Cited by 46Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesNursing Roles and Practices

The Effects of Dementia Care Co‐Management on Acute Care, Hospice, and Long‐Term Care Utilization

Open access
Jennings, Lee A., Hollands, Simon, Keeler, Emmett, Wenger, Neil S., Reuben, David B.·2020·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Although nurse practitioner dementia care co-management has been shown to reduce total cost of care for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries, the reasons for cost savings are unknown. To further understand the impact of dementia co-management on costs, we examined acute care utilization, long-term care admissions, and hospice use of program enrollees as compared with persons with dementia not in the program using FFS and managed Medicare claims data. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental controlled before-and-after comparison. SETTING: Urban academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 856 University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Alzheimer's and Dementia Care program patients were enrolled between July 1, 2012, and December 31, 2015, and 3,139 similar UCLA patients with dementia not in the program. Comparison patients were identified as having dementia using International Classification of Diseases-9 codes and natural language processing of clinical notes. Coarsened exact matching was used to reduce covariate imbalance between intervention and comparison patients. INTERVENTION: Dementia co-management model using nurse practitioners partnered with primary care providers and community organizations. MEASUREMENTS: Average difference-in-differences per quarter over the 2.5-year intervention period for all-cause hospitalization, emergency department (ED) visits, intensive care unit (ICU) stays, and number of inpatient hospitalization days; admissions to long-term care facilities; and hospice use in the last 6 months of life. RESULTS: Intervention patients had fewer ED visits (odds ratio [OR] = .80; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .66-.97) and shorter hospital length of stay (incident rate ratio = .74; 95% CI = .55-.99). There were no significant differences between groups for hospitalizations or ICU stays. Program participants were less likely to be admitted to a long-term care facility (hazard ratio = .65; 95% CI = .47-.89) and more likely to receive hospice services in the last 6 months of life (adjusted OR = 1.64; 95% CI = 1.13-2.37). CONCLUSION: Comprehensive nurse practitioner dementia care co-management reduced ED visits, shortened hospital length of stay, increased hospice use, and delayed admission to long-term care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jgs.16667

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Dementia Care Co-Management Model embedded care managers and comprehensive planning tools to proactively manage transitions and reduce avoidable hospital admissions.

    “The Dementia Care Co-Management Model, for example, embedded care managers and comprehensive planning tools to proactively manage transitions and reduce avoidable hospital admissions (Jennings et al., 2020).”

    From Mind the gap: a systematic review of barriers, facilitators, and experiences of care transitions for people living with dementia and their informal caregivers. (2026) · cites this paper as Jennings et al., 2020

    The Description of the Clinical Program describes nurse practitioner dementia care specialists and individualized care plans, and the Discussion explains how specialists may facilitate discharge after hospitalization. But the paper reports no significant reduction in hospitalizations, so it does not support the claim that the model reduced avoidable hospital admissions. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Inconsistent referral criteria and service availability across geographical regions contributed to inequitable access to transitional care support.

    “Furthermore, studies highlighted that inconsistent referral criteria and service availability across geographical regions contributed to inequitable access to transitional care support (de Vries et al., 2019; Eyles et al., 2021; Jennings et al., 2020; Kupeli et al., 2019; Parker et al., 2021; Pond et al., 2019).”

    From Mind the gap: a systematic review of barriers, facilitators, and experiences of care transitions for people living with dementia and their informal caregivers. (2026) · cites this paper as Jennings et al., 2020

    The Discussion (page not available) says the study examined patients within one health system and lacked information about referring-provider characteristics that might affect program referral. The searched passages do not address inconsistent referral criteria, regional differences in service availability, or inequitable access to transitional care support. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jennings, L. A., Hollands, S., Keeler, E., Wenger, N. S., & Reuben, D. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (US)
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Reuben, David B.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-06-23
Volume
68
Issue
11
Pages
2500-2507
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W3037733837
Cited by
46
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Alzheimer's Association (New Investigator Research Grant / 15‐364406)
  • Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (HHSM 500‐2011‐00002I Task Order HHSM‐500‐T0009, HHSM‐500‐T0009, HHSM 500‐2011‐00002I)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
Keywords
nurse practitioners, acute care utilization, emergency department visits, length of hospital stay, long-term care admission, hospice use, Medicare beneficiaries, managed care, cost reduction, primary care partnerships
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Comprehensive Health Care, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Length of Stay, Male, Primary Health Care, Hospice Care, Advanced Practice Nursing, Practice Patterns, Nurses', Controlled Before-After Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review