Skilled home healthcare utilization and outcomes for older adults with dementia: A scoping review.

Jamie M Smith, Julia G Burgdorf, Tiffany J Riser, Miriam Ryvicker
{"title":"Skilled home healthcare utilization and outcomes for older adults with dementia: A scoping review.","authors":"Jamie M Smith, Julia G Burgdorf, Tiffany J Riser, Miriam Ryvicker","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to summarize the existing research literature examining Medicare-skilled home health (HH) utilization and clinical outcomes for persons with dementia (PwD). We sought to answer the following questions: (1) How is dementia defined and classified in the HH literature? (2) What associations have been observed between dementia status and patterns of HH utilization? (3) What associations have been observed between dementia status and HH outcomes?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and select relevant journals for quantitative studies conducted in the United States between 2000 and 2023 examining Medicare HH use and outcomes for PwD. We describe and compare approaches to classify dementia, identify findings related to HH utilization and outcomes supported by the preponderance of evidence, and comment on existing gaps and areas of ambiguity in the literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-two articles met the inclusion criteria. Most used claims-based data to classify dementia, leveraged national data, and were limited to traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Studies found meaningful differences in HH utilization by dementia status; most notably, PwD were more likely to access HH without a preceding hospitalization, had longer lengths of stay, and incurred higher HH costs. Literature relating to clinical outcomes was more difficult to interpret, due to significant variation in study objectives, samples, and outcome measures which prompted more nuanced and even contradictory conclusions. There is a dearth of research identifying how specific HH care pathways (e.g., service types, visit frequency) impact outcomes for this patient population.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review supports the understanding that PwD are a unique subpopulation of HH patients who require special attention in policy development and evaluation. Critical research is needed to examine clinical outcomes in PwD further to inform practice and improve care quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":94112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to summarize the existing research literature examining Medicare-skilled home health (HH) utilization and clinical outcomes for persons with dementia (PwD). We sought to answer the following questions: (1) How is dementia defined and classified in the HH literature? (2) What associations have been observed between dementia status and patterns of HH utilization? (3) What associations have been observed between dementia status and HH outcomes?

Methods: Using Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and select relevant journals for quantitative studies conducted in the United States between 2000 and 2023 examining Medicare HH use and outcomes for PwD. We describe and compare approaches to classify dementia, identify findings related to HH utilization and outcomes supported by the preponderance of evidence, and comment on existing gaps and areas of ambiguity in the literature.

Results: Thirty-two articles met the inclusion criteria. Most used claims-based data to classify dementia, leveraged national data, and were limited to traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Studies found meaningful differences in HH utilization by dementia status; most notably, PwD were more likely to access HH without a preceding hospitalization, had longer lengths of stay, and incurred higher HH costs. Literature relating to clinical outcomes was more difficult to interpret, due to significant variation in study objectives, samples, and outcome measures which prompted more nuanced and even contradictory conclusions. There is a dearth of research identifying how specific HH care pathways (e.g., service types, visit frequency) impact outcomes for this patient population.

Conclusions: This review supports the understanding that PwD are a unique subpopulation of HH patients who require special attention in policy development and evaluation. Critical research is needed to examine clinical outcomes in PwD further to inform practice and improve care quality.

患有痴呆症的老年人使用专业家庭医疗保健服务的情况和结果:范围综述。
研究目的本研究旨在总结现有的研究文献,研究医疗保险专业家庭医疗(HH)对痴呆症患者(PwD)的使用情况和临床结果。我们试图回答以下问题:(1) 在家庭医疗文献中,痴呆症是如何定义和分类的?(2) 在痴呆状态和使用保健服务的模式之间有哪些关联?(3) 在痴呆状态和 HH 结果之间观察到哪些关联?利用 Arksey 和 O'Malley 的范围综述框架,我们检索了 PubMed、Google Scholar 和部分相关期刊,以了解 2000 年至 2023 年期间在美国开展的定量研究,这些研究对医疗保险(Medicare)养老院的使用情况和对残疾人的治疗效果进行了研究。我们对痴呆症的分类方法进行了描述和比较,确定了得到大量证据支持的与保健院使用情况和结果相关的研究结果,并对文献中存在的空白和不明确之处进行了评论:32篇文章符合纳入标准。大多数文章使用索赔数据对痴呆症进行分类,利用全国性数据,且仅限于传统的医疗保险受益人。研究发现,不同痴呆状态的患者在使用保健院方面存在显著差异;最明显的是,残疾人更有可能在未住院的情况下使用保健院,住院时间更长,产生的保健院费用也更高。与临床结果相关的文献则更难解释,因为研究目标、样本和结果衡量标准存在很大差异,导致得出的结论更加微妙,甚至相互矛盾。有关特定保健护理路径(如服务类型、就诊频率)如何影响这一患者群体的治疗效果的研究还很缺乏:本综述支持这样一种认识,即残疾人是 HH 病人中一个独特的亚群,需要在政策制定和评估中给予特别关注。需要开展关键性研究,进一步检查残疾人的临床治疗效果,为实践提供依据并提高护理质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信