Anil N Makam1,2, Oanh Kieu Nguyen1,2, Lei Xuan2, Michael E Miller2, James S Goodwin3, Ethan A Halm1,2. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 2. Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 3. Department of Medicine and Sealy Center on Aging, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston.
Abstract
Importance: Despite providing an overlapping level of care, it is unknown why hospitalized older adults are transferred to long-term acute care hospitals (LTACs) vs less costly skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for postacute care. Objective: To examine factors associated with variation in LTAC vs SNF transfer among hospitalized older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: We conducted this retrospective observational cohort study of hospitalized older adults (≥65 years) transferred to an LTAC vs SNF during fiscal year 2012 using national 5% Medicare data. Main Outcomes and Measures: Predictors of LTAC transfer were assessed using a multilevel mixed-effects model adjusting for patient-, hospital-, and region-level factors. We estimated variation partition coefficients and adjusted hospital- and region-specific LTAC transfer rates using sequential models. Results: Among 65 525 hospitalized older adults (42 461 [64.8%] women; 39 908 [60.9%] ≥85 years) transferred to an LTAC or SNF, 3093 (4.7%) were transferred to an LTAC. We identified 29 patient-, 3 hospital-, and 5 region-level independent predictors. The strongest predictors of LTAC transfer were receiving a tracheostomy (adjusted odds ration [aOR], 23.8; 95% CI, 15.8-35.9) and being hospitalized in close proximity to an LTAC (0-2 vs >42 miles; aOR, 8.4, 95% CI, 6.1-11.5). After adjusting for case-mix, differences between patients explained 52.1% (95% CI, 47.7%-56.5%) of the variation in LTAC use. The remainder was attributable to hospital (15.0%; 95% CI, 12.3%-17.6%), and regional differences (32.9%; 95% CI, 27.6%-38.3%). Case-mix adjusted LTAC use was very high in the South (17%-37%) compared with the Pacific Northwest, North, and Northeast (<2.2%). From the full multilevel model, the median adjusted hospital LTAC transfer rate was 2.1% (10th-90th percentile, 0.24%-10.8%). Even within a region, adjusted hospital LTAC transfer rates varied substantially (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.23-0.30). Conclusions and Relevance: Although many patient-level factors were associated with LTAC use, half of the variation in LTAC vs SNF transfer is independent of patients' illness severity or clinical complexity, and is explained by where the patient was hospitalized and in what region, with far greater use in the South. Even among hospitals in regions with similar LTAC access, there was considerable variation in LTAC use. Given the higher expense associated with LTACs vs SNFs, greater attention is needed to define the optimal role of LTACs in the postacute care of older adults.
Importance: Despite providing an overlapping level of care, it is unknown why hospitalized older adults are transferred to long-term acute care hospitals (LTACs) vs less costly skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for postacute care. Objective: To examine factors associated with variation in LTAC vs SNF transfer among hospitalized older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: We conducted this retrospective observational cohort study of hospitalized older adults (≥65 years) transferred to an LTAC vs SNF during fiscal year 2012 using national 5% Medicare data. Main Outcomes and Measures: Predictors of LTAC transfer were assessed using a multilevel mixed-effects model adjusting for patient-, hospital-, and region-level factors. We estimated variation partition coefficients and adjusted hospital- and region-specific LTAC transfer rates using sequential models. Results: Among 65 525 hospitalized older adults (42 461 [64.8%] women; 39 908 [60.9%] ≥85 years) transferred to an LTAC or SNF, 3093 (4.7%) were transferred to an LTAC. We identified 29 patient-, 3 hospital-, and 5 region-level independent predictors. The strongest predictors of LTAC transfer were receiving a tracheostomy (adjusted odds ration [aOR], 23.8; 95% CI, 15.8-35.9) and being hospitalized in close proximity to an LTAC (0-2 vs >42 miles; aOR, 8.4, 95% CI, 6.1-11.5). After adjusting for case-mix, differences between patients explained 52.1% (95% CI, 47.7%-56.5%) of the variation in LTAC use. The remainder was attributable to hospital (15.0%; 95% CI, 12.3%-17.6%), and regional differences (32.9%; 95% CI, 27.6%-38.3%). Case-mix adjusted LTAC use was very high in the South (17%-37%) compared with the Pacific Northwest, North, and Northeast (<2.2%). From the full multilevel model, the median adjusted hospital LTAC transfer rate was 2.1% (10th-90th percentile, 0.24%-10.8%). Even within a region, adjusted hospital LTAC transfer rates varied substantially (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.23-0.30). Conclusions and Relevance: Although many patient-level factors were associated with LTAC use, half of the variation in LTAC vs SNF transfer is independent of patients' illness severity or clinical complexity, and is explained by where the patient was hospitalized and in what region, with far greater use in the South. Even among hospitals in regions with similar LTAC access, there was considerable variation in LTAC use. Given the higher expense associated with LTACs vs SNFs, greater attention is needed to define the optimal role of LTACs in the postacute care of older adults.
Authors: Jeremy M Kahn; Rachel M Werner; Guy David; Thomas R Ten Have; Nicole M Benson; David A Asch Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Amit S Chitnis; Jonathan R Edwards; Phillip M Ricks; Dawn M Sievert; Scott K Fridkin; Carolyn V Gould Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2012-08-23 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Elizabeth M Viglianti; Sean M Bagshaw; Rinaldo Bellomo; Joanne McPeake; Xiao Qing Wang; Sarah Seelye; Theodore J Iwashyna Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-06-04 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Laura M Keohane; Matthew F Mart; E Wesley Ely; Pikki Lai; Audrey Cheng; Anil N Makam; David G Stevenson Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Anil N Makam; Oanh Kieu Nguyen; Benjamin Kirby; Michael E Miller; Lei Xuan; Ethan A Halm Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Alisha Lussiez; John R Montgomery; Naveen F Sangji; Zhaohui Fan; Bryant W Oliphant; Mark R Hemmila; Justin B Dimick; John W Scott Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 3.697
Authors: Raj G Kumar; Wenhan Zhang; Emily Evans; Kristen Dams-O'Connor; Kali S Thomas Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2022 Mar-Apr 01 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Bruce Y Lee; Sarah M Bartsch; Michael Y Lin; Lindsey Asti; Joel Welling; Leslie E Mueller; Jim Leonard; Shawn T Brown; Kruti Doshi; Sarah K Kemble; Elizabeth A Mitgang; Robert A Weinstein; William E Trick; Mary K Hayden Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 4.897