The Characteristics of Physicians Who Primarily Practice in Nursing Homes

Understanding Long-Stay Gabapentin Use Increases: A National Nursing Home Clinician Survey on Prescribing Intent

OBJECTIVES

Explore the indications for long-stay gabapentin use and elucidate the factors spurring the rapid increase in gabapentin prescribing in nursing homes (NHs).

METHODS

National cross-sectional survey of NH prescribers distributed anonymously using SurveyMonkey. Sampling for convenience was obtained through crowdsourcing, leveraging collaborations with NH clinician organizations. Developed by a multidisciplinary team, pilot data/existing literature informed survey content.

RESULTS

A total of 131 surveys completed. Participants: 71% white, 52% female, 71% physicians. Off-label gabapentin prescribing was ubiquitous. Nearly every clinician used gabapentin for neuropathic pain, most for any form of pain. Many clinicians also prescribe gabapentin to moderate psychiatric symptoms and behaviors. Clinicians' prescribing was influenced by opioid, antipsychotic, and anxiolytic reduction policies because gabapentin was perceived as an unmonitored and safer alternative.

CONCLUSIONS

Off-label gabapentin increases are closely linked to opioid reduction efforts as more NH clinicians utilize gabapentin as an unmonitored opioid alternative. Our results highlight, however, the less recognized significance of long-stay prescribing for psychiatric symptoms and the similar contribution of psychotropic reduction initiatives, a phenomenon warranting further scrutiny.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians perceive gabapentin as safer than the drugs it is replacing. Whether this is true remains unclear; the individual- and population-level risks of increased gabapentin use are largely unknown.

Nurse Practitioner Care, Scope of Practice, and End-of-Life Outcomes for Nursing Home Residents With Dementia

Importance

Nursing home residents with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) often receive burdensome care at the end of life. Nurse practitioners (NPs) provide an increasing share of primary care in nursing homes, but how NP care is associated with end-of-life outcomes for this population is unknown.

Objectives

To examine the association of NP care with end-of-life outcomes for nursing home residents with ADRD and assess whether these associations differ according to state-level NP scope of practice regulations.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study using fee-for-service Medicare claims included 334 618 US nursing home residents with ADRD who died between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from April 6, 2015, to December 31, 2018.

Exposures

Share of nursing home primary care visits by NPs, classified as minimal (<10% of visits), moderate (10%-50% of visits), and extensive (>50% of visits). State NP scope of practice regulations were classified as full vs restrictive in 2 domains: practice authority (authorization to practice and prescribe independently) and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) authority (authorization to sign DNR orders).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Hospitalization within the last 30 days of life and death with hospice. Linear probability models with hospital referral region fixed effects controlling for resident characteristics, visit volume, and geographic factors were used to estimate whether the associations between NP care and outcomes varied across states with different scope of practice regulations.

Results

Among 334 618 nursing home decedents (mean [SD] age at death, 86.6 [8.2] years; 69.3% female), 40.5% received minimal NP care, 21.4% received moderate NP care, and 38.0% received extensive NP care. Adjusted hospitalization rates were lower for residents with extensive NP care (31.6% [95% CI, 31.4%-31.9%]) vs minimal NP care (32.3% [95% CI, 32.1%-32.6%]), whereas adjusted hospice rates were higher for residents with extensive (55.6% [95% CI, 55.3%-55.9%]) vs minimal (53.6% [95% CI, 53.3%-53.8%]) NP care. However, there was significant variation by state scope of practice. For example, in full practice authority states, adjusted hospice rates were 2.88 percentage points higher (95% CI, 1.99-3.77; P < .001) for residents with extensive vs minimal NP care, but the difference between these same groups was 1.77 percentage points (95% CI, 1.32-2.23; P < .001) in restricted practice states. Hospitalization rates were 1.76 percentage points lower (95% CI, -2.52 to -1.00; P < .001) for decedents with extensive vs minimal NP care in full practice authority states, but the difference between these same groups in restricted practice states was only 0.43 percentage points (95% CI, -0.84 to -0.01; P < .04). Similar patterns were observed in analyses focused on DNR authority.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cohort study suggest that NPs appear to be important care providers during the end-of-life period for many nursing home residents with ADRD and that regulations governing NP scope of practice may have implications for end-of-life hospitalizations and hospice use in this population.

Focusing on Provider Quality Measurement: Continued Consensus and Feasibility Testing of Practice-Based Quality Measures for Primary Care Providers in Long-Term Care

Medical providers in long-term care (LTC) use a unique skillset in delivering comprehensive resident care. Publicly reported quality measures (QMs) do not directly emphasize medical provider competency and their role in care. The impact of providers is understudied and to a large extent, unknown. Our objective was to define, test, and validate QMs to pragmatically measure the practice-based quality of medical providers in a pilot study. We included 7 North American LTC homes with data from practicing medical providers for LTC residents. We engaged in a 4-phased approach. In phase 1, experts rated 95 candidate QMs using 5 pragmatic-focused criteria in a RAND-modified Delphi process. Phase 2 involved specifying 37 QMs for collection (4 QMs were dropped during pilot testing). We created an abstraction manual and data collection tool for all QMs. Phase 3 involved a retrospective chart review in 7 LTC homes on 33 QMs with trained data abstractors. Data were sufficient to analyze performance for 26 QMs. Lastly, in phase 4 results and psychometric properties were reviewed with an expert panel. They ranked the tested measures for validity and feasibility for use by a nonphysician auditor to evaluate medical provider performance based on medical record review. In total, we examined data from 343 resident charts from 7 LTC homes and 49 providers. Our process yielded 10 QMs as being specified for measurement, feasible to collect, and had good test performance. This is the only study to systematically identify a subset of QMs for feasible collection from the medical record by various data collectors. This pragmatic approach to measuring practice-based quality and quantifying select medical provider competencies allows for the evaluation of individual and facility-level performance and facilitates quality improvement initiatives. Future work should perform broader testing and validate and refine operationalized QMs.

Association of Private Equity Investment in US Nursing Homes With the Quality and Cost of Care for Long-Stay Residents

Question

Is private equity acquisition of nursing homes associated with the quality or cost of care for long-stay nursing home residents?

Findings

In this cohort study with difference-in-differences analysis of 9864 US nursing homes, including 9632 residents in 302 nursing homes acquired by private equity firms and 249 771 residents in 9562 other for-profit nursing homes without private equity ownership, private equity acquisition of nursing homes was associated with higher costs and increases in emergency department visits and hospitalizations for ambulatory sensitive conditions.

Meaning

This study suggests that more stringent oversight and reporting on private equity ownership of nursing homes may be warranted.

Importance

Private equity firms have been acquiring US nursing homes; an estimated 5% of US nursing homes are owned by private equity firms.

Objective

To examine the association of private equity acquisition of nursing homes with the quality and cost of care for long-stay residents.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study of 302 private equity nursing homes with 9632 residents and 9562 other for-profit homes with 249 771 residents, a novel national database of private equity nursing home acquisitions was merged with Medicare claims and Minimum Data Set assessments for the period from 2012 to 2018. Changes in outcomes for residents in private equity–acquired nursing homes were compared with changes for residents in other for-profit nursing homes. Analyses were performed from March 25 to June 23, 2021.

Exposure

Private equity acquisitions of 302 nursing homes between 2013 and 2017.

Main Outcomes and Measures

This study used difference-in-differences analysis to examine the association of private equity acquisition of nursing homes with outcomes. Primary outcomes were quarterly measures of emergency department visits and hospitalizations for ambulatory care–sensitive (ACS) conditions and total quarterly Medicare costs. Antipsychotic use, pressure ulcers, and severe pain were examined in secondary analyses.

Results

Of the 259 403 residents in the study (170 687 women [65.8%]; 211 154 White residents [81.4%]; 204 928 residents [79.0%] dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid; mean [SD] age, 79.3 [5.6] years), 9632 residents were in 302 private equity–acquired nursing homes and 249 771 residents were in 9562 other for-profit homes. The mean quarterly rate of ACS emergency department visits was 14.1% (336 072 of 2 383 491), and the mean quarterly rate of ACS hospitalizations was 17.3% (412 344 of 2 383 491); mean (SD) total quarterly costs were $8050.00 ($9.90). Residents of private equity nursing homes experienced relative increases in ACS emergency department visits of 11.1% (1.7 of 15.3; 1.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.3-3.0 percentage points; P = .02) and in ACS hospitalizations of 8.7% (1.0 of 11.5; 1.0 percentage point; 95% CI, 0.2-1.1 percentage points; P = .003) compared with residents in other for-profit homes; quarterly costs increased 3.9% (270.37 of 6972.04; $270.37; 95% CI, $41.53-$499.20; P = .02) or $1081 annually per resident. Private equity acquisition was not significantly associated with antipsychotic use (−0.2 percentage points; 95% CI, −1.7 to 1.4 percentage points; P = .83), severe pain (0.2 percentage points; 95% CI, −1.1 to 1.4 percentage points; P = .79), or pressure ulcers (0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, −0.4 to 1.3 percentage points; P = .30).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study with difference-in-differences analysis found that private equity acquisition of nursing homes was associated with increases in ACS emergency department visits and hospitalizations and higher Medicare costs.