Home Health Care Utilization in Children With Medicaid

BACKGROUND: Although many children with medical complexity (CMC) use home health care (HHC), little is known about all pediatric HHC utilizers. Our objective was to assess characteristics of pediatric HHC recipients, providers, and payments. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 5 209 525 children age 0-to-17 years enrolled Medicaid in the 2016 IBM Watson MarketScan Medicaid Database. HHC utilizers had ≥ 1 HHC claim. Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were reviewed to codify provider types when possible: registered nurse (RN), licensed practical nurse (LPN), home health aide (HHA), certified nursing assistant (CNA), or companion/personal attendant. Enrollee clinical characteristics, HHC provider type, and payments were assessed. Chronic conditions were evaluated with Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Chronic Condition Indicators and Feudtner’s Complex Chronic Conditions. RESULTS: Of the 0.8% of children who used HHC, 43.8% were age <1 year, 25% had no chronic condition, 38.6% had a noncomplex chronic condition, 21.5% had a complex chronic condition without technology assistance, and 15.5% had technology assistance (eg, tracheostomy). HHC for children with technology assistance accounted for 72.6% of all HHC spending. Forty-five percent of HHC utilizers received RN/LPN-level care, 7.9% companion/personal attendant care, 5.9% HHA/CNA-level care, and 36% received care from an unspecified provider. For children with technology assistance, the majority (77.2%) received RN/LPN care, 17.5% companion/personal assistant care, and 13.8% HHA/CNA care. CONCLUSIONS: Children using HHC are a heterogeneous population who receive it from a variety of providers. Future investigations should explore the role of nonnurse caregivers, particularly with CMC.

Outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism in hospitalized patients with cancer

Background Cancer-associated pulmonary embolism (PE) places a significant burden on patients and health care systems. Methods A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was performed in patients with acute PE from 2002 to 2014. Among patients hospitalized with PE, we investigated the differences in clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization in patients with and without cancer. A multivariate logistic regression model was applied to calculate adjusted odds ratios (OR) to estimate the impact of cancer on clinical outcomes. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to determine the differences in healthcare utilization between the two cohorts. Results Among 3,313,044 patients who were discharged with a diagnosis of acute PE, 84.2% did not have cancer, while 15.8% had cancer as a comorbidity (56% metastatic cancer, 35% solid tumor without metastasis, and 9% lymphoma). Patients with cancer had a higher mean age but lower rates of common comorbidities except for coagulation deficiency than patients without a cancer diagnosis. In patients with cancer, the rate of IVC filter placement was higher (21.7% vs. 13.11%, OR 1.76 (95% CI 1.73–1.79); p < 0.0001) and thrombolytic use lower (1.34% vs. 2.15%, OR 0.68 (95% CI 0.64–0.72); p < 0.0001). Patients with cancer hospitalized for PE had a higher all-cause in-hospital mortality (11.8% vs. 6.6%, OR 1.79 (95% CI 1.75–1.83); p < 0.0001), longer length of stay (6 vs. 5 days; p < 0.0001), higher total charge per hospitalization ($30,885 vs. $27,273; p < 0.0001), and higher rates of home health services upon discharge (35.8% vs. 23.2%; p < 0.0001) compared with those without cancer. Conclusion Concurrent cancer diagnosis in patients hospitalized for acute PE was associated with a 90% increase in all-cause mortality, longer length of stay, higher total charge per hospitalization, and higher rates of home health services upon discharge. The majority (56%) of patients with cancer had metastatic disease. Furthermore, there were identifiable differences in the intervention for acute PE between the two groups.

Interventions Within the Scope of Occupational Therapy to Address Preventable Adverse Events in Inpatient and Home Health Postacute Care Settings: A Systematic Review

Importance: Practitioners need to be familiar with, and involved in, managing quality-related adverse events in postacute care. Objective: To determine interventions within the scope of occupational therapy that address preventable adverse events in adult postacute inpatient and home health settings. Data Sources: Articles published from January 1995 through 2019 identified through searches of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, OTseeker, and Cochrane databases. Study Selection and Data Collection: Articles were collected, evaluated, and analyzed by two independent reviewers. They were assessed and synthesized with a goal of informing clinical practice. Findings: Twenty-four articles were included in the review. Of the 10 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services preventable adverse events, 6 were addressed: diabetes management (n = 2), dysphagia (n = 5), infection control (n = 1), pressure ulcers (n = 6), falls (n = 5), and discharge management (n = 5). There was strong strength of evidence that exercise programs should, when appropriate, be implemented in both inpatient and home health settings to decrease the risk of falls. There was moderate strength of evidence that practitioners could consider implementing a facility wide evidence-based pressure ulcer program; providing multidisciplinary rehabilitation and swallow strengthening exercises for dysphagia; implementing a multidisciplinary, multicomponent falls program; and using a manualized depression intervention in home health to decrease hospital readmission. Conclusions and Relevance: The review highlights the importance of preventable adverse events and of occupational therapy practitioners acknowledging and managing these events to enhance health outcomes and to control health care costs. What This Article Adds: Many interventions typically performed by occupational therapy practitioners address preventable adverse events. The review highlights the importance of practitioners being aware of this category of impairment or injury.