Large increases in the need for long-term care (LTC) services are expected as baby boomers age. Little has been published about patient and caregiver preferences for information about LTC. However, our qualitative research findings suggest that potential consumers may find it difficult to obtain accurate and timely information about LTC programs and services. In-person, semistructured interviews were conducted with 47 subjects, including patients (n = 25) within 90 days of their referral to a LTC placement (including NH, assisted living, home care, and community) and their caregivers (n = 22). Interview questions addressed the events that seemed to trigger their need for a LTC referral, the resources they used to become more informed about LTC options and the issues they confronted with the LTC referral process. Qualitative analyses identified a number of patient and informal caregiver-reported barriers to making decisions about LTC services, including insufficient information about LTC programs and community resources, unclear funding requirements and inadequate funding, and difficulty knowing how to plan for LTC or make LTC decisions. A potential solution may be an online LTC Guide designed to provide accurate information about the range of LTC services, with an emphasis on home and community-based services. This Guide was developed to address the gap in comprehensive LTC information identified in the findings of this study.

OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the effect of hearing screening on long-term hearing outcomes in a general population of older veterans. DESIGN:Hearing loss in the elderly is underdetected and undertreated. Routine hearing screening has been proposed, but it is not clear whether screening identifies patients who are sufficiently motivated to adhere to treatment. A four-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare three screening strategies with no screening in 2,305 older veterans seeking general medical care. SETTING:Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System. INTERVENTIONS:The screening strategies were a tone-emitting otoscope, a widely used questionnaire about hearing handicap, and a combination of both tools. MEASUREMENTS:Hearing aid use 1 year after screening. RESULTS:Of participants who underwent screening with the tone-emitting otoscope, questionnaire, and combined testing, 18.6%, 59.2%, and 63.6%, respectively, screened positive for hearing loss (P<.01 for test of equality across three arms). Patients proceeded to formal audiology evaluation 14.7%, 23.0%, and 26.6% of the time in the same screening arms, compared with 10.8% in the control arm (P<.01 for test of equality across four arms). Hearing aid use 1 year after screening was 6.3%, 4.1%, and 7.4% in the same arms, compared with 3.3% in the control arm (P<.01). Hearing aid users experienced significant improvements in hearing-related function and communication ability. CONCLUSION:In older veterans, screening for hearing loss led to significantly more hearing aid use. Screening with the tone-emitting otoscope was more efficient. The results are most applicable to older populations with few cost barriers to hearing aids.

Objectives: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) funded assisted living (AL), adult family home (AFH) and residential care for the first time in the Assisted Living Pilot Program (ALPP) This article describes the background and methods of the ALPP evaluation and the characteristics and experiences of the facilities. Method: Facility data were collected from the contracting/inspection process and a survey of ALPP facilities and those contacted but not participating in ALPP Results: pata on 131 participating facilities are presented: 41 AFHs, 47 assisted living facilities (ALFs) and 43 residential care facilities (RCFs). The average facility had 33 beds (about one quarter Medicaid beds), for-profit ownership, and private rooms for ALPP residents, and about half had private baths. About two thirds of ALPP AFH providers spoke a primary language other than English. Discussion: Findings indicate that a wide range of community facilities were willing to provide care to residents with heterogeneous needs on VA funding.

The purpose of this study was to obtain information about Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) long-term care (LTC) referrals that could be used to develop interventions that increase the likelihood of referrals to home and community-based services (HCBS) instead of institutional care. This primarily qualitative study was conducted at five VA Medical Centers. The study used three linked methods: interviews with patients and informal caregivers; focus groups with LTC administrators, providers, and social workers; and written rankings of the barriers to HCBS referrals. We unexpectedly identified a cluster of findings indicating the importance of physicians' role in the LTC referral process and the need for more LTC training, particularly about HCBS.

The purposes of this study were to evaluate a federal and state-funded Family Caregiver Support Program (FCSP) and explore what types of caregiver support service are associated with what caregiver outcomes. Information was obtained on a sample of 164 caregivers' use of eleven different types of support service. Descriptive and comparative analyses were used to detect the differences between users and nonusers of caregiver support services. Six measures included were caregiving appraisal scale, caregiving burden, caregiving mastery, caregiving satisfaction, hour of care, and service satisfaction. Using consulting and education services is associated with lessening of subjective burden; using financial support services is associated with more beneficial caregiver appraisal, such as better caregiver mastery. The findings are practical and helpful for future caregiver service and program development and evaluation and policy making for supporting caregivers. In addition, the evaluation method demonstrated in the study provided a simple and moderately effective method for service agencies which would like to evaluate their family caregiver support services.

Objective: The Department of Veterans Affairs funded assisted living, adult family home, and adult residential care for the first time in the Assisted Living Pilot Program (ALPP) This article compares the use and cost for individuals that entered ALPP and a comparison group. Method: This was a nonrandomized study. The comparison group consisted of VA patients who were eligible but did not enter an ALPP facility. The ALPP (n = 393) and comparison (n = 259) groups were followed for 12 months to assess ALPP facility, case management, and health care costs. Results: ALPP facility and ALPP case management costs were respectively $5,560 and $2,830 per individual. Total health care costs, including ALPP costs, were $11,533 higher for the ALPP group compared to the comparison group after adjusting for baseline differences. Discussion: Although ALPP successfully helped individuals transition to longer term care in these facilities, it was more costly than the comparison group.

This paper compares assisted living apartments (ALs), adult residential care facilities (ARCs), and small adult family homes (AFHs) for Medicaid residents in Washington State, with particular emphasis on the settings, staffing, services, and policies of AFHs. We targeted for enrollment all residents entering an AFH, ARC, or AL setting on Medicaid/state funding in a three-county area of Washington State. We obtained information on 199 settings, interviewing administrative and direct care providers. AFHs are smaller than ARCs and ALs and less likely to be part of a chain, with no significant difference in staffing ratios of registered nurses and licensed practical nurses. Sixty-four percent of AFH residents were receiving public funds compared to 32% of AL residents. AFHs report admitting residents with more activities of daily living needs, health conditions, and behavior problems. They are less likely to have autonomy-related policies, and they provide more services and fewer activities. While attention should continue to be paid to staff supports, policy and practice should support the continued role of AFHs, which are of special interest because of their potential to provide more homelike, less costly care but with possible trade-offs compared to larger facilities.

Abstract Data describing resident and facility characteristics were obtained from a questionnaire mailed to three types of licensed residential care settings in Washington State: adult family home (AFH), adult residential care (ARC), and assisted living (AL). The overall disability of residents was high, with AFHs serving a more impaired clientele than ARCs or ALs. ALs were more likely to serve private pay residents and had the highest occupancy rates. Although hourly caregiving staff wages were similar, AFHs reported greater difficulties in hiring and retaining caregiving staff and were more likely to report difficult residents contributed to staffing problems. AFHs also reported the greatest dissatisfaction with state reimbursement rates. These findings underscore the need to carefully match resident impairment to provider capacity, especially among AFHs.

PURPOSEThe number of residents in assisted living has rapidly increased, although these facilities still primarily serve people who can pay out of pocket. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs was authorized to provide this level of care for the first time in the Assisted Living Pilot Program (ALPP). We describe the residents and providers, comparing them across three facility types and other populations, to assess the characteristics and feasibility of this new approach.DESIGN AND METHODSWe assessed ALPP residents and providers across seven Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. We obtained information from medical records, assessment tools, and a provider survey.RESULTSWe report here on 743 residents placed from 2002 to 2004. The Department of Veterans Affairs contracted with 58 adult family homes, 56 assisted living facilities, and 46 residential care facilities. The average ALPP resident was a 70-year-old unmarried White man referred from an inpatient hospital and living in a private residence prior to placement. Adult family homes enrolled residents requiring greater levels of assistance with activities of daily living than other facility types. Assisted living facilities were less likely than adult family homes to admit residents with functional disabilities and less likely than either adult family homes or adult residential care facilities to admit residents with certain care needs.IMPLICATIONSALPP placed residents with a wide range of characteristics in community facilities that varied widely in size and services. This information can help determine the role of this type of care in and outside of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

BACKGROUND: In community residential care (CRC) facilities, medication administration is often performed by unlicensed personnel with minimal knowledge in medication use. Medication management is one of the top 3 quality-of-care issues facing these facilities.OBJECTIVE: To examine the type of medication assistance residents received, determine the proportion of facilities that used pharmacy resources, and examine the quality of facility medication records in CRC facilities (eg, adult family homes, adult residential care, assisted living facilities).METHODS: Baseline in-person interviews were conducted with 349 residents and 299 facility providers in the Puget Sound region of Washington. Information was also obtained from facility medication records at enrollment and state databases. A pharmacist determined quality of the records using a standardized form.RESULTS: The average resident was a 78-year-old white female taking 7 drugs. Medication records that were computer generated were significantly less likely to have misspelled names of drugs and errors in or absence of dose, directions for use, and route of administration. Overall, 26.3% of facilities reported that a consultant pharmacist reviewed residents' medication lists, 52.0% reported the use of preprinted lists, and 75.6% received prepackaged medications from the pharmacy. Adult family homes, the smallest facility type, were the least likely to use pharmacy-related services.CONCLUSIONS: The quality of handwritten medication records was a concern in CRC facilities. These facilities may benefit from services offered by pharmacies that may enhance medication management, many of which were underutilized.

BACKGROUND:Psychotropic medication use in community residential care (CRC) facilities has been reported to be similar to that found in nursing homes before the implementation of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987.OBJECTIVES:The objectives of this study were to (1) describe patterns of psychotropic medication use at baseline and after 1 year of follow-up in adult residents aged > or =65 years supported by Medicaid in CRC facilities, (2) describe the quality of psychotropic use, and (3) examine the relationship between psychotropic use and resident and facility characteristics.METHODS:This was a planned analysis of a larger prospective cohort study conducted in CRC facilities (assisted living, adult family home, adult residential care) in a 3-county area in the state of Washington. Interviews and state Medicaid databases were used to collect resident characteristics (demographic data, medication use, activities of daily living, self-reported health, and frequency of memory and behavior problems) and facility characteristics (type, staffing, and occupancy rates). Residents were classified as users or nonusers of psychotropic medications. Suboptimal psychotropic use was defined as use of agents with a higher side-effect profile (tertiary amine tricyclic antidepressants, long-acting benzodiazepines, and low-potency conventional antipsychotics). Logistic regression was used to examine characteristics associated with any psychotropic use at baseline.RESULTS:The typical resident was a white woman, aged 83 years, receiving 7 medications. Nearly half (46.8%) of all residents used > or =1 psychotropic medication at baseline, whereas 16.7% used multiple agents. Antidepressants accounted for the greatest amount of psychotropic use (31.2%). Suboptimal antidepressants, sedative/anxiolytics, and antipsychotics were used by 19.3%, 16.7%, and 7.3% of medication users in each class, respectively. Only age (odds ratio [OR] = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.35-1.00), number of medications (OR = 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11), and the Revised Memory and Behavior Problems Checklist score (OR = 2.03; 95% CI, 1.28-3.23) were associated with psychotropic use at baseline.CONCLUSIONS:Psychotropic medication use was high in CRC facilities (46.8%), with antidepressants being the most frequently used drugs. Use of suboptimal (19.3% of antidepressant users, 16.7% of sedative/anxiolytic users, 7.3% of antipsychotic users) and multiple psychotropics (16.7%) was low.

BACKGROUND:Effective screening programs should not merely detect presence of disease, but also lead to long-term benefit. We describe the rationale and design of the first randomized clinical trial to study the long-term effects of routine screening for hearing loss. We also describe the baseline characteristics of the randomized cohort. METHODS:We randomized 2305 veterans age 50 years or older to a control arm without screening, or to screening with: physiologic testing (AudioScope), a self-administered questionnaire (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening version [HHIE-S]), or both tests. The primary outcome measure will be hearing aid use one year after screening. We will also study a number of secondary outcomes, including appointments made with and visits to an audiologist, cases of aidable hearing loss, hearing aids dispensed, self-rated communication ability, and hearing-related quality of life. RESULTS:Baseline demographic and health status measures were evenly distributed across the screening arms. The percentage of patients who screened positive for hearing loss was 18.6%, 59.2%, and 63.6% for the AudioScope, HHIE-S, and combined screening arms, respectively. IMPLICATIONS:Long-term results are needed to gain insight into whether the AudioScope is associated with high rates of false negative screening, the HHIE-S is associated with high rates of false positive screening, or a combination of both. Identifying the best screening program will depend on determining which strategy leads to successful hearing aid use.

Background: The chronic illness model encourages consideration of patients’ treatment preferences. Moreover, research suggests that matching treatment to preference might affect outcomes for patients with depression.Purpose: This investigation explored factors associated with treatment preference matching and the effects of matching on depression treatment outcomes.Methods: Treatment preferences were assessed among primary care patients with depression participating in a large randomized trial of depression management. Patients were offered antidepressant medication and/or counseling based on preference and several other factors. Depression was assessed at 3 and 9 months.Results: Participants who preferred medication were older, were in worse physical health, and were more likely to already be taking antidepressants. Participants who preferred both medication and counseling evidenced greater agreement with the statement that depression is a medical illness. Overall, 72% of participants were matched with their preferred treatment; matched participants demonstrated more rapid improvement in depression symptomatology than unmatched participants.Conclusions: Obtaining preferred treatment appears to contribute to improved treatment outcome. Continued attempts to assess for and accommodate treatment preferences might result in better response to depression treatment. The Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development Service supported this research. This article presents our findings and conclusions. It does not necessarily represent those of the Department of Veterans Affairs or Health Services Research and Development Service.

To investigate factors associated with residents’ choice of type of Medicaid-funded community residential care setting in western Washington State. Method: Prospective cohort design including residents new to any of three setting types (264 residents entering 170 different facilities), using data from state and Medicaid databases and in-person interviews. The authors used analysis of variance and multinomial logistic regression to examine bivariate associations and estimate effects of resident and facility characteristics on choice of facility type at baseline. Results: Several resident characteristics appear to be associated with choice of community residential care setting, including age, marital status, education, functional status, and reported memory and behavior problems. Facility policies differ significantly among types of facilities and also appear to be associated with choice of setting. Discussion: Selection processes operate in choice of community residential care setting, with residents choosing facility type based on the fit of their needs with facility characteristics.

PURPOSEWashington State's initiatives to increase the availability and quality of community residential care presented an opportunity to describe clients entering adult family homes, adult residential care, and assisted living and to identify outcomes of care.DESIGN AND METHODSWe enrolled 349 residents, 243 informal caregivers, and 299 providers in 219 settings. We conducted interviews at enrollment and 12 months later, and we collected data from state databases.RESULTSThe average resident was a 78 year old woman reporting dependence in two of six activities of daily living. Residents in adult family homes demonstrated significantly more disability. Seventy-eight percent of residents survived at the 12-month follow-up. In analyses that controlled for differences at enrollment, residents in the three types of settings were very similar in health outcomes at follow-up.IMPLICATIONSState policies should reflect the wide range of needs of residents seeking care in these settings. Choices among type of setting can be based on the match of needs to individual preferences.

OBJECTIVE: To compare collaborative care for treatment of depression in primary care with consult-liaison (CL) care. In collaborative care, a mental health team provided a treatment plan to the primary care provider, telephoned patients to support adherence to the plan, reviewed treatment results, and suggested modifications to the provider. In CL care, study clinicians informed the primary care provider of the diagnosis and facilitated referrals to psychiatry residents practicing in the primary care clinic.DESIGN: Patients were randomly assigned to treatment model by clinic firm.SETTING: VA primary care clinic.PARTICIPANTS: One hundred sixty-eight collaborative care and 186 CL patients who met criteria for major depression and/or dysthymia.MEASUREMENTS: Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20), Short Form (SF)-36, Sheehan Disability Scale.MAIN RESULTS: Collaborative care produced greater improvement than CL in depressive symptomatology from baseline to 3 months (SCL-20 change scores), but at 9 months there was no significant difference. The intervention increased the proportion of patients receiving prescriptions and cognitive behavioral therapy. Collaborative care produced significantly greater improvement on the Sheehan at 3 months. A greater proportion of collaborative care patients exhibited an improvement in SF-36 Mental Component Score of 5 points or more from baseline to 9 months.CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care resulted in more rapid improvement in depression symptomatology, and a more rapid and sustained improvement in mental health status compared to the more standard model. Mounting evidence indicates that collaboration between primary care providers and mental health specialists can improve depression treatment and supports the necessary changes in clinic structure and incentives.

Community residential care (CRC) is growing, with cognitive impairment the most common reason for CRC placement. We enrolled cognitively impaired and noncognitively impaired residents, informal caregivers, and providers in 219 CRC facilities for this study. Residents with cognitive impairment were older (p < .001), needed more activities of daily living (ADL) assistance (p < .001), and had a higher frequency of behavior problems (p < .001) than noncognitively impaired residents. Cognitively impaired and noncognitively impaired residents did not significantly differ in the facility-related factors they perceived as important or in the amount of control they felt they had over the decision to move. Including residents with cognitive impairment in future research and separately analyzing residents by cognitive status will give a more accurate picture of the needs of CRC residents.