ArticlePDF Available

Shortages of Staff in Nursing Homes During COVID-19 Pandemic: What Are the Driving Factors?

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

(300 words) Objectives During the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. nursing homes (NHs) have been under pressure to maintain staff levels with limited access to personal protection equipment (PPE). This study examines the prevalence and factors associated with shortages of NH staff during COVID-19 pandemic. Design We obtained self-reported information on staff shortages, resident and staff exposure to COVID-19, and PPE availability from a survey conducted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in May 2020. Multivariate logistic regressions of staff shortages with state fixed-effects were conducted to examine the effect of COVID-19 factors in NHs. Setting and participants 11,920 free-standing NHs. Measures The dependent variables were self-reported shortages of licensed nurse staff, nurse aides, clinical staff, and other ancillary staff. We controlled for NH characteristics from the most recent Nursing Home Compare and Certification And Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting, market characteristics from Area Health Resources File, and state Medicaid reimbursement calculated from Truven data. Results Of the 11,920 NHs, 15.9%, 18.4%, 2.5%, and 9.8% reported shortages of licensed nurse staff, nurse aides, clinical staff, and other staff, respectively. Georgia and Minnesota reported the highest rates of shortages in licensed nurse and nurse aides (both > 25%). Multivariate regressions suggest that shortages in licensed nurses and nurse aides were more likely in NHs having any resident with COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.44, 1.60, respectively) and any staff with COVID-19 (AOR = 1.37, 1.34, respectively). Having one-week supply of PPE was associated with lower probability of staff shortages. NHs with a higher proportion of Medicare residents were less likely to experience shortages. Conclusions /Implications: Abundant staff shortages were reported by NHs and were mainly driven by COVID-19 factors. In the absence of appropriate staff, NHs may be unable to fulfill the requirement of infection control even under the risk of increased monetary penalties.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal Pre-proof
Shortages of Staff in Nursing Homes During COVID-19 Pandemic: What Are the
Driving Factors?
Huiwen Xu, PhD, Orna Intrator, PhD, John R. Bowblis, PhD
PII: S1525-8610(20)30691-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2020.08.002
Reference: JMDA 3592
To appear in: Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
Received Date: 26 June 2020
Accepted Date: 6 August 2020
Please cite this article as: Xu H, Intrator O, Bowblis JR, Shortages of Staff in Nursing Homes During
COVID-19 Pandemic: What Are the Driving Factors?, Journal of the American Medical Directors
Association (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2020.08.002.
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of AMDA -- The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term
Care Medicine.
Title: Shortages of Staff in Nursing Homes During COVID-19 Pandemic: What Are the Driving
Factors?
Huiwen Xu, PhD
1*
, Orna Intrator, PhD
2,3
, John R. Bowblis, PhD
4,5
(1) Department of Surgery, Cancer Control, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry,
Rochester, NY, USA
(2) Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry,
Rochester, NY;
(3) Geriatrics & Extended Care Data Analysis Center (GECDAC), Canandaigua VA Medical Center,
Canandaigua, NY
(4) Department of Economics, Farmer School of Business, Miami University, Oxford, OH;
(5) Scripps Gerontology Center, Miami University, Oxford, OH;
*Corresponding author: Huiwen Xu, PhD, Department of Surgery, Cancer Control, University of
Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. 265 Crittenden Blvd., BOX 420658, Rochester, NY 14642,
USA. Phone: +1 585.275.2090; Fax: 585.461.4532; Email: Huiwen_Xu@URMC.Rochester.edu; Twitter:
@Dr_HuiwenXu.
Running title: Shortages of Staff in Nursing Homes during COVID-19
Key words: Staff Shortages, Personal Protection Equipment, COVID-19, Nursing Homes.
Funding sources: This research did not receive any funding from any agencies in the government or
private sectors.
Word, reference and graphics count:
Word count: 2,999
Number of text pages: 11
References: 42
Tables: 2
Figure: 2
Brief Summary: Staff shortages in nursing homes are mainly driven by COVID-19 factors, such as
resident and staff with COVID-19, as well as PPE supply. Most nursing home and market factors, and
Medicaid reimbursement rate were insignificant.
Acknowledgements: No.
Conflict of Interests: John Bowblis owns Bowblis Economic Consulting, which provides consulting
services to long-term care providers. None of the material discussed in this paper are directly related to
these services.
Journal Pre-proof
1
Shortages of Staff in Nursing Homes During COVID-19 Pandemic: What Are the Driving Factors?
1
2
Abstract (300 words)
3
Objectives: During the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. nursing homes (NHs) have been under
4
pressure to maintain staff levels with limited access to personal protection equipment (PPE).
5
This study examines the prevalence and factors associated with shortages of NH staff during
6
COVID-19 pandemic.
7
Design: We obtained self-reported information on staff shortages, resident and staff exposure
8
to COVID-19, and PPE availability from a survey conducted by the Centers for Medicare &
9
Medicaid Services in May 2020. Multivariate logistic regressions of staff shortages with state
10
fixed-effects were conducted to examine the effect of COVID-19 factors in NHs.
11
Setting and participants: 11,920 free-standing NHs.
12
Measures: The dependent variables were self-reported shortages of licensed nurse staff, nurse
13
aides, clinical staff, and other ancillary staff. We controlled for NH characteristics from the
14
most recent Nursing Home Compare and Certification And Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting,
15
market characteristics from Area Health Resources File, and state Medicaid reimbursement
16
calculated from Truven data.
17
Results: Of the 11,920 NHs, 15.9%, 18.4%, 2.5%, and 9.8% reported shortages of licensed nurse
18
staff, nurse aides, clinical staff, and other staff, respectively. Georgia and Minnesota reported
19
the highest rates of shortages in licensed nurse and nurse aides (both > 25%). Multivariate
20
regressions suggest that shortages in licensed nurses and nurse aides were more likely in NHs
21
having any resident with COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.44, 1.60, respectively) and
22
any staff with COVID-19 (AOR = 1.37, 1.34, respectively). Having one-week supply of PPE was
23
Journal Pre-proof
2
associated with lower probability of staff shortages. NHs with a higher proportion of Medicare
24
residents were less likely to experience shortages.
25
Conclusions/Implications: Abundant staff shortages were reported by NHs and were mainly
26
driven by COVID-19 factors. In the absence of appropriate staff, NHs may be unable to fulfill
27
the requirement of infection control even under the risk of increased monetary penalties.
28
Keywords: Staff Shortages, Personal Protection Equipment, COVID-19, Nursing Homes.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Journal Pre-proof
3
Main Text (2,999 words)
43
Introduction
44
The epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (U.S.) has been in long-term care
45
facilities, particular nursing homes (NHs).
1
The first COVID-19 case in a NH was confirmed in a
46
Kirkland, Washington facility on February 28, 2020.
2
Since then, the Center for Medicare and
47
Medicaid Services (CMS) reported 107,389 confirmed cases and 71,278 suspected cases of
48
COVID-19 among residents based on self-reported data by NHs released in June 20, 2020.
3
NH
49
residents are extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 because they are older, functionally impaired,
50
and have multiple comorbidities
1, 4
This frail population thus bore over 27.5% of all confirmed
51
cases resulting in death.
3
In fact, a New York Times analysis claims that NH residents and
52
workers accounted for one third of COVID-19 death in the U.S.
5
53
A critical aspect of NH care is staff.
6-10
Prior to the pandemic, NH staff was the single
54
largest cost to operating a NH.
11
NHs must staff positions to provide direct care to residents
55
but also ancillary services, such as housekeeping and food service. Examples of staffing
56
categories include: licensed nurses [i.e. registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical nurses
57
(LPNs)], nurse aides that assist licensed nurses and provide direct care to residents [certified
58
nurse aides (CNAs)], clinical staff (i.e. physicians and other advanced practice providers), and
59
other ancillary staff (e.g. recreation and food services).
12
Research suggests that NHs with
60
higher staffing levels tend to provide better quality of care,
4, 6-10, 12-16
but low wages, less-
61
desirable work environments compared to alternatives have made it difficult for NHs to hire
62
and retain staff.
10, 17-19
Reliance on government payment models, such as Medicaid which
63
Journal Pre-proof
4
reimburses at or below actual costs,
20
further limits NHs’ ability to increase wages or offer other
64
benefits to hire and retain staff.
65
These structural challenges have only become worse for NHs during the coronavirus
66
pandemic.
21, 22
NH workforce does not have the luxury of being able to social distance, as their
67
job requires close contact with the residents. At the early stage of the pandemic, NHs lacked
68
the life-saving personal protection equipment (PPE) to prevent the transmission within the
69
facility.
23-25
The shortage put staff at increased risk of contracting the virus, with staff
70
suspected of having contracted COVID-19 required to quarantine for at least 14-days. The net
71
result was existing NH staff were often sidelined. Yet, other factors also created pressure. NHs
72
needed to implement infection control protocols, including isolating residents who were
73
suspected of having the virus.
26
The ban on visitors to NHs also reduced the availability of some
74
informal care provided to residents by visiting relatives. This created a situation in which time
75
and effort needed from NHs staff increased, yet structural factors made it more difficult to
76
address,
8, 22, 25, 27
creating the potential for a staff shortage.
22
CMS acknowledged this shortage
77
by temporarily suspending the competency requirement for providing direct care to residents,
28
78
but the additional $600 per week federal unemployment benefit hurt the ability of NHs to
79
recruit needed staff.
22
80
The coronavirus pandemic has led to an urgent shortage of staff faced by NHs,
22, 25
yet
81
which facilities and what factors drove these shortages are not well understood. To mitigate
82
this knowledge gap, we analyzed the first-ever national COVID-19 nursing home staff data from
83
CMS to examine the staffing shortages in NHs. Understanding the potential predictors of
84
Journal Pre-proof
5
staffing shortages can help policy makers and NH administrators implement effective
85
interventions to combat staff shortages.
86
Methods
87
Data sources
88
We consolidated several publicly available datasets to create our analytic file. We
89
download the Nursing Home COVID-19 Public File (COVID-19 File) from the Nursing Home
90
Compare (NHCompare) website for COVID-19 related information, including detailed self-
91
reported data on the number of resident and staff COVID-19 cases, supply of PPE, and
92
shortages of staff. As of June 15, 2020, CMS published data of the weeks ending on May 24 and
93
31, 2020 for each certified NH and conducted the quality check of the data.
3
Of the 15,451 NHs
94
with data on May 31, 2020, 80.1% (12,375) passed the quality check. NHs that did not pass the
95
quality check tended to be smaller, for-profit, and with lower Five-star Ratings.
96
The COVID-19 File was merged with other data to obtain NH characteristics, particularly
97
the April 2020 monthly NHCompare archive database and the Certification And Survey Provider
98
Enhanced Reporting (CASPER). The NHCompare archive contains summary information about
99
each NH, including select measures of facility structure, nursing staff levels, and star ratings.
100
This information is updated regularly by CMS and contains the most recent publicly available
101
information regarding facilities. CASPER captures a snapshot of each facility’s payer-mix and
102
resident case-mix prior to the pandemic. CASPER includes data collected as part of initial and
103
annual recertification inspections of all Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes, with
104
these inspections occurring every 9 to 15 months. Because CASPER is available with a lag, we
105
utilized the most recent inspection for each facility that occurred from August 2018 through
106
Journal Pre-proof
6
October 2019 (with a median date of March 28, 2019). The 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting
107
Areas Codes (RUCAs) that incorporate information on both population size and commuting time
108
were downloaded to define the rurality of NHs.
29
County market factors were obtained from
109
the 2018-2019 Area Health Resources File.
30
Truven Health Analytics’ 2016 report on Medicaid
110
expenditures for NHs was used to estimate state Medicaid reimbursement rates.
15, 31
111
Study cohort
112
The primary analysis included all free-standing NHs with COVID-19 information in the
113
week of May 31, 2020, that could be merged with NHCompare and CASPER data, resulting in
114
11,920 unique NHs.
115
Dependent Variables
116
The dependent variables included whether the NH self-reported a shortage in staff
117
(yes/no) for the following type of staff: licensed nurse staff, nurse aides, clinical staff, and other
118
staff. Licensed nurse staff included RNs and LPNs. Nurse aides included the CNAs, nurse aides,
119
and medication aides/technicians. Clinical staff referred to physician, physician assistant,
120
advanced practice nurse. Finally, other staff included all staff not mentioned in the categories
121
above (e.g. ancillary services such as housekeeping).
122
Covariates
123
Covariates associated with potential shortages included COVID-19 factors, NH and
124
market characteristics, and state policy relating to NHs.
4, 9, 15, 32, 33
COVID-19 factors included
125
the cumulative number of residents and staff diagnosed with COVID-19 per 100 beds. We
126
scaled the number of cases to 100 beds to account for differences in facility size. PPE has been
127
shown to be very critical in preventing the transmission of COVID-19. We included three binary
128
Journal Pre-proof
7
variables indicating whether a NH had one-week supply of N95 masks, eye protection, and
129
gowns.
130
We used CASPER data to extract NH characteristics that might be associated with
131
staffing shortages: staffing levels (RNs, LPNs, and CNAs measured in hours per resident day
132
(HPRD)), NH structure (ownership, chain status, total beds, occupancy rate, and dementia
133
special care unit), resident case-mix and payer-mix (case-mix acuity index, % Medicaid residents,
134
and % Medicare residents), rurality, and NHCompare Overall Five-star Rating.
4, 15, 32, 34-36
Rurality
135
of NHs was determined from zip codes merged with 2010 RUCAs.
37
NHs were grouped into
136
urban, large rural city/town (micropolitan), and small rural town/ isolated small rural town
137
(rural).
38
138
We included the following factors that described the NH market identified as the county
139
in which the NH was located:
4
primary care physician per 1,000 population, concentration of
140
total NH beds measured by the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI),
39
Medicare Advantage
141
penetration rate (% Medicare Advantage of all Medicare beneficiaries in the county), median
142
household income ($), and % older population (≥ 65).
4, 15, 32-34
Medicaid reimbursements were
143
approximated by the ratio of a state’s total Medicaid expenditure on NHs derived from Truven
144
reports
31
divided by the total number of Medicaid bed days estimated from the number of NH
145
residents with Medicaid payer reported in CASPER data.
15
Finally, we included state effects to
146
control for unobserved fixed differences across states.
147
Statistical analysis
148
Descriptive analyses were conducted to show staff shortages, COVID-19 factors, NH
149
characteristics, market factors, and state policy. We also compared these factors by whether
150
Journal Pre-proof
8
the NHs had any staff with COVID-19 and tested the statistical significance of differences
151
between NHs with and without any staff with COVID-19 using t-tests for continuous variables
152
and Chi-square tests for binary variables. We then conducted four separate multivariate
153
logistic regressions to examine factors associated with shortages of staff with standard errors
154
clustered at county level, as many COVID-19 policies including reporting are county-based. We
155
dichotomized the residents and staff with COVID-19 at 1 to indicate whether the facility had
156
any confirmed COVID-19 for easy interpretation and to avoid potential bias in reported cases.
157
Overall five-star rating was categorized as 4 or 5 stars vs 1-3 stars as an indicator of high rating.
158
Continuous variables (except staffing and Medicaid rates) were standardized at overall means
159
and standard deviations to reduce variance and simplify the comparison of parameter
160
estimates.
33
The data of COVID-19 File in the week of May 24, 2020 were analyzed as
161
sensitivity analysis and shows similar results (not reported).
162
All statistical analyses were performed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) and Stata
163
16.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX).
164
Results
165
Descriptive results by whether NHs had any staff with COVID-19 are presented in Table
166
1. Of the 11,920 NH sample, 15.9%, 18.4%, 2.5%, and 9.8% reported shortages of licensed
167
nursing staff, nurse aides, clinical staff, and other staff, respectively. On average, 5.7 (standard
168
deviation (SD) = 30.2) residents and 3.8 (SD = 18.9) staff per 100 beds were confirmed with
169
COVID-19; 82.2%, 89.8%, and 79.6% NHs had one-week supply of N95 masks, eye protection,
170
and gowns, respectively. The majority of NHs were for-profit (71.8%), chain-affiliated (60.6%),
171
with most residents paid by Medicaid (59.4%), and located in urban areas (66.3%). About one
172
Journal Pre-proof
9
half (46.3%) NHs had overall five-star rating ≥4. The average % Medicare Advantage
173
penetration was 31.6% and state on average reimbursed NHs $179.7 per resident day. Table 1
174
also suggests that almost all predictors were significantly different in NHs having any staff with
175
vs without COVID-19, except for one-week supply of gowns, CNA staffing level, and overall five-
176
star rating (all P ≤ 0.01). NHs having any staff with COVID-19 were more likely to experience
177
shortages of licensed nurse, nurse aides, clinical staff, and other staff.
178
Figure 1 presents the geographic variation of staff shortages in licensed nurse and nurse
179
aides. NHs in east and middle west states had a greater percentage of reported shortages, with
180
the following states reporting the highest rate of shortages in licensed nurse and nurse aides
181
(both >25%): District of Columbia, Georgia, Minnesota, and Rhode Island. Figure 2 suggests
182
that number of residents and staff with COVID-19 were highly correlated and also varied by
183
states. Connecticut, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey reported over 20
184
residents and 10 staff per 100 NH beds. Together, Figure 1 and 2 imply that states with higher
185
number of residents and staff with COVID-19 were more likely to report shortages in licensed
186
nurse and nurse aides.
187
Multivariate logistic regression results are shown in Table 2. NHs having any resident
188
with COVID-19 were more likely to experience shortages of nursing staff, nursing aides, clinical
189
staff, and other staff (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) =1.60, 1.44, 2.10, and 1.71, respectively; all P
190
<0.01). Similarly, NHs with any staff with COVID-19 were more likely to report all shortages of
191
all types of staff (AOR ranges 1.34-1.43; all P <0.01). Having one-week supply of eye protection
192
and gowns were associated with lower probability of staffing shortages.
193
Journal Pre-proof
10
Previous staffing levels were not associated with staffing shortages during the pandemic
194
(at the 5% level), except that NHs with higher RN staffing level were less likely to report
195
shortages in licensed nurse staff. Most NH structure factors were not significantly associated
196
with staff shortages, except for occupancy rates. NHs with higher occupancy rates were less
197
likely to have shortage in licensed nurse staff, nurse aides, and other staff. NHs with more
198
Medicare residents were less likely to have shortages in licensed nurse staff, nurse aides, and
199
other staff. No differences in staff shortages were found among NHs located in urban,
200
micropolitan, or rural areas. NHs with ≥4 overall ratings were less likely to report shortages in
201
licensed nurse staff, nurse aides, and other staff (AOR=0.79, 0.83, 0.85, respectively; all P <
202
0.01). Most market factors in the model were not associated with staffing shortages, except
203
market competition for shortage in other staff and % Medicare Advantage penetration for
204
shortage in licensed nurse staff. Finally, Medicaid reimbursement rates were not associated
205
with any shortage in staff.
206
Discussion
207
Using publicly available staffing data, we found that 16%-18% of NHs reported shortages
208
in licensed nurse staff and nurse aides during the coronavirus pandemic. These reported
209
shortages were not evenly distributed across states, with one out of four facilities in states like
210
Georgia and Minnesota reporting shortages in licensed nurses or aides. Those numbers are
211
concerning as licensed nurse and nurse aides are the essential workers who provide most of the
212
direct care to residents. Adequate staffing levels are required to provide high quality care to
213
residents.
7, 12
A recent paper reported that higher RN staffing levels prior to the pandemic was
214
associated with fewer COVID-19 cases in a sample of Connecticut NHs.
35
215
Journal Pre-proof
11
A major finding of our study is that staff shortages were associated with COVID-19
216
related factors. NHs having any resident or staff with COVID-19 were significantly more likely to
217
experience shortages of all types of staff, with resident cases of the virus having a stronger
218
effect on licensed nurse staff and clinical staff than nurse aides. This might be due to the fact
219
that COVID-19 residents require clinical care usually at the level of RNs or physician. Even in
220
May 2020, 20% of NHs did not have one-week supply of gowns, calling for help from federal
221
and state governments.
24, 25
NHs with one week supply of eye protection and gowns were less
222
likely to report staff shortages, reinforcing the importance of PPE on staff security. Importantly,
223
available supply of N95 masks, which are required only for closer procedure care, were not
224
related to shortages.
225
Findings support the expectation that NHs with higher staffing levels prior to the
226
pandemic might be less susceptible to shortages during the pandemic: better RN staffing was
227
related to less shortages in licensed nurses and nurse aides (marginally), but not to clinical staff
228
or other staff.
35
Higher CNAs prior to pandemic was marginally related only to less shortages in
229
nurse aides. Unexpectedly, higher CNAs was related to higher clinical staff shortages, possibly
230
indicating that those NHs were more likely to rely on post-acute care. Shortage of clinical staff is
231
different from shortage of front line staff. Clinical staff are often only present some days of the
232
week and many respond through phone or video calls.
233
NHs that took care of more post-acute, Medicare paid residents, were less likely to have
234
shortages in clinical staff, as did non-profit NHs. A reason for this may be states putting
235
temporary bans on elective surgeries, which led to reduced Medicare post-acute care stays.
236
While previous work suggests that COVID-19 cases were higher in urban areas,
7
we found no
237
Journal Pre-proof
12
difference in reported staff shortages in rural versus urban NHs. The lack of available workforce
238
in rural market prior to pandemic makes rural NHs more vulnerable to COVID-19, even they
239
were less likely to have staff with COVID-19 compared to urban NHs (21.8% vs 5.5%).
40
NHs
240
with overall star rating ≥4 were less likely to report staff shortages, suggesting they might be
241
more resilient to the pandemic.
35
242
Our results suggest that self-reported shortages in NH staffing are primarily associated
243
with COVID-19 related factors. However, NHs are still faced with multiple other challenges.
244
Media attention has put pressure on regulators to punish NHs given the large number of deaths
245
seen nationally. However, the structure of NH care, the fact that NH residents are frail and
246
more susceptible to the virus, and early miss-steps such as not providing NHs PPE when
247
supplies were scarce and sending coronavirus patients to NHs may have led to this situation.
248
CMS has recently increased the civil monetary penalties up to $20,000 per instance for non-
249
compliance with infection control.
41
This places great financial challenges on NHs, especially
250
considering that most NH care is reimbursed by Medicaid at lower than operating cost. Even
251
prior to the pandemic, NHs were reliant on higher margin Medicare residents to provide
252
financial cushion to invest in staff and quality.
42
Indeed, NHs with higher Medicare prevalence
253
were less likely to suffer staff shortages. Securing the financial health of NHs that allow them to
254
address these staff shortages needs to be a priority which might help NHs assure that fewer
255
residents are exposed to Covid-19.
256
While our study highlights staffing shortages in the NHs, we acknowledge several
257
limitations. Our findings may not be generalizable to all NHs, as 20% NHs did not pass CMS’
258
data quality check. Information regarding the COVID-19 factors and whether the NH had a staff
259
Journal Pre-proof
13
shortage are self-reported and may be inaccurate. Finally, the most up-to-date information
260
regarding facility characteristics are unavailable requiring us to rely on resident and payer-mix
261
characteristics from 2018-19, and Medicaid reimbursement rates from 2016.
262
Conclusions and Implications
263
About 1 out of 6 NHs self-reported having a shortage in licensed nurse and nurse aide
264
staffing during the COVID-19 pandemic. These shortages are not evenly distributed across
265
states. Staff shortages are mainly driven by COVID-19 factors, such as resident and staff with
266
COVID-19, as well as PPE supply. Policymakers should further support NHs to prevent the
267
transmission of COVID-19 among their vulnerable residents and valuable workforce, and help
268
them acquire sufficient PPE. Current policy efforts that focus on preventing the spread of the
269
infection within and across NHs include (dis)incentives such as large fines might be counter-
270
productive. Monetary penalties might motivate NHs to avoid violation of infection control, but
271
without funds to hire and retain staff, NHs lack the capacity to fulfill the requirement. The
272
availability of high quality direct care workers becomes even more critical as many states are
273
reopening the economy and lifting bans on visitors to NHs.
274
275
References
276
1. Kamp J, AW, M. As U.S. Nursing-Home Deaths Reach 50,000, States Ease Lockdowns.
277
The Wall Street Journal. 2020.
278
2. McMichael, TM, Currie, DW, Clark, S, et al. Epidemiology of Covid-19 in a long-term care
279
facility in King County, Washington. N Engl J Med 2020;382(21):2005-2011.
280
Journal Pre-proof
14
3. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Nursing Home COVID-19 Public File 2020.
281
https://data.cms.gov/stories/s/COVID-19-Nursing-Home-Data/bkwz-xpvg. Accessed
282
6/10 2020.
283
4. Xu, H, Bowblis, JR, Li, Y, et al. Construction and Validation of Risk-adjusted Rates of
284
Emergency Department Visits for Long-stay Nursing Home Residents. Med Care
285
2020;58(2):174-182.
286
5. Yourish, K, Lai, KR, Ivory, D, et al. One-third of all US coronavirus deaths are nursing
287
home residents or workers. New York Times 2020.
288
6. Harrington, C, Zimmerman, D, Karon, SL, et al. Nursing Home Staffing and Its
289
Relationship to Deficiencies. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B 2000;55(5):S278-
290
S287.
291
7. Min, A, Hong, HC. Effect of nurse staffing on rehospitalizations and emergency
292
department visits among short-stay nursing home residents: A Cross-sectional study
293
using the US Nursing Home Compare database. Geriatric Nursing 2018.
294
8. Charlene Harrington, Helen Carrillo, Garfield, aR. Nursing Facilities, Staffing, Residents
295
and Facility Deficiencies, 2009 Through 2014. Kaiser Family Foundation; 2015.
296
9. Backhaus, R, Verbeek, H, van Rossum, E, et al. Nurse Staffing Impact on Quality of Care
297
in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies. J Am Med Dir Assoc
298
2014;15(6):383-393.
299
10. Harrington, C, Swan, JH. Nursing Home Staffing, Turnover, and Case Mix. Med Care Res
300
Rev 2003;60(3):366-392.
301
11. SV, M. Analysis of Nursing Home Costs. 1998.
302
Journal Pre-proof
15
12. Bowblis, JR, Roberts, AR. Cost-Effective Adjustments to Nursing Home Staffing to
303
Improve Quality. Med Care Res Rev 2018;77(3):274-284.
304
13. Saliba, D, Weimer, DL, Shi, Y, et al. Examination of the New Short-Stay Nursing Home
305
Quality Measures: Rehospitalizations, Emergency Department Visits, and Successful
306
Returns to the Community. Inquiry 2018;55:46958018786816.
307
14. Kim, H, Harrington, C, Greene, WH. Registered Nurse Staffing Mix and Quality of Care in
308
Nursing Homes: A Longitudinal Analysis. The Gerontologist 2009;49(1):81-90.
309
15. Xu, H, Intrator, O. Medicaid Long-term Care Policies and Rates of Nursing Home
310
Successful Discharge to Community. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2020;21(2):248-253 e241.
311
16. Antwi, YA, Bowblis, JR. The Impact of Nurse Turnover on Quality of Care and Mortality in
312
Nursing Homes: Evidence from the Great Recession. American Journal of Health
313
Economics 2017;0(ja):1-50.
314
17. Lapane, KL, Hughes, CM. Considering the employee point of view: perceptions of job
315
satisfaction and stress among nursing staff in nursing homes. J Am Med Dir Assoc
316
2007;8(1):8-13.
317
18. Bourbonniere, M, Feng, Z, Intrator, O, et al. The use of contract licensed nursing staff in
318
US nursing homes. Med Care Res Rev 2006;63(1):88-109.
319
19. Harrington, C, Edelman, TS. Failure to Meet Nurse Staffing Standards: A Litigation Case
320
Study of a Large US Nursing Home Chain. Inquiry 2018;55:46958018788686.
321
20. Eljay, L. A report on shortfalls in Medicaid funding for nursing center care. Report for the
322
American Health Care Association, December 2016.
323
Journal Pre-proof
16
21. Chris Kirkham, Lesser, B. Pandemic exposes systemic staffing problems at U.S. nursing
324
homes. Reuters. 2020.
325
22. Stateline, S. Staffing nursing homes was hard before the pandemic. Now it's even
326
tougher. Fierce Healthcare. 2020.
327
23. Livingston, E, Desai, A, Berkwits, M. Sourcing Personal Protective Equipment During the
328
COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA 2020;323(19):1912-1914.
329
24. Jewett, C. Nursing Homes Run Short Of COVID-19 Protective Gear As Federal Response
330
Falters. Kaiser Health News. 2020.
331
25. Abbasi, J. “Abandoned” Nursing Homes Continue to Face Critical Supply and Staff
332
Shortages as COVID-19 Toll Has Mounted. JAMA 2020.
333
26. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Long-Term Care Nursing Homes Telehealth
334
and Telemedicine Tool Kit 2020.
335
27. Spanko, A. Nursing Home Staffing Strain Could Hit ‘High Point’ This Week as COVID-19
336
Crisis Rages. Skilled Nursing News. 2020.
337
28. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Nursing Home Five Star Quality Rating
338
System updates, Nursing Home Staff Counts, and Frequently Asked Questions. 2020.
339
29. Hart, G. Rural-Urban Commuting Areas Codes (RUCAs) 2010; 2014.
340
https://ruralhealth.und.edu/ruca. Accessed August 1 2018.
341
30. US Department of Health and Human Services. Area health resource file. . 2019: .
342
31. Steve Eiken, Kate Sredl, Brian Burwell, et al. Medicaid Expenditures for Long-Term
343
Services and Supports (LTSS) in FY 2016. 2018.
344
Journal Pre-proof
17
32. Grabowski, DC, Stewart, KA, Broderick, SM, et al. Predictors of nursing home
345
hospitalization: a review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev 2008;65(1):3-39.
346
33. Intrator, O, Grabowski, DC, Zinn, J, et al. Hospitalization of nursing home residents: the
347
effects of states' Medicaid payment and bed-hold policies. Health Serv Res
348
2007;42(4):1651-1671.
349
34. Freeman, S, Bishop, K, Spirgiene, L, et al. Factors affecting residents transition from long
350
term care facilities to the community: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res
351
2017;17(1):689.
352
35. Li, Y, Temkin-Greener, H, Gao, S, et al. COVID-19 infections and deaths among
353
Connecticut nursing home residents: facility correlates. J Am Geriatr Soc 2020;n/a(n/a).
354
36. Abrams, HR, Loomer, L, Gandhi, A, et al. Characteristics of U.S. Nursing Homes with
355
COVID-19 Cases. J Am Geriatr Soc 2020;n/a(n/a).
356
37. Hart, LG, Larson, EH, Lishner, DM. Rural definitions for health policy and research. Am J
357
Public Health 2005;95(7):1149-1155.
358
38. WWAMI Rural Health Research Center. Using RUCA Data; 2017.
359
http://depts.washington.edu/uwruca/ruca-uses.php. Accessed 11/26 2017.
360
39. Bowblis, JR, North, P. Geographic Market Definition: The Case of Medicare-Reimbursed
361
Skilled Nursing Facility Care. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization,
362
Provision, and Financing 2011;48(2):138-154.
363
40. Roberts, AR, Bowblis, JR. How Does Rurality Influence the Staffing of Social Service
364
Departments in Nursing Homes? Gerontologist 2018;58(3):540-545.
365
Journal Pre-proof
18
41. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. COVID-19 Survey Activities, CARES Act
366
Funding, Enhanced Enforcement for Infection Control deficiencies, and Quality
367
Improvement Activities in Nursing Homes. Baltimore, Maryland; 2020.
368
42. Weech-Maldonado, R, Pradhan, R, Dayama, N, et al. Nursing Home Quality and Financial
369
Performance: Is There a Business Case for Quality? Inquiry 2019;56:46958018825191.
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
Journal Pre-proof
19
List of Tables and Figures
384
Table 1. Nursing Home Characteristics, Market Factors, and State Policy
385
Table 2. Multivariate Logistic Regressions Models Examining Factors Associated with Reported
386
Shortages of Licensed Nurse, Nurse Aide, Clinical and Other Staff in Nursing Homes on May 31,
387
2020
388
Figure 1. Percentage of Nursing Homes Reporting Staff Shortages by State
389
Figure 2. Prevalence of Nursing Home Residents and Staff with COVID-19
390
Journal Pre-proof
Table 1. Nursing Home Characteristics, Market Factors, and State Policy
Variables
All Nursing Homes
(N=11,920)
Staff with COVID
-
19 (N=4,466)
Staff without
COVID-19 (N=7,454)
P
value
M
ean
(SD)
or N(%)
M
ean
(SD)
or N(%)
M
ean
(SD)
or N(%)
Outcome Measures
Shortage of
Licensed
Nurs
e
Staff (RN+LPN)
1
,
897 (15.9%)
877 (19.6%)
1
,
020 (13.7%)
<0.01
Shortage of
Nurse Aides
ǂ
2
,
189 (18.4%)
996 (22.3%)
1
,
193 (16.0%)
<0.01
Shortage of
Clinical Staff (MD+NP+PA)
301 (2.5%)
161 (3.6%)
140 (1.9%)
<0.01
Shortage of
Other Staff
1
,
170 (9.8%)
567 (12.7%)
603 (8.1%)
<0.01
COVID
-
19
F
actors
Total
Residents with
COVID
-
19
per 100 beds
5.68 (30.24)
13.86 (35.58)
0.79 (25.31)
<0.01
Total
Staff with
COVID
-
19
per 100 beds
3.79
(18.86)
10.13 (29.77)
0.00 (0.00)
<0.01
H
as
One
-
Week Supply of N95 Masks
9
,
796 (82.2%)
3
,
727 (83.5%)
6
,
069 (81.4%)
<
0.0
1
H
as
One
-
Week Supply of Eye Protection
1
,
0705 (89.8%)
4
,
088 (91.5%)
6
,
617 (88.8%)
<0.01
H
as
One
-
Week Supply of Gowns
9
,
486
(79.6%)
3
,
559 (79.7%)
5
,
927 (79.5%)
0.82
Nursing home characteristics
Staffing
RN Staffing
Level (
HPRD
)
0.66 (0.42)
0.68 (0.42)
0.65 (0.42)
<0.01
LPN Staffing
Level (
HPRD
)
0.86 (0.33)
0.88 (0.32)
0.85 (0.34)
<0.01
CNA
Staffing Level (
HPRD
)
2.29 (0.53)
2.28 (0.54)
2.29 (0.52)
0.33
Structure
Ownership
For
-
profit
8
,
561 (71.8%)
3
,
190 (71.4%)
5
,
371 (72.1%)
<0.01
Government
647 (5.4%)
192 (4.3%)
455 (6.1%)
No
t
-
for
-
profit
2
,
712
(22.8%)
1
,
084 (24.3%)
1
,
628 (21.8%)
Chain Affiliated
7
,
205 (60.6%)
2
,
541 (57.0%)
4
,
664 (62.7%)
<0.01
Number of Beds
108.47 (58.65)
129.75 (72.16)
95.73 (44.12)
<0.01
Occupancy Rate (0
-
100)
78.91 (16.55)
81.61 (15.00)
77.30 (17.22)
<0.01
Dementia Special Care Unit
1
,
688 (14.2%)
694 (15.6%)
994 (13.4%)
<0.01
Resident and
P
ay
er M
ix
Case
-
mix Acuity
I
ndex
10.42 (1.35)
10.56 (1.32)
10.34 (1.36)
<0.01
% Medicaid Paid (0
-
100)
59.44 (23.45)
58.75 (24.49)
59.84 (22.80)
0.01
% Medicare Paid (0
-
100)
13.11 (12.88)
13.85 (12.99)
12.66 (12.79)
<0.01
Rurality
Urban
7
,
871 (66.3%)
3
,
698 (83.1%)
4
,
173 (56.2%)
<0.01
Micropolitan
1
,
703 (14.3%)
384 (8.6%)
1
,
319 (17.8%)
Journal Pre-proof
Rural
2
,
300 (19.4%)
368 (8.3%)
1
,
932 (26.0%)
Overall Five
-
star Rating
≥4
5,519 (46.3%)
2,105 (47.1%)
3,414 (45.8%)
0.16
Market Factors
at County Level
Primary
Care Physician
per 1000
P
opulation
0.60 (1.21)
0.93 (1.49)
0.40 (0.96)
<0.01
Competitive
M
arket (HHI < 0.15)
8
,
872 (74.4%)
3
,
803 (85.2%)
5
,
069 (68.0%)
<0.01
% Medicare Advantage Penetration
(0
-
100)
31.63 (13.75)
32.67 (13.13)
31.00 (14.08)
<0.01
Median Household Income ($)
58
,
206.04
(15,797.69)
63
,
264.92
(17,467.63)
55
,
139.06
(13,820.35) <0.01
% Older population
(
≥ 65) (0
-
100)
16.90 (4.02)
15.95 (3.43)
17.47 (4.24)
<0.01
State Policy
Medicaid
Reimbursement Rates
179.74 (52.43)
185.89 (57.38)
176.06 (48.87)
<0.01
Note: RN= Registered Nurse, LPN= Licensed practical nurse, HPRD= hour per resident day, MD=physician, NP= Nurse Practitioner,
PA=Physician Assistant, CNA =certified nursing assistant, Micropolitan= Large Rural City/Town, Rural= Small Rural Town/ Isolated
Small Rural Town, HHI= Herfindahl-Hirschman Index;
+
P values measures whether nursing homes of staff with vs without COVID-19 had the same characteristics using t-tests for
continuous variables, and Chi-square tests for binary variables;
ǂ
Nurse aides included the certified nursing assistant, nurse aide, medication aide, and medication technician.
Data sources included the COVID-19 Nursing Home Dataset for COVID-19 related information, Nursing Home Compare Data (April
2020) for facility characteristics, Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting (2018-2019) for NH characteristics, and Area
Health Resources File (2018-2019) for market factors.
Journal Pre-proof
Table 2. Multivariate Logistic Regressions Models Examining Factors Associated with Reported Shortages of Licensed Nurse, Nurse
Aide, Clinical and Other Staff in Nursing Homes on May 31, 2020
Variables Licensed Nurse Staff Nurse Aides Clinical Staff Other Staff
OR (95 CI)
OR (95 CI)
OR (95 CI)
OR (95 CI)
COVID-19 Factors
Any resident with COVID-19 1.60*** (1.38 - 1.85) 1.44*** (1.25 - 1.67) 2.10*** (1.54 - 2.87) 1.71*** (1.43 - 2.05)
Any staff with COVID-19 1.37*** (1.19 - 1.58) 1.34*** (1.17 - 1.53) 1.43** (1.05 - 1.94) 1.38*** (1.17 - 1.64)
Has One-Week Supply of N95 Masks 1.14 (0.90 - 1.43) 1.02 (0.84 - 1.25) 1.25 (0.87 - 1.79) 0.98 (0.78 - 1.24)
Has
One
-
Week Supply of Eye
Protection 0.70*** (0.55 - 0.89) 0.64*** (0.52 - 0.79) 0.46*** (0.31 - 0.69) 0.78* (0.61 - 1.01)
Has One-Week Supply of Gowns 0.53*** (0.44 - 0.64) 0.55*** (0.47 - 0.65) 0.77 (0.54 - 1.10) 0.57*** (0.47 - 0.70)
Nursing Home Staffing
RN Staffing Level (HPRD) 0.66*** (0.49 - 0.89) 0.80* (0.62 - 1.04) 1.18 (0.70 - 1.99) 0.81 (0.58 - 1.13)
LPN Staffing Level (HPRD) 0.91 (0.72 - 1.15) 0.97 (0.78 - 1.22) 0.97 (0.61 - 1.55) 0.94 (0.69 - 1.28)
CNA Staffing Level (HPRD) 1.00 (0.87 - 1.14) 0.88* (0.77 - 1.00) 1.34* (0.98 - 1.84) 1.00 (0.85 - 1.19)
Nursing Home Structure
Ownership (Ref: For-profit)
Government 1.31* (0.99 - 1.72) 1.20 (0.92 - 1.55) 1.07 (0.58 - 1.97) 1.35* (0.99 - 1.85)
Not-for-profit 1.00 (0.86 - 1.18) 1.08 (0.93 - 1.26) 0.67** (0.45 - 0.99) 0.99 (0.82 - 1.19)
Chain Affiliated 0.96 (0.85 - 1.08) 0.90* (0.80 - 1.00) 1.25 (0.96 - 1.62) 0.91 (0.78 - 1.06)
Number of beds
+
0.98 (0.91 - 1.05) 1.01 (0.94 - 1.08) 0.92 (0.78 - 1.08) 0.91** (0.83 - 1.00)
Occupancy Rate
+
0.86*** (0.80 - 0.92) 0.91*** (0.85 - 0.98) 0.98 (0.82 - 1.17) 0.90** (0.82 - 0.99)
Dementia Special Care Unit 1.08 (0.92 - 1.25) 1.07 (0.92 - 1.24) 1.29 (0.91 - 1.85) 1.22* (1.00 - 1.49)
Nursing Home Resident and Payer
Mix
% Medicaid Paid
+
1.00 (0.92 - 1.10) 1.06 (0.98 - 1.15) 0.97 (0.81 - 1.16) 1.09* (0.98 - 1.21)
% Medicare Paid
+
0.79*** (0.70 - 0.90) 0.82*** (0.74 - 0.91) 0.81* (0.65 - 1.01) 0.80*** (0.70 - 0.92)
Case-mix Acuity Index
+
1.01 (0.93 - 1.10) 0.99 (0.92 - 1.07) 1.02 (0.87 - 1.19) 1.02 (0.94 - 1.12)
Rurality (Ref: Urban)
Micropolitan 0.96 (0.79 - 1.16) 0.83* (0.70 - 1.00) 0.95 (0.62 - 1.48) 0.90 (0.71 - 1.15)
Rural 1.11 (0.90 - 1.37) 0.96 (0.78 - 1.17) 0.98 (0.60 - 1.58) 0.97 (0.75 - 1.26)
Overall Five-star Rating ≥4 0.79*** (0.70 - 0.89) 0.83*** (0.74 - 0.93) 0.89 (0.68 - 1.16) 0.85** (0.73 - 0.98)
Market Factors
Primary Care Physician
+
0.92* (0.85 - 1.01) 0.98 (0.90 - 1.06) 1.04 (0.91 - 1.19) 1.01 (0.90 - 1.14)
Competitive Market (HHI < 0.15) 1.01 (0.85 - 1.19) 0.93 (0.79 - 1.09) 0.86 (0.58 - 1.29) 0.75*** (0.62 - 0.92)
Journal Pre-proof
% Medicare Advantage Penetration
+
1.11** (1.00 - 1.22) 1.07 (0.97 - 1.17) 1.02 (0.84 - 1.24) 1.02 (0.90 - 1.17)
Median Household Income ($)
+
0.96 (0.88 - 1.03) 0.94 (0.87 - 1.02) 0.99 (0.84 - 1.15) 1.05 (0.95 - 1.15)
% Older population (≥ 65)
+
1.04 (0.96 - 1.13) 1.04 (0.97 - 1.12) 1.07 (0.93 - 1.24) 1.08 (0.98 - 1.18)
Medicaid Reimbursement Rates 0.97 (0.90 - 1.03) 0.97 (0.91 - 1.04) 1.04 (0.86 - 1.27) 1.00 (0.92 - 1.09)
Observations 10,870 10,928 10,666 10,859
Note: OR= odds ratio, CI= confidence interval, RN= Registered Nurse, LPN= Licensed practical nurse, CNA =Certified nursing assistant,
HPRD= hour per resident day, Micropolitan= Large Rural City/Town, Rural= Small Rural Town/ Isolated Small Rural Town, HHI=
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index;
Standard errors were clustered at county level;
State fixed effects were not presented;
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1;
+
Continuous variables were standardized with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one.
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 1. Percentage of Nursing
Homes Reporting Staff Shortages by
State
Notes:
+
Licensed nurse staff included the registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, and vocational nurse
as reported by the provider;
ǂ
Nurse aides included the certified nursing assistant, nurse aide, medication aide, and medication
technician as reported by the provider.
Panel B.
Reported
S
hortage of
Nurse Aides
ǂ
Panel A.
Reported
Shortage of
Licensed
Nurs
e
Staff
+
Journal Pre-proof
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 2. Prevalence of Nursing Home Residents and Staff with COVID-19
Note:
Number of cases were scaled to 100 beds to account for differences in nursing home size.
Panel A. Total Number of Residents with COVID-19 per 100 Beds
Panel
B
. Total
N
umber of
S
taff with
COVID
-
19
per 100
B
eds
Journal Pre-proof
Journal Pre-proof
Journal Pre-proof
Journal Pre-proof
Journal Pre-proof
... Many problems related to resources in long-term care were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is worth noting that the shortage of workers affected carers with different qualifications, including highly skilled workers such as nurses and doctors working in long-term care facilities (Grabowski & Mor, 2020;White et al., 2021;Xu et al., 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study is to characterise the determinants of the development of the silver economy in the field of care services provided in a residential form for dependent elderly persons in Poland. The analysis was carried out on the basis of statistical and financial background data, including those from the Ministry of Family and Social Affairs, the Ministry of Health, OECD, etc. Although the demand for care services will continue to grow in the coming years, the following barriers to the development of this segment of the silver economy can be identified: lack of employees, unattractiveness of monetary gratification, inefficient financing mechanisms, lack of public investment in the development of care facilities , and increasing costs of providing services in all forms. Keywords • economics of the elderly • silver economy • demographic trends • labor demand • welfare programme JEL codes: H53, I38, J11, J14, J23
... This higher home discharge disposition may have been temporarily influenced by the decreased availability of beds in long-term care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, long-term care facilities reported shortages of personal protective equipment, staff illness, and space constraints due to isolation precautions, which reduced their capacity to accept residents [26][27][28]. ...
Article
Full-text available
We aim to investigate the relationships between the population characteristics of patients with Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and their Healthcare Utilization (HU) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Electronic health records (EHRs) were utilized. The study sample comprised those with ICD-10 codes G30.0, G30.1, G30.8, and G30.9 between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021. Pearson’s correlation and multiple regression were used. The analysis utilized 1537 patient records with an average age of 82.20 years (SD = 7.71); 62.3% were female. Patients had an average of 1.64 hospitalizations (SD = 1.18) with an average length of stay (ALOS) of 7.45 days (SD = 9.13). Discharge dispositions were primarily home (55.1%) and nursing facilities (32.4%). Among patients with multiple hospitalizations, a negative correlation was observed between age and both ALOS (r = −0.1264, p = 0.0030) and number of hospitalizations (r = −0.1499, p = 0.0004). Predictors of longer ALOS included male gender (p = 0.0227), divorced or widowed (p = 0.0056), and the use of Medicare Advantage and other private insurance (p = 0.0178). Male gender (p = 0.0050) and Black race (p = 0.0069) were associated with a higher hospitalization frequency. We recommend future studies including the co-morbidities of AD patients, larger samples, and longitudinal data.
... Based on our study findings, nursing homes that had higher nursing staffing intensity had a lower operating margin, likely due to the increased labor costs associated with hiring staff or increasing staffing hours. While having more nursing staff may likely improve resident care and satisfaction, 19,52 our results suggest that it may not necessarily lead to a higher operating margin. Research also shows that some nursing homes turned to contract nurses during COVID-19, with 78% of facilities reporting the use of agency nurse staff paying both agency fees and higher rates per hour for nursing staff. ...
Article
Full-text available
Nursing homes expressed concern about potential severe adverse financial outcomes of COVID-19, with worries extending to the possibility of some facilities facing closure. Maintaining a strong financial well-being is crucial, and there were concerns that the pandemic might have significantly impacted both expenses and income. This longitudinal study aimed to analyze the financial performance of nursing homes during COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we examined the impact of the pandemic on nursing home operating margins, operating revenue per resident day, and operating cost per resident day. The study utilized secondary data from various sources, including CMS Medicare cost reports, Brown University’s Long Term Care Focus (LTCFocus), CMS Payroll-Based Journal, CMS Care Compare, Area Health Resource File, Provider Relief Fund distribution data, and CDC’s NH COVID-19 public file. The sample consisted of 45 833 nursing home-year observations from 2018 to 2021. Fixed-effects regression analysis was employed to assess the impact of the pandemic on financial performance while controlling for various organizational and market characteristics. The study found that nursing homes’ financial performance deteriorated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Operating margins decreased by approximately 4.3%, while operating costs per resident day increased by $26.51, outweighing the increase in operating revenue per resident day by about $17. Occupancy rates, payer mix, and staffing intensity were found to impact financial performance. The study highlights the significant financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on nursing homes. While nursing homes faced substantial financial strains, the findings offered lessons for the future, underscoring the need for nursing homes to improve the accuracy of their cost reports and enhance financial transparency and accountability.
Article
Full-text available
This study explores the role of human agency in shaping the hopeful career state (HCS) of nurses in Oman during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Utilizing the enhanced critical incident technique (ECIT) and integrating Albert Bandura's three modes of agency (i.e., personal, proxy, and collective), this study aimed to identify helping and hindering factors affecting Omani nurses' HCS during the pandemic, while uncovering their wishes. Sixteen nurses from Oman's public healthcare sector were interviewed. The top three helping factors were family support (81.3%), support from leaders and senior colleagues (56.3%), and multidisciplinary team collaboration (43.8%). The most frequently reported hindering factors were lack of equipment, supplies, and infrastructure (100%), shortage of nurses (56.3%), and increased workload (50%). The top three wish‐list items included specialized hospitals for infectious diseases (62.5%), training and staff development (43.8%), and more nurses (31.3%). Through force‐field analysis, we delineated the agents and modes of agency at play, offering insights for targeted Human Resource Development (HRD) interventions. This study contributes to the HRD literature by illustrating the dynamic interplay of agency factors in crisis conditions. The findings highlight the need for HRD practitioners to develop multilevel interventions that foster personal, proxy, and collective agency to support healthcare workers' HCS during crises, providing a foundation for future strategies in healthcare and beyond.
Article
This editorial comments on the article by Mueller et al .
Article
Background: Hospice care frequently includes hands-on care from hospice aides, but the need for hospice aide care may vary in residential settings (e.g., assisted livings and nursing homes). Objectives: The objective of this study is to compare hospice aide use and factors associated with use across residential settings. Design: This longitudinal cohort study used data from Medicare beneficiaries in the United States enrolled in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) who died between 2010 and 2019 and had hospice claims and available residential setting data in MCBS (n = 1,915). Analysis: Decedent hospice aide use was compared by residential settings; multivariable models controlling for sociodemographic, clinical/functional, and hospice characteristics examined factors associated with hospice aide care in different residential settings. Results: Hospice aide visits were least common in the community setting (64.4% vs. 76.6% vs. 72.6% with any hospice aide visits in community, assisted living, and nursing home, respectively, p = 0.001). In adjusted models, factors associated with hospice aide visits did not significantly differ by residential settings. Conclusions: Despite staff providing hands-on support in assisted livings and nursing homes, hospice aide visits were more common in residential as opposed to community settings, and factors associated with hospice aide visits were similar among settings. To maximize the potentially positive impact of hospice aides on overall care, additional work is needed to understand when hospice aides are used and how hospice aides collaborate with families and care teams. This will help to ensure that hospice care is appropriately tailored to individual care needs in all residential settings.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Depression is common amongst older people residing in long-term care (LTC) facilities. Currently, most residents treated for depression are prescribed antidepressant medications, despite the potential availability of psychological therapies that are suitable for older people and a preference amongst many older people for non-pharmacological treatment approaches. Objectives: To assess the effect of psychological therapies for depression in older people living in LTC settings, in comparison with treatment as usual, waiting list control, and non-specific attentional control; and to compare the effectiveness of different types of psychological therapies in this setting. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, five grey literature sources, and two trial registers. We performed reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. The latest search was 31 October 2021. Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of any type of psychological therapy for the treatment of depression in adults aged 65 years and over residing in a LTC facility. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text manuscripts for inclusion. Two review authors independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We contacted study authors for additional information where required. Primary outcomes were level of depressive symptomatology and treatment non-acceptability; secondary outcomes included depression remission, quality of life or psychological well-being, and level of anxious symptomatology. We used Review Manager 5 to conduct meta-analyses, using pairwise random-effects models. For continuous data, we calculated standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using endpoint data, and for dichotomous data, we used odds ratios and 95% CIs. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Main results: We included 19 RCTs with 873 participants; 16 parallel group RCTs and three cluster-RCTs. Most studies compared psychological therapy (typically including elements of cognitive behavioural therapy, behavioural therapy, reminiscence therapy, or a combination of these) to treatment as usual or to a condition controlling for the effects of attention. We found very low-certainty evidence that psychological therapies were more effective than non-therapy control conditions in reducing symptoms of depression, with a large effect size at end-of-intervention (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.58; 18 RCTs, 644 participants) and at short-term (up to three months) follow-up (SMD -1.03, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.56; 16 RCTs, 512 participants). In addition, very low-certainty evidence from a single study with 82 participants indicated that psychological therapy was associated with a greater reduction in the number of participants presenting with major depressive disorder compared to treatment as usual control, at end-of-intervention and short-term follow-up. However, given the limited data on the effect of psychological therapies on remission of major depressive disorder, caution is advised in interpreting this result. Participants receiving psychological therapy were more likely to drop out of the trial than participants receiving a non-therapy control (odds ratio 3.44, 95% CI 1.19 to 9.93), which may indicate higher treatment non-acceptability. However, analyses were restricted due to limited dropout case data and imprecise reporting, and the finding should be interpreted with caution. There was very low-certainty evidence that psychological therapy was more effective than non-therapy control conditions in improving quality of life and psychological well-being at short-term follow-up, with a medium effect size (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.82; 5 RCTs, 170 participants), but the effect size was small at postintervention (SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.82; 6 RCTs, 195 participants). There was very low-certainty evidence of no effect of psychological therapy on anxiety symptoms postintervention (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -2.50 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 115 participants), although results lacked precision, and there was insufficient data to determine short-term outcomes. Authors' conclusions: This systematic review suggests that cognitive behavioural therapy, behavioural therapy, and reminiscence therapy may reduce depressive symptoms compared with usual care for LTC residents, but the evidence is very uncertain. Psychological therapies may also improve quality of life and psychological well-being amongst depressed LTC residents in the short term, but may have no effect on symptoms of anxiety in depressed LTC residents, compared to control conditions. However, the evidence for these effects is very uncertain, limiting our confidence in the findings. The evidence could be strengthened by better reporting and higher-quality RCTs of psychological therapies in LTC, including trials with larger samples, reporting results separately for those with and without cognitive impairment and dementia, and longer-term outcomes to determine when effects wane.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Long-stay nursing home (NH) residents are at high risk of having emergency department (ED) visits, but current knowledge regarding risk-adjusted ED rates is limited. Objectives: To construct and validate 3 quarterly risk-adjusted rates of long-stay residents' ED use: any ED visit, ED visits without hospitalization or observation stay (outpatient ED), and potentially avoidable ED visits (PAED). Research design: The authors calculated quarterly NH risk-adjusted ED rates from 2011 Q2 to 2013 Q3 national Medicare claims and Minimum Data Set data. Using random-effect linear regressions, the authors validated these rates against Nursing Home Compare overall 5-star quality ratings and examined their associations with hospitalization rates to provide a quality context. Subjects: Resident-quarter observations (7.3 million) from 15,235 unique NHs. Results: Risk-adjusted rates of any ED, outpatient ED, and PAED averaged 9.7%, 3.4%, and 3.2%, respectively. Compared with NHs with 1 or 2 stars overall rating, NHs with ≥3 stars were significantly associated with lower rates of any ED visit, outpatient ED, and PAED (β, -0.23%, -0.16%, and -0.11%, respectively; all P<0.01). Pearson Correlation coefficients between hospitalization rates and rates of any ED visit, outpatient ED, and PAED were 0.74, 0.31, and 0.46, respectively. Conclusions: The moderately negative associations of 5-star ratings with ED rates provide supportive evidence to their validity. Outpatient ED and PAED were moderately correlated to hospitalizations suggesting they provided more information about quality than any ED.
Article
Full-text available
This study examines the relationship between nursing home quality and financial performance to assess whether there is a business case for quality. Secondary data sources included the Online Survey Certification and Reporting (OSCAR), Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting (CASPER), Medicare Cost Reports, Minimum Data Set (MDS 2.0), Area Resource File (ARF), and LTCFocus for all free-standing, nongovernment nursing homes for 2000 to 2014. Data were analyzed using panel data linear regression with facility and year fixed effects. The dependent variable, financial performance, consisted of the operating margin. The independent variables comprised nursing home quality measures that capture the three dimensions of Donabedian's structure-process-outcomes framework: structure Registered Nurse (RN) hours per resident day, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) hours per resident day, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) hours per resident day, RN skill mix), process (facility-acquired restraints, facility-acquired catheters, pressure ulcer prevention, and restorative ambulation), and outcomes (facility-acquired contractures, facility-acquired pressure ulcers, hospitalizations per resident, rehospitalizations, and health deficiencies). Control variables included size, average acuity index, market competition, per capita income, and Medicare Advantage penetration rate. This study found that the operating margin was lower in nursing homes that reported higher LPN hours per resident day and higher RN skill mix (structure); higher use of catheters, lower pressure ulcer prevention, and lower restorative ambulation (process); and more residents with contractures, pressure ulcers, hospitalizations and health deficiencies (outcomes). The results suggest that there is a business case for quality, whereas nursing homes that have better processes and outcomes of care perform better financially.
Article
Full-text available
Large for-profit nursing home chains in the United States have generally reported low nurse staffing levels. This historical case study examined a class action litigation case regarding staffing levels, resident rights, and quality outcomes in 12 Arkansas nursing homes owned by a large for-profit chain. The questions were as follows: (1) How did the residents’ care needs compare with actual nurse staffing levels? (2) How did the staffing levels compare with federal and state nurse staffing requirements and professional staffing standards? (3) Did the facilities comply with state and federal residents’ rights and quality of care requirements? The findings showed staffing levels marginally above state minimum standards, staffing shortages that violated state standards, staffing levels not adjusted for resident acuity, and shortages that resulted in omitted care. Staffing levels were lower than needed according to nursing directors, lower than average facilities in the state, and lower than professional standards. The findings showed many resident grievances regarding basic care and residents’ rights, clinical measures of poor quality, and state deficiencies. A large settlement was agreed on to compensate the residents. The case shows that chain’s management, as well as the regulatory system, failed to ensure adequate staffing levels that took into account regulatory requirements and professional standards and resulted in violations of residents’ rights, health, safety, and well-being.
Article
Objective To determine the associations of nursing home registered nurse (RN) staffing, overall quality of care, and concentration of Medicaid or racial and ethnic minority residents with COVID‐19 confirmed cases and deaths by April 16, 2020 among Connecticut nursing home residents. Design Cross‐sectional analysis on Connecticut nursing home (n=215) COVID‐19 report, linked to other nursing home files and county counts of confirmed cases and deaths. Multivariable two‐part models determined the associations of key nursing home characteristics with the likelihood of at least 1 confirmed case (or death) in the facility, and with the count of cases (deaths) among facilities with at least 1 confirmed case (death). Results The average number of confirmed cases was 8 per nursing home (zero in 107 facilities), and the average number of confirmed deaths was 1.7 per nursing home (zero in 131 facilities). Among facilities with at least 1 confirmed case, every 20 minutes (per resident day) increase in RN staffing was associated with 22% fewer confirmed cases (incidence rate ratio [IRR]=0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68‐0.89, p<0.001); compared to 1‐ to 3‐star facilities, 4‐ or 5‐star facilities had 13% fewer confirmed cases (IRR=0.87, 95% CI 0.78‐0.97, p<0.015); and facilities with high concentration of Medicaid residents (IRR=1.16, 95% CI 1.02‐1.32, p=0.025) or racial/ethnic minority residents (IRR=1.15, 95% CI 1.03‐1.29, p=0.026) had 16% and 15% more confirmed cases, respectively, than their counterparts. Among facilities with at least 1 death, every 20 minutes increase in RN staffing significantly predicted 26% fewer COVID‐19 deaths (IRR=0.74, 95% CI 0.55‐1.00, p=0.047). Other focused characteristics did not show statistically significant associations with deaths. Conclusions Nursing homes with higher RN staffing and quality ratings have the potential to better control the spread of the novel coronavirus and reduce deaths. Nursing homes caring predominantly for Medicaid or racial and ethnic minority residents tend to have more confirmed cases.
Article
Background COVID‐19 has been documented in a large share of nursing homes throughout the United States. This has led to high rates of mortality for residents. In order to understand how to prevent and mitigate future outbreaks, it is imperative that we understand which nursing homes are more likely to experience COVID‐19 cases. Objective To examine the characteristics of nursing homes with documented COVID‐19 cases in 30 states reporting individual facilities affected. Design and setting We constructed a database of nursing homes with verified COVID‐19 cases as of May 11, 2020 via correspondence with and publicly available reports from state departments of health. We linked this information to nursing home characteristics and used regression analysis to examine association between these characteristics and the likelihood of having a documented COVID‐19 case. Results Of 9,395 nursing homes in our sample, 2,949 (31.4%) had a documented COVID‐19 case. Larger facility size, urban location, greater percentage of African American residents, non‐chain status, and state were significantly (p<0.05) related to increased probability of having a COVID‐19 case. Five‐star rating, prior infection violation, Medicaid dependency, and ownership were not significantly related. Conclusions COVID‐19 cases in nursing homes are related to facility location and size and not traditional quality metrics such as star rating and prior infection control citations. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Article
Background Long-term care facilities are high-risk settings for severe outcomes from outbreaks of Covid-19, owing to both the advanced age and frequent chronic underlying health conditions of the residents and the movement of health care personnel among facilities in a region. Methods After identification on February 28, 2020, of a confirmed case of Covid-19 in a skilled nursing facility in King County, Washington, Public Health–Seattle and King County, aided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, launched a case investigation, contact tracing, quarantine of exposed persons, isolation of confirmed and suspected cases, and on-site enhancement of infection prevention and control. Results As of March 18, a total of 167 confirmed cases of Covid-19 affecting 101 residents, 50 health care personnel, and 16 visitors were found to be epidemiologically linked to the facility. Most cases among residents included respiratory illness consistent with Covid-19; however, in 7 residents no symptoms were documented. Hospitalization rates for facility residents, visitors, and staff were 54.5%, 50.0%, and 6.0%, respectively. The case fatality rate for residents was 33.7% (34 of 101). As of March 18, a total of 30 long-term care facilities with at least one confirmed case of Covid-19 had been identified in King County. Conclusions In the context of rapidly escalating Covid-19 outbreaks, proactive steps by long-term care facilities to identify and exclude potentially infected staff and visitors, actively monitor for potentially infected patients, and implement appropriate infection prevention and control measures are needed to prevent the introduction of Covid-19.
Article
Objectives: Successful discharge of nursing home (NH) residents to community has been reported in Nursing Home Compare (NHCompare) as a quality indicator, yet it is likely influenced by the availability of home- and community-based services (HCBS). Medicaid NH reimbursement rates and bed-hold policies have been shown to be related to quality of care, which may also affect successful discharge. This study explores the relationship of state Medicaid long-term care policies and successful discharge. Design: Longitudinal study of Medicaid policies and NHCompare successful discharge rates over 3 time periods, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017, using generalized estimating equation models. Setting and participants: 11,694 unique NHs. Measures: Risk-adjusted rates of successful discharge were downloaded from NHCompare. Truven's "Medicaid Expenditures for Long-term Services and Supports" reports provided states' expenditures on HCBS and NHs. Details of bed-hold policies in 2014 were obtained from the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. Data on NH and market characteristics were extracted from LTCFocUs.org and Area Health Resources File. Results: The national average-adjusted successful discharge rates were 49.7%, 56.8%, and 56.2% in 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017, respectively. In 2015, states spent between 30.6% (Mississippi) and 82.2% (Oregon) on HCBS, with an overall average of 53.1%. States reimbursed NHs, on average, $185.7 per resident day. Five percent increase in Medicaid spending for HCBS was statistically significantly associated with 0.47% higher successful discharge rates. Compared to NHs in states with reimbursement rates in the first quartile (≤$152), NHs in the second ($153-$178), third ($179-$212), and fourth (≥$213) quartiles were associated with 2.33%, 1.86%, and 1.15% higher successful discharge rates (all P < .01). Results were stronger in states without bed-hold policies. Conclusions/implications: This study provides promising evidence to state governments that shifting expenditures from institutions to communities as well as more generous reimbursements to NHs may improve quality of care in NHs.
Article
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of nurse staffing on both rehospitalizations and emergency department emergency department visits among short-stay nursing home residents in the United States. Data for 11,132 US nursing homes were drawn from the 2016 Nursing Home Compare. We found that the Five-Star Quality Rating System's staffing rating is a significant predictor for the rates of rehospitalization and emergency department visit among short-stay nursing home residents. The results also showed the importance of registered nurse staffing in nursing home caring for short-stay residents. Administrators and policy-makers can employ the findings to formulate management strategies that will reduce rehospitalizations and emergency department visits among nursing home residents.