scholarly journals Impact of the 2004-2005 Influenza Vaccine Shortage on Immunization Practices in Long-Term Care Facilities

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 383-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lona Mody ◽  
Kenneth M. Langa ◽  
Preeti N. Malani
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Immunization Rates ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Vaccine Shortage

Objective.To assess the response of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) to the 2004-2005 influenza vaccine shortage and the impact on resident and healthcare worker (HCW) immunization rates.Methods.A 12-item questionnaire was sent to 824 randomly selected LTCFs in December 2004. The following 2 open-ended questions were also asked: “How did you cope with the vaccine shortage?” and “Who helped you get your supply?” Immunization rates reported by LTCF administrators for 2003-2003 and 2003-2004 were compared with those for 2004-2005. Immunization rates were defined as the proportion of all eligible residents and HCWs who received influenza vaccine.Results.Responses were received from 380 LTCFs (46.3%), which had a total of 38,447 beds. Resident mean influenza immunization rates (±SD) decreased from 85% ± 15.3% in 2002-2003 and 85.1% ± 15.3% in 2003-2004 to 81.9% ± 19.4% in the 2004-2005 influenza season (P = .025). The immunization rates among HCWs also decreased from 51% in 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 to 38.4% in 2004-2005 (P<.001). In response to one of the open-ended questions, 96 facilities (25.3%) reported that they obtained vaccine from 2 or more sources. Eight percent commented on specific intensified infection control efforts, and only 2.3% commented on emergency preparedness.Conclusions.The influenza vaccine shortage in 2004-2005 impacted immunization practices of LTCFs across the United States, leading to decreases in both resident and HCW vaccination rates. The significant decrease in vaccination rates in LTCFs is of concern and has broad implications for policy makers working on emergency preparedness for a possible pandemic of influenza.

scholarly journals FEDERAL POLICY SUPPORTS AND GAPS IN ADDRESSING RACIAL-ETHNIC HEALTH DISPARITIES IN U.S. LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S161-S161
Author(s):  
Rebecca L Mauldin ◽  
Kathy Lee ◽  
Antwan Williams
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
Federal Policy ◽  
Care Facility ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Long Term Care Facility ◽  
Care Facilities

Abstract Older adults from racial and ethnic minority groups face health inequities in long-term care facilities such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities just as they do in the United States as a whole. In spite of federal policy to support minority health and ensure the well-being of long-term care facility residents, disparities persist in residents’ quality of care and quality of life. This poster presents current federal policy in the United States to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities and to support long-term care facility residents’ health and well-being. It includes legislation enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), regulations of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for health care facilities receiving Medicare or Medicare funds, and policies of the Long-term Care Ombudsman Program. Recommendations to address threats to or gaps in these policies include monitoring congressional efforts to revise portions of the ACA, revising DHHS requirements for long-term care facilities staff training and oversight, and amending requirements for the Long-term Care Ombudsman Program to mandate collection, analysis, and reporting of resident complaint data by race and ethnicity.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Contact Precautions on Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Long-term Care Across the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 71 (7) ◽  
pp. 1676-1683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J Morgan ◽  
Min Zhan ◽  
Michihiko Goto ◽  
Carrie Franciscus ◽  
Bruce Alexander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
The United States ◽  
Standard Precautions ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Contact Precautions ◽  
Care Facilities

Abstract Background Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a common cause of health care–associated infections in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends contact precautions for the prevention of MRSA within acute care facilities, which are being used within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for LTCFs in a modified fashion. The impact of contact precautions in long-term care is unknown. Methods To evaluate whether contact precautions decreased MRSA acquisition in LTCFs, compared to standard precautions, we performed a retrospective effectiveness study (pre-post, with concurrent controls) using data from the VA health-care system from 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2015, 2 years before and after a 2013 policy recommending a more aggressive form of contact precautions. Results Across 75 414 patient admissions from 74 long-term care facilities in the United States, the overall unadjusted rate of MRSA acquisition was 2.6/1000 patient days. Patients were no more likely to acquire MRSA if they were cared for using standard precautions versus contact precautions in a multivariable, discrete time survival analysis, controlling for patient demographics, risk factors, and year of admission (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, .85–1.12; P = .71). Conclusions MRSA acquisition and infections were not impacted by the use of active surveillance and contact precautions in LTCFs in the VA.

scholarly journals Prevalence of advanced directives in the geriatric population with in long-term care facilities in the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-178
Author(s):  
Ateequr Rahman ◽  
Druti Shukla ◽  
Lejla Cukovic ◽  
Kirstin Krzyzewski ◽  
Noopur Walia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Living Wills ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Advanced Directive ◽  
Advanced Directives ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Care Facilities

Advanced directives, such as Living Wills and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders, provide the ability to identify, respect, and implement an individual's wishes for medical care during serious illness or end-of-life care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of advanced directives amongst the residents of long-term care facilities in the United States. A total of 527 cases were extracted from 2018 National Study of Long-Term Care Providers, which was collected by the National Center for Health Statistics through the surveys of residential care communities and adult day services centers. Advanced directive rates were higher in patients 90 years of age and above as compared to other age groups. Nursing home residents were more likely to have advanced directives than other long term care facilities. There was no significant difference among males and females in the rate of advanced directives. Nursing home and Hospice residents had more advanced directives compared to other facilities. The Black population had the highest rate of advanced directive preparedness. Overall, the finding of this study revealed that there was a significant difference in the preparedness of DNR orders and Living Wills by patient demographics and the type of long-term care facility. Offering advanced directive services at public health/social services facilities can enhance the rate of advanced directive preparedness. Advanced directives ease the stress and anxiety of patients, family, and friends during difficult times.

Improving the Fate of Nursing Homes During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Need for Policy

2021 ◽  
pp. e1-e3
Author(s):  
R. Tamara Konetzka
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
New York Times ◽  
The United States ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities

Approximately 40% of all COVID-19 deaths in the United States have been linked to long-term care facilities.1 Early in the pandemic, as the scope of the problem became apparent, the nursing home sector generated significant media attention and public alarm. A New York Times article in mid-April referred to nursing homes as “death pits”2 because of the seemingly uncontrollable spread of the virus through these facilities. This devastation continued during subsequent surges,3 but there is a role for policy to change this trajectory. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print January 28, 2021: e1–e3. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306107 )

Characterizing healthcare delivery in the United States using Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns (2000–2016)

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 723-728
Author(s):  
Astha KC ◽  
Melissa K. Schaefer ◽  
Nimalie D. Stone ◽  
Joseph Perz
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
The United States ◽  
Healthcare Sector ◽  
Nursing Facilities ◽  
Term Care ◽  
The North ◽  
The Us ◽  
Care Facilities

AbstractBackground:The US Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns (CBP) series provides a unique opportunity to describe the healthcare sector using a single, national data source.Methods:We analyzed CBP data on business establishments in the healthcare industry for 2000–2016 for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Setting and facility types were defined using the North American Industry Classification System.Results:In 2016, CBP enumerated 707,634 US healthcare establishments (a 34% increase from 2000); 86.5% were outpatient facilities and services followed by long-term care facilities (12.5%) and acute-care facilities (1.0%). Between 2000 and 2016, traditional facilities such as general medical surgical and surgical hospitals (−0.4%) and skilled nursing facilities (+0.1%) decreased or remained flat, while other long-term care and outpatient providers grew rapidly.Conclusion:This analysis highlights the steady growth and increased specialization of the US healthcare sector, particularly in long-term care and outpatient settings.

Evaluating the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine during respiratory outbreaks in Singapore’s long term care facilities, 2017

Vaccine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (29) ◽  
pp. 3925-3931 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yixiang Ng ◽  
Khine Nandar ◽  
Lily Ai Vee Chua ◽  
Tze Minn Mak ◽  
Kelly Foo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities

Factors That Affect Influenza Vaccine Uptake Among Staff of Long-Term Care Facilities

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 638-641 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja M. Hauri ◽  
Helmut Uphoff ◽  
Volker Gussmann ◽  
Stefan Gawrich
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Vaccine Uptake ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Vaccination Uptake ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Policies And Practices

A survey of directors and employees of 36 long-term care facilities in Hesse, Germany, revealed that influenza vaccine uptake among staff was less than 30% in 30 and greater than 50% in 6. The study identified policies and practices associated with vaccination uptake at long-term care facilities and factors associated with the decision of staff to get vaccinated.

A Comparison of Emergency Preparedness Policies by Long-Term Care Setting Type in Ohio: Assisted Living Settings Lag Behind Nursing Homes in Key Areas

2020 ◽  
pp. 073346482090201
Author(s):  
Katherine A. Kennedy ◽  
Cassandra L. Hua ◽  
Ian Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Living ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Disaster Preparedness ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Nursing Facilities ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Skilled Nursing ◽  
Care Facilities

Skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) have received regulatory attention in relation to their emergency preparedness. Yet, assisted living settings (ALs) have not experienced such interest due to their classification as a state-regulated, home- and community-based service. However, the growth in the number of ALs and increased resident acuity levels suggest that existing disaster preparedness policies, and therefore, plans, lag behind those of SNFs. We examined differences in emergency preparedness policies between Ohio’s SNFs and ALs. Data were drawn from the 2015 wave of the Ohio Biennial Survey of Long-Term Care Facilities. Across setting types, most aspects of preparedness were similar, such as written plans, specifications for evacuation, emergency drills, communication procedures, and preparations for expected hazards. Despite these similarities, we found SNFs were more prepared than large ALs in some key areas, most notably being more likely to have a backup generator and 7 days of pharmacy stocks and generator fuel.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document