geriatrics Research, Education and Clinical Center, James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bronx, NY ‡Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA §New York University College of Nursing, New York, NY ∥Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act requires hospices to report quality measures across a range of processes and practices. Yet uncertainties exist regarding the impact of hospice preferred practices on patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Assess the impact of 6 hospice preferred practices and hospice organizational characteristics on hospital utilization and death using the first national data on hospice preferred practices. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study (2008-2011) of Medicare beneficiaries (N=149,814) newly enrolled in a national random sample of hospices (N=577) from the National Hospice Survey (84% response rate) and followed until death. OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of patients at each hospice admitted to the hospital, emergency department (ED), and intensive care unit (ICU), and who died in the hospital after hospice enrollment. RESULTS: Hospices that reported assessing patient preferences for site of death at admission had lower odds of being in the highest quartile for hospital death (AOR=0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.93) and ED visits (AOR=0.27; 95% CI, 0.10-0.76). Hospices that reported more frequently monitoring symptoms had lower odds of being in the highest quartile for ICU stays (AOR=0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.94). In adjusted analyses, a higher proportion of patients at for-profit compared with nonprofit hospices experienced a hospital admission (15.3% vs. 10.9%, P<0.001), ED visit (21.8% vs. 15.6%, P<0.001), and ICU stay (5.1% vs. 3.0%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalization of patients following hospice enrollment varies substantially across hospices. Two of the 6 preferred practices examined were associated with hospitalization rates and for-profit hospices had persistently high hospitalization rates regardless of preferred practice implementation.
BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act requires hospices to report quality measures across a range of processes and practices. Yet uncertainties exist regarding the impact of hospice preferred practices on patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Assess the impact of 6 hospice preferred practices and hospice organizational characteristics on hospital utilization and death using the first national data on hospice preferred practices. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study (2008-2011) of Medicare beneficiaries (N=149,814) newly enrolled in a national random sample of hospices (N=577) from the National Hospice Survey (84% response rate) and followed until death. OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of patients at each hospice admitted to the hospital, emergency department (ED), and intensive care unit (ICU), and who died in the hospital after hospice enrollment. RESULTS: Hospices that reported assessing patient preferences for site of death at admission had lower odds of being in the highest quartile for hospital death (AOR=0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.93) and ED visits (AOR=0.27; 95% CI, 0.10-0.76). Hospices that reported more frequently monitoring symptoms had lower odds of being in the highest quartile for ICU stays (AOR=0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.94). In adjusted analyses, a higher proportion of patients at for-profit compared with nonprofit hospices experienced a hospital admission (15.3% vs. 10.9%, P<0.001), ED visit (21.8% vs. 15.6%, P<0.001), and ICU stay (5.1% vs. 3.0%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalization of patients following hospice enrollment varies substantially across hospices. Two of the 6 preferred practices examined were associated with hospitalization rates and for-profit hospices had persistently high hospitalization rates regardless of preferred practice implementation.
Authors: Melissa D A Carlson; Jeph Herrin; Qingling Du; Andrew J Epstein; Colleen L Barry; R Sean Morrison; Anthony L Back; Elizabeth H Bradley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-08-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Pedro Gozalo; Joan M Teno; Susan L Mitchell; Jon Skinner; Julie Bynum; Denise Tyler; Vincent Mor Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Karl A Lorenz; Susan L Ettner; Kenneth E Rosenfeld; David M Carlisle; Barbara Leake; Steven M Asch Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Melissa D Aldridge Carlson; Colleen L Barry; Emily J Cherlin; Ruth McCorkle; Elizabeth H Bradley Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Melissa D A Carlson; Jeph Herrin; Qingling Du; Andrew J Epstein; Emily Cherlin; R Sean Morrison; Elizabeth H Bradley Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Susan L Mitchell; Joan M Teno; Dan K Kiely; Michele L Shaffer; Richard N Jones; Holly G Prigerson; Ladislav Volicer; Jane L Givens; Mary Beth Hamel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Melissa D Aldridge; Andrew J Epstein; Abraham A Brody; Eric J Lee; R Sean Morrison; Elizabeth H Bradley Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Melissa D Aldridge; Katherine A Ornstein; Karen McKendrick; Jaison Moreno; Jennifer M Reckrey; Lihua Li Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Anna E Bone; Catherine J Evans; Simon N Etkind; Katherine E Sleeman; Barbara Gomes; Melissa Aldridge; Jeff Keep; Julia Verne; Irene J Higginson Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 3.367