When a record heat wave
swept across Europe in the summer of 2003, elderly Parisians were particularly
hard hit. “French heat toll almost 15,000,” screamed one BBC headline in
September. The cause of death: dehydration and hyperthermia. The diagnosis of
the problem: not enough air conditioning, made worse by too many physicians on
vacation in August. Across Europe, over 70,000 people died of heat-related
causes. We thought we were immune: our nursing homes are air conditioned and we
have plenty of nurses, doctors, and regulations. But now we have the disturbing
reports of 8 deaths among nursing home residents of a facility in Florida in
the aftermath of Hurricane Irma. The nursing home lost power and its back-up
generator was useless when a critical component, the transformer, failed.
Despite access to an acute care hospital across the street, no one thought to
transfer the frail, elderly long term care residents until they were already
suffering from severe dehydration and/or hyperthermia. What can we learn from
this very sad story?
First, we should drill down
and look at the specific facility where the problem occurred. All of the west
coast of Florida was affected by the hurricane, after all, but only one nursing
home lost patients. The Rehabilitation Center of Hollywood Hills is a Medicare
and Medicaid licensed 152 bed facility. It is a for-profit nursing home. And if we consult Nursing Home Compare, the site operated by the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services to allow consumers to compare the quality of different
nursing homes, we find that the home currently has an overall rating of two
stars, or below average. Even more revealing is the further breakdown: in the
area of health inspections, it received only one star, or much below average,
though in quality it got three stars (average) and in terms of the staff:
patient ratio it actually got four stars (above average). So what exactly does
this mean?
The problem at Hollywood
Hills was not a failure to follow the rules—the facility had a back up
generator and supplies for seven days (though their ice collection was
presumably not terribly useful if they had no refrigeration). The problem was
judgment. Nobody in charge determined that conditions were too dangerous and
residents needed to be evacuated. They only figured that out after people began
dying, although it takes a couple of days for a lethal degree of dehydration to
set in. What our current evaluation system for nursing home lacks is the
capacity to measure the ability to respond to novel challenges, to be creative.
Perhaps we need to set objective standards, not merely relative standards. If
we set the bar high enough, then the lowest performing facilities would still
be adequate. That said, it’s striking that the overall rating of the facility
was poor. Nursing Home Compare is on to something—we need to have a better way
of insuring that the poorer facilities improve.
No comments:
Post a Comment