Patient Sensor Improves Pressure-Ulcer Prevention Compliance

A three month study of a wearable ulcer prevention technology showed that it was effective in preventing the occurrence of pressure ulcers by increasing adherence to established protocols, according to Leaf Healthcare, Inc., the company that developed the device.

The Leaf system is a wearable sensor that electronically monitors a patient's position and movements and then wirelessly communicates the data collected to central monitoring stations or mobile devices so that nurses and other caregivers can check on patient position and movement. The Leaf sensor also will sound alerts when necessary to ensure that all patients are repositioned according to established turning schedules, to reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers.

Results of the clinical trial were presented this month at the American Nurses Credential Center National Magnet Conference in Dallas. The trial found that use of the monitoring device increased compliance with hospital turn protocols from a baseline of 64 percent at the start of the trial, to 98 percent after the system was implemented.

The INQRI funded project “Interdisciplinary Mobility Team Approach to Reduction of Facility-Acquired Pressure Ulcers” developed a sustainable, system-wide program for pressure ulcer prevention that enhances mobility of long-term care (LTC) residents. The primary goal, under nursing's leadership, was to reduce LTC facility-acquired pressure ulcer incidence by 50 percent using a cost-effective innovative program to increase resident active or passive movement. The team, which developed and implemented a program that involved using musical cues to remind residents to move or staff to help residents move, was led by Tracey Yap, a nurse researcher, and Jay Kim, an engineer.

Supreme Court Ruling in Federal Trade Commission Case Will Have Broad Implications for Scope of Practice Regulations

By Joanne Spetz, PhD

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a case that will have significant implications for scope of practice regulations across the country.   At the center of this case is the “state-action doctrine,” which provides immunity from federal antitrust liability for certain state-mandated activities. In this case, the FTC had filed a complaint regarding the Board’s efforts to stop non-dentists from offering teeth whitening services. The North Carolina Dental Board asserted state-action as a defense. The case centers on how the Board operates and whether its operations fall under the state-action doctrine. The FTC believes that the board, which is comprised mainly of practicing dentists, exceeded its authority and its actions were a private effort to eliminate competition from non-dentists – a violation of anti-trust law. The Board believes it is acting as a regulatory body to ensure consumer safety.

Last spring, the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the FTC; the Board appealed to the Supreme Court. This case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to decide whether health professions boards in general, which are usually established by state legislatures but whose members are private actors, fall under the state-action doctrine. If the Supreme Court sides with the FTC, it could have a significant impact on the capacity of dental, medical, nursing, and other boards to regulate health care services, especially when a compelling public safety argument cannot be made.  The Supreme Court’s decision also could provide clear guidance to states in how their boards can be appointed and function in order to adhere to anti-trust law. To follow the case’s history, look here. 

This same issue was addressed last June at an FTC public workshop in Washington, DC, titled, “Examining Health Care Competition.”  The workshop topics included professional regulation of health care providers, health care delivery innovations such as retail clinics, health information technology, health care quality, and price transparency. The meeting room was full for most of the two-day event, but attendance appeared greatest for the first session, “Professional Regulation of Health Care Providers,” for which I was one of the presenters. 

The session did not address any specific legal action related to health professions regulation, focusing instead on providing an overview of several important aspects of health professions regulation.  Barbara J. Safriet, JD, LLM, a Visiting Professor of Health Law and Lewis and Clark Law School, discussed the history of health professions regulation and the potential for legal collusion and hindrance of competition. Morris Kleiner, PhD, from the University of Minnesota, discussed health professions regulation in the context of professional regulation in general. He noted that health professions boards are often based at the same agencies as many other professions’ boards, so a single organization is charged with overseeing physicians, nurses, cosmetologists, pet groomers, and myriad other professions. Gail Finley of the Colorado Hospital Association discussed particular challenges that state faced regulating nurse anesthetists, and the battle between physicians and nurses regarding safe anesthesia care in rural communities. I discussed the impact of scope of practice regulations for licensed practical/vocational nurses on the demand by hospitals and nursing homes – we found that in states with stricter regulations, there is lower demand.

The FTC published a Policy Perspective paper in March 2014 on “Competition and the Regulation of Advanced Practice Nurses.”  The paper’s authors reviewed the rationale for establishing scope of practice regulations, noting that there are valid reasons to control scope of practice, even if it might reduce competition. However, they wrote: “…the FTC staff has consistently urged state legislators to avoid imposing restrictions on APRN scope of practice unless those restrictions are necessary to address well-founded patient safety concerns. Based on substantial evidence and experience, expert bodies have concluded that ARPNs are safe and effective as independent providers of many health care services within the scope of their training, licensure, certification, and current practice. Therefore, new or extended layers of mandatory physician supervision may not be justified.”

Unsurprisingly, there is great interest in the Supreme Court case throughout the health care industry. Among the entities that have filed amici briefs, are the American Dental Association, Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy, American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, Association of Dental Support Organizations, Cato Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation, National Governors Association, California Optometric Association, and Public Citizen, and 23 states.  A decision is expected next year.

Joanne Spetz is a professor at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies and associate director of research strategy for the Center for the Health Professions at the University of California, San Francisco.

Carrots and Sticks to Reduce Readmissions and Improve Home Health Care

Olga Jarrín, PhD, RN @OJ_RN
National Hartford Center of Gerontological Nursing Excellence, Claire M. Fagin Fellow Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing

The Affordable Care Act has generated carrots and sticks for hospitals to reduce readmissions. With the goal of achieving the Triple Aim (improving quality of patient care, improving population health, and reducing overall cost of care), innovative care delivery models are being tested locally and nationally, including the roll-out of Accountable Care Organizations and bundled payment programs. These programs create incentives in terms of shared savings for health care systems that provide high quality, coordinated care.

Olga Jarrín is a National Hartford Center of Gerontological Nursing Excellence, Claire M. Fagin Fellow at the Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research.

Meanwhile, a readmission penalty has taken effect, and hit safety net and teaching hospitals hard. While increased referrals to home health care from hospitals might lower readmission, there is wide variation in home health agencies’ ability to keep patients safely in their homes, and out of the hospital.

Institute of Medicine Workshop on the Future of Home Health Care
Health services researchers, home health agency executives, other industry representatives, and stakeholders including patients and patient advocates met at the Institute of Medicine for a 2 day workshop on the Future of Home Health Care #FutureofHH September 30-October 1, 2014. Major challenges for home health include reduced/insufficient payment for home health care, misaligned regulatory requirements and statutes, and the image of the home health care industry, that has been tainted with fraud, abuse, and sub-optimal patient care. Core issues discussed at the meeting included the use of technology to enhance care, the need for interoperable health records, the need for statutory changes at the federal level to allow advanced practice nurses to sign orders for home health care, and new models of care.

In contrast, the existing way that home health care is provided to Medicare beneficiaries was criticized as fragmented, uncoordinated, siloed, slow, and unable to meet the functional or clinical needs of today’s population. The desire to scrap the entire system and start over was balanced by a call for action “Let's work to improve, not diminish our existing home health care system” from keynote Steve Landers, MD, President and CEO of VNA Health Group. Reminding the audience of the Jimmo v. Sebelius Settlement Agreement, Judith Stein, JD, founder and Executive Director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy, pointed out the discrepancy between how home health care has been provided to Medicare beneficiaries, and how it should be provided.

Home Health Agency Work Environment Study
Using publicly reported CMS Home Health Compare data linked with nurse-reported ratings of the home health agency work environment, researchers from the Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research have established a mechanism for why some home health agencies have better outcomes. Hospitalizations, including both acute and long-term stays, were lowest for patients receiving services from home health agencies where nurses reported excellent working conditions. Nurses working in home health agencies with poor working conditions were much more likely to report being unable to complete necessary care coordination and patient teaching due to time constraints. These findings are published open access in the October issue of the journal Medical Care.

These findings have implications for hospital and home health administrators, as well as policymakers. Hospitals should consider partnering with home health agencies that have better nurse work environments as a strategy to improve their patient outcomes, and bottom line. Home health agencies should work towards creating optimal conditions for nurses to care for patients. Policymakers should remove barriers to full scope of practice for Advanced Practice Nurses (APNs) and Registered Nurses (RNs) working in home health care, especially the requirement for physician co-signatures of APN orders for changes to the home health plan of care, including medication changes. The federal statute restricting APN authority supersedes state laws, and provides a disincentive for home health agencies to hire and collaborate with expert nurse clinicians.

Some of the “new” care models highlighted at the IOM Workshop: The Future of Home Health Care were strikingly similar to old models of home health care provided by public health district nurses and community-based family practice doctors who made both house-calls and hospital-rounds. Removing barriers to practice in home health care for APNs to direct care and directly order services is a small but important step towards raising the quality, responsiveness, and cost-effectiveness of home health care.

 This post first appeared on the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics Blog (LDI Blog) of the University of Pennsylvania.