A National Typology of Health Service Regulation in Assisted Living

Background and Objectives State regulating agencies use 350 different licenses and certifications to govern assisted living (AL), resulting in significant variation in regulations governing health services, the scope of practice, and capacity. This lack of standardization makes it difficult to compare and contrast AL operations and residents’ outcomes across similarly regulated communities. Research Design and Methods We used qualitative and quantitative methods to empirically develop and describe a typology of state AL regulations that captures inter and intra-state variation. Based on the rules governing health services, we created regulatory specificity scores for five thematic dimensions: medication administration, third-party care, skilled nursing, medication review, and licensed nurse staffing. With these scores, we conducted a K-means cluster analysis to identify groups of AL license types. To differentiate the regulatory types, we calculated standardized mean differences across structure, process, outcome, and resident characteristics of the AL communities licensed under each type. Results We identified six types of AL differentiated by the regulatory provisions governing health services: Housing, Holistic, Hybrid, Hospitality, Healthcare, and Health Support. The types align with previous work and reflect tangible differences in resident characteristics, health service structures, processes, and outcomes. Discussion and Implications This typology effectively captures differences across regulated dimensions and can inform and support quality of care. Researchers, policymakers, and consumers may benefit from using this typology and acknowledging these differences in AL licensure when designing research studies, developing policies, and selecting an AL community

Use of magnetic source imaging to assess recovery after severe traumatic brain injury—an MEG pilot study

RationaleSevere TBI (sTBI) is a devastating neurological injury that comprises a significant global trauma burden. Early comprehensive neurocritical care and rehabilitation improve outcomes for such patients, although better diagnostic and prognostic tools are necessary to guide personalized treatment plans.MethodsIn this study, we explored the feasibility of conducting resting state magnetoencephalography (MEG) in a case series of sTBI patients acutely after injury (~7 days), and then about 1.5 and 8 months after injury. Synthetic aperture magnetometry (SAM) was utilized to localize source power in the canonical frequency bands of delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma, as well as DC–80 Hz.ResultsAt the first scan, SAM source maps revealed zones of hypofunction, islands of preserved activity, and hemispheric asymmetry across bandwidths, with markedly reduced power on the side of injury for each patient. GCS scores improved at scan 2 and by scan 3 the patients were ambulatory. The SAM maps for scans 2 and 3 varied, with most patients showing increasing power over time, especially in gamma, but a continued reduction in power in damaged areas and hemispheric asymmetry and/or relative diminishment in power at the site of injury. At the group level for scan 1, there was a large excess of neural generators operating within the delta band relative to control participants, while the number of neural generators for beta and gamma were significantly reduced. At scan 2 there was increased beta power relative to controls. At scan 3 there was increased group-wise delta power in comparison to controls.ConclusionIn summary, this pilot study shows that MEG can be safely used to monitor and track the recovery of brain function in patients with severe TBI as well as to identify patient-specific regions of decreased or altered brain function. Such MEG maps of brain function may be used in the future to tailor patient-specific rehabilitation plans to target regions of altered spectral power with neurostimulation and other treatments

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

No Politics On Earth: The Concern for Political Lying

Senior Project submitted to The Division of Social Studies of Bard College

Trends in Serious Mental Illness in US Assisted Living Compared to Nursing Homes and the Community: 2007-2017

Objective Little is known about the prevalence of serious mental illness (SMI) in assisted living (AL) communities in the United States. Trends in the prevalence of SMI in AL communities were examined over time and in relationship to characteristics such as dual eligibility and health conditions. Within- and between-state variability of SMI in AL was also examined. Design Samples of Medicare beneficiaries who lived in the 48 contiguous states were created: individuals who resided in the community, in a nursing home (NH), and in an AL community on December 31st of each year (2007–2017). We conducted univariate analysis to display the trends in SMI over time in AL compared with NHs and the community. To demonstrate intrastate variability, we examined the prevalence of SMI for each state. We described within-nation and within-state variability using a Lorenz curve and GINI coefficients, respectively. Results The prevalence of SMI in AL increased by 54%, rising from 7.4% in 2007 to 11.4% in 2017. Residents with SMI were more likely to be dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid than residents without SMI. The prevalence of SMI in AL ranged from to 3.2% in Wyoming to 33.1% in New York. Approximately 10% of AL communities had over half of the sample\u27s AL residents with SMI. Conclusion Given the increased proportion of residents with SMI in AL, research is needed into the mental health and social care needs of this population. Analysis is needed to uncover reasons for variations among states

Excess Mortality Among Assisted Living Residents with Dementia During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objective: To evaluate whether assisted living (AL) residents with Alzheimer\u27s disease and related dementias (ADRD) experienced a greater rate of excess all-cause mortality during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to residents without ADRD, and to compare excess all-cause mortality rates in memory care vs general AL among residents with ADRD. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting and participants: Two cohorts of AL residents enrolled in Medicare Fee-For-Service who resided in 9-digit zip codes corresponding to US AL communities of ≥25 beds during calendar year 2019 or 2020. Method: By linking Medicare claims and Vital Statistics data, we examined the weekly excess all-cause mortality rate, comparing the rate from March 12, 2020, to December 31, 2020, to the rate from January 1, 2019, to March 11, 2020. We adjusted for demographics, chronic conditions, AL community size, and county fixed effects. Results: Of the 286,350 residents in 2019 and the 273,601 in 2020 identified in these cohorts, approximately 31% had a diagnosis of ADRD. Among all AL residents, the excess weekly mortality rate in 2020 was 49.1 per 100,000 overall during the pandemic. Compared to residents without ADRD, residents with ADRD experienced 33.4 more excess deaths per 100,000 during the pandemic. Among residents with ADRD, those who resided in memory care communities did not experience a statistically significant different mortality rate than residents who lived in general AL. Conclusions and implications: AL residents with ADRD were more vulnerable to mortality during COVID-19 than residents without ADRD, a finding similar to those reported in other settings such as nursing homes. Additionally, the study provides important new information that residents with ADRD in memory care communities may not have been at differential risk of COVID-19 mortality when compared to residents with ADRD in general AL, despite prior research suggesting they have more advanced dementia

The Relationship Between States\u27 Staffing Regulations and Hospitalizations of Assisted Living Residents

Assisted living provides housing and long-term care services to more than 811,000 older adults in the United States daily and is regulated by the states. This article describes changes in the specificity of state regulations governing the staffing in assisted living settings (that is, requirements for sufficient staffing or staffing ratios or levels) between 2007 and 2018 and the association between these changes and rates of hospitalization among a national sample of assisted living residents, including a subgroup with dementia. We found that increased regulatory specificity for direct care workers (for example, a change from requiring sufficient direct care worker staffing to requiring a specific staffing ratio or level) was associated with a 4 percent reduction in the monthly risk for hospitalization among residents in our sample and a 6 percent reduction among the subgroup with dementia. However, an increase in regulatory specificity for licensed practical nurses was associated with a 2.5 percent increase in the monthly risk for hospitalization and a 5 percent increase among the subgroup with dementia. Given that no federal requirements exist for the number of staff members or composition of staff in assisted living, these findings can inform states\u27 policy decisions about staffing requirements for assisted living settings

Lisa Nakamura

The argument is put forward that current virtual worlds find themselves in a situation akin to that of BBS systems in the 1980s and 1990s vis-à-vis the Internet. A reflection from the technical viewpoint on the similarities between Web browsing and virtual world navigation is made and to conclude, the paper will offer a set of requirements for interconnection of virtual worlds and what that may achieve are made

Selective Inhibition of Nuclear Export With Oral Selinexor for Treatment of Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Purpose Selinexor, a first-in-class, oral, selective exportin 1 (XPO1) inhibitor, induces apoptosis in cancer cells through nuclear retention of tumor suppressor proteins and the glucocorticoid receptor, along with inhibition of translation of oncoprotein mRNAs. We studied selinexor in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma refractory to the most active available agents. Patients and Methods This phase II trial evaluated selinexor 80 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg, both orally and twice weekly, in patients with myeloma refractory to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide (quad-refractory disease), with a subset also refractory to an anti-CD38 antibody (penta-refractory disease). The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). Results Of 79 patients, 48 had quad-refractory and 31 had penta-refractory myeloma. Patients had received a median of seven prior regimens. The ORR was 21% and was similar for patients with quad-refractory (21%) and penta-refractory (20%) disease. Among patients with high-risk cytogenetics, including t(4;14), t(14;16), and del(17p), the ORR was 35% (six of 17 patients). The median duration of response was 5 months, and 65% of responding patients were alive at 12 months. The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (59%), anemia (28%), neutropenia (23%), hyponatremia (22%), leukopenia (15%), and fatigue (15%). Dose interruptions for adverse events occurred in 41 patients (52%), dose reductions occurred in 29 patients (37%), and treatment discontinuation occurred in 14 patients (18%). Conclusion The combination of selinexor and dexamethasone has an ORR of 21% in patients with heavily pretreated, refractory myeloma with limited therapeutic options