ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION. Effects of an Acute Care for Elders Unit on Costs and 30-Day Readmissions

Transcription

1 ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION Effects of an Acute Care for Elders Unit on Costs and 30-Day Readmissions Kellie L. Flood, MD; Paul A. MacLennan, PhD; Deborah McGrew, MHA; Darlene Green, DSN; Cindy Dodd, BSN; Cynthia J. Brown, MD, MSPH Importance: Providing high-quality care while containing cost is essential for the economic stability of our health care system. The United States is experiencing a rapidly growing elderly population. The Acute Care for Elders (ACE) unit interdisciplinary team model of care has been shown to improve outcomes in hospitalized older adults. The University of Alabama at Birmingham ACE unit incorporates evidence-based care processes. We hypothesized that the ACE model would also reduce costs. Objective: To examine variable direct costs from an interdisciplinary ACE compared with a multidisciplinary usual care (UC) unit. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Tertiary care academic medical center. Participants: Hospitalists patients aged 70 years or older spending the entirety of their hospitalization in either the ACE or UC unit in fiscal year Main Outcome Measures: Using administrative data, we analyzed variable direct costs for ACE and UC patients. We also conducted a subset analysis restricted to the 25 most common diagnosis related groups (DRGs) shared by ACE and UC patients. Generalized linear regression was used to estimate cost ratios and 95% confidence intervals adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity score, and case mix index (CMI). Results: A total of 818 hospitalists patients met inclusion criteria: 428 from the ACE and 390 from the UC unit. For this study group (all DRGs), the mean (SD) variable direct cost per patient was $2109 ($1870) for ACE and $2480 ($2113) for UC (P=.009). Adjusted cost ratios revealed significant cost savings for patients with low (0.82; 95% CI, ) or moderate (0.74; 95% CI, ) CMI scores; care was cost neutral for patients with high CMI scores (1.13; 95% CI, ). Significantly fewer ACE patients than UC patients were readmitted within 30 days of discharge (7.9% vs 12.8%; P=.02). Subset analysis of the 25 most common DRGs revealed a significantly reduced mean (SD) variable direct cost per patient for ACE compared with UC patients ($1693 [$1063] vs $2138 [$1431]; P.001); cost ratios for total (0.78; 95% CI, ) and daily (0.89; 95% CI, ) variable direct costs remained significant after adjustment. Conclusions and Relevance: The ACE unit team model reduces costs and 30-day readmissions. In an era when improving care processes while reducing costs is a vital objective for the Medicare program and our nation as a whole, the ACE model meets these goals. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(11): Published online April 22, doi: /jamainternmed Author Affiliations: Division of Gerontology, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care (Drs Flood and Brown), Department of Surgery (Dr MacLennan), University of Alabama at Birmingham; University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital (Mss McGrew and Dodd and Dr Green); and Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Dr Brown). DELIVERING HIGH-QUALITY care while containing cost is essential for the economic stability of our health care system. 1 By 2030, the proportion of the US population aged 65 years or older will exceed 20%, creating an imminent need for strategies that improve person-centered care while reducing costs. Hospitalization often leads to adverse outcomes such as functional decline, 2-4 delirium, 5-7 undernutrition, 8 polypharmacy, 9 and other iatrogenic events 10,11 that lead to higher costs. 12,13 During the past 2 decades, Acute Care for Elders (ACE) units have been developed in hospitals nationwide. The distinguishing feature of ACE units is the use of an interdisciplinary team (IDT) model to provide hospital care as opposed to a multidisciplinary model in which providers from all disciplines deliver care See Invited Commentary at end of article and see also page 990 but practice predominantly independently, or in silos. An interdisciplinary model integrates disciplines to collaboratively develop the patient-centered care plan. The primary goal of the ACE model is to reduce adverse outcomes in older adults through frequent IDT rounds that Author Affil Gerontology Palliative Ca Brown), Dep (Dr MacLen Alabama at B University o Birmingham (Mss McGre Dr Green); a Veterans Aff (Dr Brown). 981

2 recognize and manage geriatric syndromes while initiating transition planning from the day of admission. 14 Previous research of ACE units has shown improved processes of care, 15,16 prescribing practices, 15,17 physical functioning, 14,18,19 and patient and provider satisfaction, 15 as well as reduced rates of restraint use 15,20 and institutionalization. 14,15 We hypothesized that our ACE model would reduce patient care costs for patients whose attending physicians were not geriatricians. The objective of our study was to examine variable direct costs from 2 hospitalist medical units: an interdisciplinary ACE compared with a multidisciplinary usual care (UC) unit. Despite the evidence regarding improved outcomes from ACE units, there is a paucity of data evaluating cost as the primary outcome of an ACE compared with a UC unit that uses the same attending physicians and unit staffing. METHODS STUDY DESIGN We conducted a retrospective cohort study examining cost of care among hospitalists older patients who spent the entirety of their hospital stay in either the ACE or UC unit in fiscal year The institutional review board at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) approved this study. PARTICIPANTS The UAB Hospital is a 1146-bed academic medical center. An adult of any age requiring admission for an acute medical illness is assigned to either the teaching or hospitalist service (which includes nurse practitioners without house staff). The hospitalists admit patients primarily to 2 units: the ACE and the UC unit. Patients are assigned to a unit based mainly on bed availability. Patients met the inclusion criteria for this study if they (1) were aged 70 years or older, (2) met inpatient admission criteria, and (3) spent the entirety of their hospitalization as a hospitalists patient in either the ACE or UC unit in fiscal year A total of 818 hospitalists inpatients met inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis: 428 from the ACE and 390 from the UC unit. From this primary study group of patients, we also conducted a subset analysis restricted to the most common diagnosis related groups (DRGs) from both units to reduce outliers; this resulted in 25 DRGs shared by 260 ACE and 214 UC patients (etable; ACE UNIT MODEL OF CARE In fiscal year 2010, the 25-bed ACE unit cared for adults of all ages; 39.2% of patients were aged 70 years or older. The ACE unit delivered the following care model for all patients aged 70 years or older: (1) geriatric assessments, including cognitive and functional screens; (2) daily (Monday-Friday) geriatrician-led IDT rounds focusing on geriatric care; (3) discharge planning from the day of admission; and (4) communication of team recommendations to the appropriate caregiver (eg, hospitalist, nurse, family, or patient). The IDT members included the ACE nurse coordinator, geriatricians, nurses, physical and occupational therapists, pharmacists, a registered dietician, and social workers. In the IDT rounds, the ACE coordinator and social worker reported results of functional, cognitive, and psychosocial assessments. Nurses reported daily assessments regarding geriatric syndromes (eg, pain, mood, cognition, and mobility). This was followed by reports from each discipline, including medication review, and the collaborative development of a daily geriatric care plan. Patients baseline and current functional dependencies were assessed by screening questionnaires for basic (Katz index) 21 and instrumental (Lawton index) 22 activities of daily living. Cognition was assessed with the Mini-Cognitive Assessment. 23 The ACE unit did not have formalized nursedriven care protocols or order sets, but it did use evidencebased geriatric care processes known to reduce the risk of incident geriatric syndromes 7 and address patient or caregiver stress (Table 1). These services were provided by volunteers or supervised trainees at no additional cost. The hospitalists did not participate in the IDT rounds. UC UNIT MODEL OF CARE The hospitalists also admitted patients of all ages to a UC unit. This unit was staffed with the same disciplines as the ACE unit, but geriatric screens and daily IDT rounds focusing on geriatric syndromes were not conducted, nor were the volunteerstaffed care processes used. Because the same hospitalists care for patients on both the ACE and UC unit, this UC unit served as our comparison treatment area. During the study period, the UC unit also conducted a daily team meeting, or discharge planning rounds, attended by hospitalists and nurse practitioners, the nurse coordinator, the unit charge nurse, a social worker, and care managers. Geriatric assessments were not performed, and other disciplines did not participate. COMPARISON OF UNITS Hospitalists and collaborating nurse practitioners rotated patient care duties between the ACE and UC units. Nonphysician staffing was similar in the 2 units (Table 1). Both units had identical assigned nursing hours, calculated as worked hours per patient day, reflecting consistency between the units with respect to unit-based nursing staff. 24 Both units formally consulted non unit-based disciplines, such as physical therapy and social services. Both units also used nurse coordinators, neither of whom provided any direct medical patient care. The ACE nurse coordinator administered the geriatric screens; coordinated care between all team members, including volunteers and outpatient providers; and ensured that the daily geriatric care plan was implemented. The UC nurse coordinator assisted with communication to patients primary care physicians and collaborated with social services in discharge planning. OUTCOME MEASURES Using the UAB Hospital administrative database, we conducted a retrospective analysis of costs of care for the ACE and UC patient populations meeting inclusion criteria. Additional analysis was restricted to the 25 most common DRGs shared by ACE and UC patients (etable). The hospital administrative database, Transition Systems Incorporated (TSI), was used to obtain financial information for each patient. The TSI data includes payer source, hospital charge, cost, allocated bad debt, and net revenue for each patient. The TSI system generates each patient s total costs from the sum of fixed direct costs, variable direct costs, and indirect costs. Fixed direct costs are those associated with patients that cannot be linked to a specific patient (eg, the salary of the unit nurse manager). Variable direct costs are attributed to direct patient care (eg, laboratory tests, medications). Finally, indirect costs cannot be attributed to a specific patient or department (eg, utilities, salaries of hospital accountants). 982

3 Table 1. Staffing and Care Processes for ACE and s in Fiscal Year 2010 Characteristic Staffing Beds, No Patients aged 70 y, % Unit nursing staff allotment, worked hours per patient-day Physical therapists, FTE to bed ratio 1:19 1:26 Social services referrals/1.0 FTE a Nurse coordinators, No. 1 1 Care Processes Geriatric screens Baseline and current basic ADL performance status assessed on admission Yes No Baseline and current instrumental ADL performance status assessed on admission Yes No Cognition screened on admission Yes No Daily IDT rounds for geriatric assessment and care coordination Yes No Evidence-based care processes based on daily IDT rounds and geriatric screens to prevent adverse outcomes (eg, Yes No delirium, falls, and undernutrition) Volunteer visit for cognitive stimulation Yes No Volunteer visit for mealtime assistance Yes No Daily medication review for high-risk or potentially inappropriate medications Yes No Geriatricians permitted to write orders for geriatric care related referrals (eg, rehabilitation, dietician, chaplain, Yes No and music therapy) and certain diets or medications Additional services available on request Formal geriatric consultation Yes Yes Chaplain Yes Yes Music therapy Yes Yes Counseling intern for patients or families with depressive symptoms, anxiety, and/or caregiver stress Yes No Pet therapy Yes No Low beds Yes Yes Geriatric-specific environmental modifications to unit No No Abbreviations: ACE, Acute Care for Elders; ADL, activities of daily living; FTE, full-time equivalent; IDT, interdisciplinary team; UC, usual care. a Social services FTEs included social workers, care managers, and utilization reviewers responsible for patients of all ages in multiple hospital units in addition to the ACE and UC units. Given that fixed and variable staffing was identical on the 2 units, our study s primary outcome measure was total variable direct costs. In addition, daily variable costs were calculated by dividing total variable direct costs by length of stay (LOS). Variable direct cost was chosen as the primary outcome because it represents the cost stemming directly from daily patient care and would therefore provide the best measurement for the effect of the ACE model on costs. Other variables examined included patient demographics, the case mix index (CMI), the comorbidity score derived from the High-Risk Diagnoses for the Elderly Scale, 25 LOS, readmissions to UAB Hospital within 30 days, and total cost. The CMI is defined as the sum of the relative weights of the DRGs for a patient population divided by the number of patients in that population, and it reflects patient complexity and expected resource consumption. 26 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Significant differences between groups were assessed by using 2 tests for categorical data, t tests for normally distributed continuous data, and 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests for medians. Because cost and LOS data were not normally distributed, t tests with bootstrap resampling were used to test means. 27 Generalized linear models were used to calculate crude and adjusted cost ratios and 95% CIs. Adjusted models included age, sex, comorbidity score, and CMI. Several distribution families (normal, log normal, and gamma) were considered for multivariate models of variable direct costs. For each, we reviewed the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic for goodness of fit and determined that the log normal distribution fit the data best. Additional analysis was stratified by CMI group (low, moderate, or high). All analyses were performed using SAS software, version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Inc), and differences were considered statistically significant at P.05. RESULTS There were no significant group differences for demographic variables or in-hospital mortality (Table 2). The ACE and UC groups had similar CMI and comorbidity scores (Table 3). Analysis including all DRGs revealed that the mean (SD) total variable direct cost per patient was $2109 ($1870) for ACE and $2480 ($2113) for UC (P =.009). Adjusted cost ratios stratified by CMI revealed significantly reduced cost ratios for ACE patients with low (0.82; 95% CI, ) or moderate (0.74; 95% CI, ) CMI scores and cost-neutral care for patients with high CMI score, all in comparison with UC patients. In addition to cost savings, a significantly smaller proportion of ACE patients than UC patients were readmitted to UAB Hospital for any cause within 30 days (7.9% vs 12.8%; P =.02). There was no difference between the proportions of ACE and UC patients with at least 1 admission to UAB Hospital in the 6 months preceding the study admission date. Analysis restricted to the 25 most common DRGs revealed a significantly reduced variable direct cost per patient for the ACE compared with the UC unit (mean [SD], $1693 [$1063] vs $2138 [$1431]; P.001). 983

4 Table 2. Patient Demographics, Discharge Destination, and 30-Day Readmissions for All DRGs and the 25 Most Common DRGs Characteristic (n = 428) All Patients (n = 390) P Value (n = 260) 25 Most Common DRGs (n = 214) P Value Age, y Mean (SD) 81.6 (6.9) 80.9 (6.8) (7.0) 80.9 (6.9).16 Median Sex, No. (%) Male 131 (30.6) 133 (34.1) 73 (28.1) 77 (36.0).29 Female 297 (69.4) 257 (65.9) 187 (71.9) 137 (64.0).07 Race or ethnicity, No. (%) White 276 (64.5) 231 (59.2) 163 (62.7) 129 (60.3) Black 147 (34.4) 154 (39.5) (36.2) 83 (38.8).83 Other 5 (1.2) 5 (1.3) 3 (1.2) 2 (0.9) Marital status, No. (%) Married 167 (39.0) 140 (35.9) 94 (36.2) 78 (36.5).36 Not married 261 (61.0) 250 (64.1) 166 (63.9) 136 (63.6).95 Discharge destination, No. (%) Home 281 (65.7) 282 (72.3) 178 (68.5) 161 (75.2) Skilled nursing facility 87 (20.3) 72 (18.5) 49 (18.9) 37 (17.3) Other facility 23 (5.4) 11 (2.8) 12 (4.6) 4 (1.9).12 Inpatient rehabilitation 31 (7.2) 18 (4.6) 17 (6.5) 6 (2.8).99 or intermediate care Died in hospital, No. (%) 6 (1.4) 7 (1.8) 4 (1.5) 6 (2.8) Patients readmitted to UAB Hospital within 30 d of discharge, No. (%) 34 (7.9) 50 (12.8) (7.3) 24 (11.2).14 Abbreviations: ACE, Acute Care for Elders; DRGs, diagnosis related groups; SNF, skilled nursing facility; UAB, University of Alabama at Birmingham; UC, usual care. Table 3. Case Mix Index, Comorbidity Score, and Resource Use in ACE and s for All DRGs and the 25 Most Common DRGs Characteristic (n = 428) All Patients (n = 390) P Value (n = 260) 25 Most Common DRGs a (n = 214) P Value Case mix index Mean (SD) 1.1 (0.5) 1.1 (0.6) (0.31) 0.97 (0.33).40 Group, No. (%) Low ( ) 173 (40.4) 155 (39.7) 129 (49.6) 111 (51.9) Moderate ( ) 150 (35.0) 146 (37.4) (32.7) 72 (33.6).64 High ( ) 105 (24.5) 89 (22.8) 46 (17.7) 31 (14.5) Comorbidity score, 3.4 (3.2) 3.1 (3.0) (3.2) 3.1 (2.9).09 mean (SD) Total length of stay, d Mean (SD) 4.0 (2.7) 4.2 (2.8) 3.7 (2.4) 4.1 (2.8).34 Range Total cost per patient, $ b Mean (SD) 5253 (4105) 6321 (4755) (2815) 5668 (3535).001 Median (range) 4135 ( ) 4971 ( ) ( ) 4599 ( ).001 Daily total cost per patient, $ Mean (SD) 1377 (787) 1539 (457) (473) 1464 (385).001 Median (range) 1222 ( ) 1420 ( ) ( ) 1393 ( ).001 Total variable direct cost per patient, $ c Mean (SD) 2109 (1870) 2480 (2113) (1063) 2138 (1431).001 Median (range) 1598 ( ) 1870 ( ) ( ) 1687 ( ).001 Daily variable direct cost per patient, $ Mean (SD) 542 (383) 595 (227) (162) 545 (120).001 Median (range) 471 ( ) 530 ( ) ( ) 510 ( ).001 Abbreviations: ACE, Acute Care for Elders; DRGs, diagnosis related groups; UC, usual care. a For the 25 most common DRGs, the number of patients per DRG ranged from 8 to 55. b Total costs are the sum of fixed direct costs, variable direct costs, and indirect costs. c Variable direct costs are attributed to direct patient care (eg, cost of laboratory tests, medical supplies, and nursing staff salary). 984

5 Table 4. Cost Ratios for Variable Direct Costs Stratified by Case Mix Index in ACE and s for All DRGs and the 25 Most Common DRGs Total Variable Direct Cost per Patient Daily Variable Direct Cost per Patient Group Crude (95% CI) Adjusted (95% CI) a Crude (95% CI) Adjusted (95% CI) a All DRGs Overall 0.85 ( ) 0.99 ( ) 0.91 ( ) 0.96 ( ) Case mix index b Low 0.87 ( ) 0.82 ( ) 0.88 ( ) 0.89 ( ) Moderate 0.73 ( ) 0.74 ( ) 0.89 ( ) 0.89 ( ) High 0.92 ( ) 1.13 ( ) 0.96 ( ) 1.13 ( ) 25 Most Common DRGs Overall 0.79 ( ) 0.78 ( ) 0.89 ( ) 0.89 ( ) Case mix index b Low 0.84 ( ) 0.78 ( ) 0.88 ( ) 0.88 ( ) Moderate 0.73 ( ) 0.73 ( ) 0.91 ( ) 0.92 ( ) High 0.75 ( ) 0.79 ( ) 0.87 ( ) 0.90 ( ) Abbreviations: ACE, Acute Care for Elders; DRGs, diagnosis related groups; UC, usual care. a Adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity score, and case mix index. b Case mix index ranges were categorized as follows: low, ; moderate, ; and high, Mean daily variable direct costs were also significantly less for the ACE unit ($484 [$162] vs $545 [$120]; P.001). Among patients with the 25 most common DRGs, cost ratios for total variable direct costs (0.78; 95% CI, ) and daily variable direct costs (0.89; 95% CI, ) remained significant after adjustment (Table 4). Fewer ACE patients were readmitted to UAB Hospital within 30 days for the 25 most common DRGs, but despite an absolute difference of 4%, this difference was not statistically significant (7.3% vs 11.2%; P =.14). DISCUSSION We found that an ACE model with an IDT supporting hospitalists who do not participate in ACE team rounds significantly reduces variable direct costs and 30-day readmission rates for patients aged 70 years or older. Extrapolating an average of $371 in variable direct cost savings per patient would result in a $ savings for every 400 patients admitted to the ACE unit. Our results suggest that an ACE team collaboratively supporting attending physicians who are not geriatricians can deliver geriatric care processes cost efficiently. Our study comparing 2 units using different care models eliminates several confounding variables present in previous ACE studies. First, patients with comparable comorbidity and CMI scores admitted to the ACE and UC units were cared for by the same physicians. Second, the units had identical nursing staff to patient ratios and access to non unit-based disciplines. However, the ACE model redesigned how staff was used. For example, the units had the same pharmacist support, but the role of the ACE pharmacist included IDT rounds and medication reviews. This adjustment of roles does not add costs. The ACE unit did have slightly more physical therapist fulltime equivalents available to see patients (Table 1); this additional cost is well below the observed cost savings and was accounted for in the total costs, which were also significantly reduced in the ACE model. Finally, both units conducted daily team meetings; a geriatrician attended the ACE meeting and 2 or 3 hospitalists attended the UC meeting. The cost for physician time for daily team meetings is much less in the ACE model and represents additional cost savings not included in variable direct costs. We speculate that the savings we observed are explained by improved care processes and coordination that stem from an IDT model, thereby enhancing geriatric assessment and appropriateness of care. Our findings strengthen previously published studies on ACE units. In a randomized controlled trial of the nation s first ACE unit, Landefeld et al 14 demonstrated improved functional performance and reduced longterm care placement for ACE patients compared with UC patients. In a follow-up cost analysis of this new ACE intervention, 28 the start-up costs, including environmental redesign and staff time to develop care protocols for the new unit, added $38 per bed-day for ACE patients, but because the ACE unit reduced LOS (7.5 vs 8.4 days for UC; P =.449), total costs to the hospital were also reduced ($6608 for ACE vs $7240 for UC; P =.93). We incurred no additional costs for care process development, and our ACE unit had not undergone any environmental modifications. In 2012, the authors who first wrote about the ACE model published a second retrospective cost analysis 29 ; this study included patients aged 70 years or older who were randomized to the ACE or UC unit from 1993 through This analysis demonstrated a significantly shorter mean LOS for the ACE unit (6.7 vs 7.3 days for UC; P =.004) and therefore lower total costs for ACE patients. However, a Consumer Price Index inflation calculator was used to convert costs from the year of discharge to equivalent costs for Since these original publications on ACE units from the mid-1990s, 2 new trends have emerged in the care of hospitalized elderly patients: (1) many older adults are now admitted to the care of hospitalists and (2) the average LOS for older adults has decreased to 5.6 days

6 Our ACE unit study occurred in this new health care environment and demonstrated reduced costs and readmissions for the ACE model, even in patients whose LOS was less than 5 days, signaling a role for the ACE model in hospitalists care for older adults. Finally, one other study demonstrated significant total cost savings for the ACE model in 3 common DRGs (pneumonia, congestive heart failure, and urinary tract infection). 31 However, the authors do not state whether patients had the same attending physicians, some ACE patients were admitted to a geriatrician, and cost was estimated by using cost to charge ratios. Our study strengthens these findings by including all DRGs, ensuring that the patients in the ACE and UC units were treated by the same physicians in units with the same staffing, and by using variable direct cost data. In addition to treatment by the same attending physicians, both of our study units conducted a team meeting, thus eliminating the conduct of a daily meeting as a confounder. The UC team rounds followed the conventional discharge planning format and focused on the discharge day and destination but did not address geriatric syndromes or include other disciplines that participated in the ACE team meetings. In 2011, O Leary et al 32 published a controlled trial evaluating the addition of IDT rounds to UC for hospitalists patients of all ages (mean age, 64 years). Although nurses noted improved communication with the team intervention, the effect on costs was inconsistent. The ACE model focus on geriatric syndromes may explain the cost savings and reduced readmissions noted in our study. Our study has several limitations. Given the predominance of studies demonstrating improved outcomes in elderly patients admitted to ACE units, we did not believe it was appropriate to knowingly prevent admission of a patient to the ACE unit if a bed was available. Furthermore, because of the complexity of our academic medical center, holding beds open for a randomized study is not feasible. Thus, our study was not a randomized controlled trial. However, given the large number of older adults admitted to UAB Hospital each year ( inpatients in fiscal year 2010), bed availability predominantly determined patient assignment to the ACE or UC unit, thus pseudo-randomizing patients to the 2 care models. The mean LOS for the UC patients was markedly below the national average for older adults. 30 The UAB hospitalists and geriatricians had been closely collaborating in patient care for 3 years before our study period. In fiscal year 2010, 52% of all inpatient geriatric consultations were in hospitalists patients (including ACE and UC units). Thus, the hospitalists used the geriatric consultation service for UC patients. The crossover contamination may contribute to the short LOS in the UC patients and underestimation of the cost savings potential of the ACE model for clinical services less familiar with geriatric care principles than our hospitalist physicians. The ACE unit geriatrician plays a consultative role and is not the primary attending physician. Given the declining number of geriatricians nationwide, this ACE model is more sustainable than one requiring an attending geriatrician. The approximate geriatrician time for the daily ACE meeting was 30 minutes. Given the cost savings for a short time commitment, it is feasible that a single geriatrician could facilitate multiple team rounds per day on multiple units, using identical interfacing techniques with attending physicians, which would multiply the cost savings dramatically throughout a hospital. Other limitations are related to scarcity of geriatric syndrome information available in the hospital database or medical record. The database does not record where patients were living before hospitalization and does not distinguish between subacute rehabilitation and long-term care. This limits our ability to perform in-depth analysis of where patients were admitted from or their discharge destinations. We also were not able to determine the number of 30-day readmissions to other hospitals. Measurement of specific quality outcomes are beyond the scope of this study, but the UAB ACE unit implements the same care processes that have been shown to improve outcomes for other ACE units. 6,16,17,33 In conclusion, our results strengthen the findings of previous studies of ACE units by demonstrating that the ACE model can seamlessly interface with nongeriatrician attending physicians and significantly reduce costs and 30- day readmissions. Reducing 30-day readmissions further lowers hospital risk for withheld reimbursement. In an era when improving outcomes while reducing cost is a vital objective for both the Medicare program and our nation as a whole, the ACE model meets these goals. Accepted for Publication: January 25, Published Online: April 22, doi: /jamainternmed Correspondence: Kellie L. Flood, MD, Division of Gerontology, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 Second Ave S, CH-19, Room 219, Birmingham, AL (kflood@uabmc.edu). Author Contributions: Drs Flood, MacLennan, and Brown had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Flood, MacLennan, and McGrew. Acquisition of data: McGrew, Green, and Dodd. Analysis and interpretation of data: Flood, MacLennan, McGrew, and Brown. Drafting of the manuscript: Flood, MacLennan, McGrew, and Brown. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors. Statistical analysis: MacLennan, Green, and Dodd. Administrative, technical, and material support: McGrew. Study supervision: Flood and Brown. Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported. Previous Presentation: Preliminary analyses of these data were presented at the Plenary Paper Session at the annual American Geriatrics Society Scientific Meeting; May 12, 2011; Washington, DC. Online-Only Material: An etable is available at http: // Additional Contributions: We thank geriatricians Donna Bearden, Heather Herrington, and Caroline Harada, and all ACE team members for their dedication to providing the highest quality of care to the patients we serve. We also thank Harry Vickers for his generous donations for ACE unit staff training. 986

7 REFERENCES 1. Chernew ME, Baicker KR, Hsu J. The specter of financial Armageddon health care and federal debt in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(13): Brown CJ, Roth DL, Allman RM, Sawyer P, Ritchie CS, Roseman JM. Trajectories of life-space mobility after hospitalization. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(6): Brown CJ, Redden DT, Flood KL, Allman RM. The underrecognized epidemic of low mobility during hospitalization of older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009; 57(9): Gill TM, Allore HG, Gahbauer EA, Murphy TE. Change in disability after hospitalization or restricted activity in older persons. JAMA. 2010;304(17): Naylor MD, Stephens C, Bowles KH, Bixby MB. Cognitively impaired older adults: from hospital to home. Am J Nurs. 2005;105(2): Inouye SK. Prevention of delirium in hospitalized older patients: risk factors and targeted intervention strategies. Ann Med. 2000;32(4): Inouye SK, Bogardus ST Jr, Baker DI, Leo-Summers L, Cooney LM Jr; Hospital Elder Life Program. The Hospital Elder Life Program: a model of care to prevent cognitive and functional decline in older hospitalized patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(12): Locher JL, Ritchie CS, Robinson CO, et al. A multidimensional approach to understanding under-eating in homebound older adults: the importance of social factors. Gerontologist. 2008;48(2): Egger SS, Bachmann A, Hubmann N, Schlienger RG, Krähenbühl S. Prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication use in elderly patients: comparison between general medical and geriatric wards. Drugs Aging. 2006;23(10): Lefevre F, Feinglass J, Potts S, et al. Iatrogenic complications in high-risk, elderly patients. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152(10): Thomas EJ, Brennan TA. Incidence and types of preventable adverse events in elderly patients: population based review of medical records. BMJ. 2000;320 (7237): Lyons WL, Landefeld CS. Improving care for hospitalized elders. Ann Long- Term Care Clin Care Aging. 2001;9(4): Palmer RM. Acute hospital care of the elderly: minimizing the risk of functional decline. Cleve Clin J Med. 1995;62(2): Landefeld CS, Palmer RM, Kresevic DM, Fortinsky RH, Kowal J. A randomized trial of care in a hospital medical unit especially designed to improve the functional outcomes of acutely ill older patients. N Engl J Med. 1995;332(20): Counsell SR, Holder CM, Liebenauer LL, et al. Effects of a multicomponent intervention on functional outcomes and process of care in hospitalized older patients: a randomized controlled trial of Acute Care for Elders (ACE) in a community hospital. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(12): Flood KL, Brown CJ, Carroll MB, Locher JL. Nutritional processes of care for older adults admitted to an oncology-acute Care for Elders unit. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011;78(1): Flood KL, Carroll MB, Le CV, Brown CJ. Polypharmacy in hospitalized older adult cancer patients: experience from a prospective, observational study of an oncology- Acute Care for Elders unit. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2009;7(3): Cohen HJ, Feussner JR, Weinberger M, et al. A controlled trial of inpatient and outpatient geriatric evaluation and management. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(12): Baztán JJ, Suárez-García FM, López-Arrieta J, Rodríguez-Mañas L, Rodríguez- Artalejo F. Effectiveness of acute geriatric units on functional decline, living at home, and case fatality among older patients admitted to hospital for acute medical disorders: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2009;338:b50. doi: /bmj.b Flaherty JH, Tariq SH, Raghavan S, Bakshi S, Moinuddin A, Morley JE. A model for managing delirious older inpatients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(7): Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW. Studies of illness in the aged: the index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA. 1963;185: Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9(3): Borson S, Scanlan J, Brush M, Vitaliano P, Dokmak A. The Mini-Cog: a cognitive vital signs measure for dementia screening in multi-lingual elderly. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2000;15(11): Lankshear AJ, Sheldon TA, Maynard A. Nurse staffing and healthcare outcomes: a systematic review of the international research evidence. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2005;28(2): Desai MM, Bogardus ST Jr, Williams CS, Vitagliano G, Inouye SK. Development and validation of a risk-adjustment index for older patients: the high-risk diagnoses for the elderly scale. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(3): Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Fiscal year 2010 final rule case mix. /Acute-Inpatient-Files-for-Download-Items/CMS html.AccessedMarch 7, White IR, Thompson SG. Choice of test for comparing two groups, with particular application to skewed outcomes. Stat Med. 2003;22(8): Covinsky KE, King JT Jr, Quinn LM, et al. Do Acute Care for Elders units increase hospital costs? a cost analysis using the hospital perspective. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45(6): Barnes ED, Palmer RM, Kresevic DM, et al. Acute Care for Elders units produced shorter hospital stays at lower cost while maintaining patients functional status. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(6): Hall MJ, DeFrances CJ, Williams SN, Golosinskiy A, Schwartzman A. National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2007 Summary. National Health Statistics Reports; No. 29. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; Jayadevappa R, Chhatre S, Weiner M, Raziano DB. Health resource utilization and medical care cost of Acute Care Elderly unit patients. Value Health. 2006; 9(3): O Leary KJ, Haviley C, Slade ME, Shah HM, Lee J, Williams MV. Improving teamwork: impact of structured interdisciplinary rounds on a hospitalist unit. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(2): Reilly T, Barile D, Reuben S. Role of the pharmacist on a general medicine Acute Care for the Elderly unit. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2012;10(2): ACE, MACE, and GRACE Time to Put the Pieces Together INVITED COMMENTARY B erwick et al1 challenged the US health care system to achieve the Triple Aim of higher-quality care for individuals, improved health of populations, and lower health care costs. Accomplishing the See also page part aim is a formidable task, perhaps for no group more so than for older adults with complex health problems who are the major users of health care. However, several innovative geriatric health care programs have had modest success. In this issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, Hung et al 2 describe one such program. The Mobile Acute Care of the Elderly (MACE) service is an interdisciplinary team that seeks to decrease the hazards of hospitalization, facilitate transitions of care, and provide patient and family education. The MACE service is available to patients from the geriatric primary care practice of the Mount Sinai Medical Center, regardless of the medicine unit to 987