A Comparative Effectiveness Trial Between a Post-Acute Care Hospitalist Model and a Community-Based Physician Model of Nursing Home Care

Fred Michael Gloth, Mark J. Gloth

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: To evaluate whether a designated Post-Acute Care Hospitalist (PACH) (an individual physician charged with care of most residents in the nursing home and with set hours to be in the facility each week) could improve some measureable outcomes in the long-term care setting compared with a traditional cadre of community physicians, a comparative trial was designed to measure multiple cost and care variables. Methods: Data were collected in a historical prospective study design for 6 months before the institution of a PACH model in a nursing home in the Baltimore area. Similar data were collected in a similar setting in the same region during the same time frame. During the same 6 months in the following year (ending June 30, 2008) after initiating the PACH program, the same outcome measures, which included demographic information, admissions per census, number of medications per resident, laboratory services and fees per resident day, fallers and falls per resident day, unplanned discharges per resident day, and average pharmacy costs per patient, were collected. Results: Demographic information was similar in all groups. PACH and non-PACH models per resident day were significantly different for laboratory tests (intrafacility pre-PACH $1.93, post-PACH $2.97; P <.005 and interfacility post-PACH $2.97, non-PACH $0.97), fallers (intrafacility pre-PACH 0.006, post-PACH 0.008; P = .01 and interfacility post-PACH 0.008, non-PACH 0.006; P <.005), and falls (intrafacility pre-PACH 0.007, post-PACH 0.01; P <.05 and interfacility post-PACH 0.01, non-PACH 0.008; P <.05). Medication errors after PACH was instituted were 1/6 of pre-PACH rate and 1/60 of the non-PACH facility. Post-PACH pharmacy costs were also better than the non-PACH facility pharmacy costs per resident day by $7.74, but differences for medication errors and pharmacy costs were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Institution of a PACH in a nursing home was associated with a significant increase in laboratory costs and no improvement in fall rates. There was a nonsignificant reduction in medication errors and pharmacy costs. These data support the hypothesis that a PACH model may lead to greater clinician involvement, which may be associated with an increase in clinical testing and a decrease in pharmacy costs and medication errors. If true, the latter would likely far offset any costs associated with additional laboratory testing. These findings warrant further investigation of larger magnitude.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)384-386
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of the American Medical Directors Association
Volume12
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2011

Fingerprint

Subacute Care
Hospitalists
Home Care Services
Nursing Care
Nursing Homes
Physicians
Costs and Cost Analysis
Medication Errors

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Nursing(all)
  • Health Policy

Cite this

@article{24a6674da0f8430e99374e317451f553,
title = "A Comparative Effectiveness Trial Between a Post-Acute Care Hospitalist Model and a Community-Based Physician Model of Nursing Home Care",
abstract = "Introduction: To evaluate whether a designated Post-Acute Care Hospitalist (PACH) (an individual physician charged with care of most residents in the nursing home and with set hours to be in the facility each week) could improve some measureable outcomes in the long-term care setting compared with a traditional cadre of community physicians, a comparative trial was designed to measure multiple cost and care variables. Methods: Data were collected in a historical prospective study design for 6 months before the institution of a PACH model in a nursing home in the Baltimore area. Similar data were collected in a similar setting in the same region during the same time frame. During the same 6 months in the following year (ending June 30, 2008) after initiating the PACH program, the same outcome measures, which included demographic information, admissions per census, number of medications per resident, laboratory services and fees per resident day, fallers and falls per resident day, unplanned discharges per resident day, and average pharmacy costs per patient, were collected. Results: Demographic information was similar in all groups. PACH and non-PACH models per resident day were significantly different for laboratory tests (intrafacility pre-PACH $1.93, post-PACH $2.97; P <.005 and interfacility post-PACH $2.97, non-PACH $0.97), fallers (intrafacility pre-PACH 0.006, post-PACH 0.008; P = .01 and interfacility post-PACH 0.008, non-PACH 0.006; P <.005), and falls (intrafacility pre-PACH 0.007, post-PACH 0.01; P <.05 and interfacility post-PACH 0.01, non-PACH 0.008; P <.05). Medication errors after PACH was instituted were 1/6 of pre-PACH rate and 1/60 of the non-PACH facility. Post-PACH pharmacy costs were also better than the non-PACH facility pharmacy costs per resident day by $7.74, but differences for medication errors and pharmacy costs were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Institution of a PACH in a nursing home was associated with a significant increase in laboratory costs and no improvement in fall rates. There was a nonsignificant reduction in medication errors and pharmacy costs. These data support the hypothesis that a PACH model may lead to greater clinician involvement, which may be associated with an increase in clinical testing and a decrease in pharmacy costs and medication errors. If true, the latter would likely far offset any costs associated with additional laboratory testing. These findings warrant further investigation of larger magnitude.",
author = "Gloth, {Fred Michael} and Gloth, {Mark J.}",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.jamda.2010.11.010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "384--386",
journal = "Journal of the American Medical Directors Association",
issn = "1525-8610",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Comparative Effectiveness Trial Between a Post-Acute Care Hospitalist Model and a Community-Based Physician Model of Nursing Home Care

AU - Gloth, Fred Michael

AU - Gloth, Mark J.

PY - 2011/6

Y1 - 2011/6

N2 - Introduction: To evaluate whether a designated Post-Acute Care Hospitalist (PACH) (an individual physician charged with care of most residents in the nursing home and with set hours to be in the facility each week) could improve some measureable outcomes in the long-term care setting compared with a traditional cadre of community physicians, a comparative trial was designed to measure multiple cost and care variables. Methods: Data were collected in a historical prospective study design for 6 months before the institution of a PACH model in a nursing home in the Baltimore area. Similar data were collected in a similar setting in the same region during the same time frame. During the same 6 months in the following year (ending June 30, 2008) after initiating the PACH program, the same outcome measures, which included demographic information, admissions per census, number of medications per resident, laboratory services and fees per resident day, fallers and falls per resident day, unplanned discharges per resident day, and average pharmacy costs per patient, were collected. Results: Demographic information was similar in all groups. PACH and non-PACH models per resident day were significantly different for laboratory tests (intrafacility pre-PACH $1.93, post-PACH $2.97; P <.005 and interfacility post-PACH $2.97, non-PACH $0.97), fallers (intrafacility pre-PACH 0.006, post-PACH 0.008; P = .01 and interfacility post-PACH 0.008, non-PACH 0.006; P <.005), and falls (intrafacility pre-PACH 0.007, post-PACH 0.01; P <.05 and interfacility post-PACH 0.01, non-PACH 0.008; P <.05). Medication errors after PACH was instituted were 1/6 of pre-PACH rate and 1/60 of the non-PACH facility. Post-PACH pharmacy costs were also better than the non-PACH facility pharmacy costs per resident day by $7.74, but differences for medication errors and pharmacy costs were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Institution of a PACH in a nursing home was associated with a significant increase in laboratory costs and no improvement in fall rates. There was a nonsignificant reduction in medication errors and pharmacy costs. These data support the hypothesis that a PACH model may lead to greater clinician involvement, which may be associated with an increase in clinical testing and a decrease in pharmacy costs and medication errors. If true, the latter would likely far offset any costs associated with additional laboratory testing. These findings warrant further investigation of larger magnitude.

AB - Introduction: To evaluate whether a designated Post-Acute Care Hospitalist (PACH) (an individual physician charged with care of most residents in the nursing home and with set hours to be in the facility each week) could improve some measureable outcomes in the long-term care setting compared with a traditional cadre of community physicians, a comparative trial was designed to measure multiple cost and care variables. Methods: Data were collected in a historical prospective study design for 6 months before the institution of a PACH model in a nursing home in the Baltimore area. Similar data were collected in a similar setting in the same region during the same time frame. During the same 6 months in the following year (ending June 30, 2008) after initiating the PACH program, the same outcome measures, which included demographic information, admissions per census, number of medications per resident, laboratory services and fees per resident day, fallers and falls per resident day, unplanned discharges per resident day, and average pharmacy costs per patient, were collected. Results: Demographic information was similar in all groups. PACH and non-PACH models per resident day were significantly different for laboratory tests (intrafacility pre-PACH $1.93, post-PACH $2.97; P <.005 and interfacility post-PACH $2.97, non-PACH $0.97), fallers (intrafacility pre-PACH 0.006, post-PACH 0.008; P = .01 and interfacility post-PACH 0.008, non-PACH 0.006; P <.005), and falls (intrafacility pre-PACH 0.007, post-PACH 0.01; P <.05 and interfacility post-PACH 0.01, non-PACH 0.008; P <.05). Medication errors after PACH was instituted were 1/6 of pre-PACH rate and 1/60 of the non-PACH facility. Post-PACH pharmacy costs were also better than the non-PACH facility pharmacy costs per resident day by $7.74, but differences for medication errors and pharmacy costs were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Institution of a PACH in a nursing home was associated with a significant increase in laboratory costs and no improvement in fall rates. There was a nonsignificant reduction in medication errors and pharmacy costs. These data support the hypothesis that a PACH model may lead to greater clinician involvement, which may be associated with an increase in clinical testing and a decrease in pharmacy costs and medication errors. If true, the latter would likely far offset any costs associated with additional laboratory testing. These findings warrant further investigation of larger magnitude.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79956275644&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79956275644&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jamda.2010.11.010

DO - 10.1016/j.jamda.2010.11.010

M3 - Article

C2 - 21450218

AN - SCOPUS:79956275644

VL - 12

SP - 384

EP - 386

JO - Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

JF - Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

SN - 1525-8610

IS - 5

ER -