Community paramedicine in dementia care

Colby Parsons; Christian Escobar; Amy Jasani; Duzhi Zhao; Peter Gliatto; Erik Blutinger; Katherine A Ornstein

doi:10.1111/jgs.18872

Community paramedicine in dementia care

J Am Geriatr Soc. 2024 Mar 14. doi: 10.1111/jgs.18872. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Colby Parsons¹, Christian Escobar², Amy Jasani³, Duzhi Zhao², Peter Gliatto², Erik Blutinger⁴, Katherine A Ornstein⁵

Affiliations

¹ Department of Medical Education, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
² Division of General Internal Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
³ Heersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
⁴ Department of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
⁵ Center for Equity in Aging, Johns Hopkins University, School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

PMID: 38485282
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.18872

Abstract

Background: Novel hospital diversion strategies are needed to support a growing number of patients with dementia living in the community. One promising model is community paramedicine (CP), which deploys paramedics to the home, who consult with a physician to coordinate treatment and assess disposition. While evidence suggests CP can manage many patients without escalation to the emergency department (ED), no studies have evaluated optimal CP utilization for patients with dementia. Therefore, we compare the use and outcomes of CP for homebound patients with and without dementia.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study examines 251 homebound patients receiving home-based primary care, who utilized a physician-led CP service between March 2017 and May 2022. Linked electronic health record data included patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and CP encounter details. Dementia status and CP outcomes, including rates of ED transport, over-transport (i.e., transported, but not hospitalized), and under-transport (i.e., not transported, but ED visit within 3 days), were determined via chart review. Using logistic regression, we modeled the association of dementia status with over- and under-transport, adjusting for age, sex, and chief complaint.

Results: Fifty-three percent of CP patients had dementia. Their most common chief complaints were dyspnea (24.3%), altered mental status (17.9%), and generalized weakness (9.8%). We found no significant difference in ED transport rates by dementia status (25.4 vs. 22.8%, p = 0.54). Dementia diagnosis was associated with lower rates of over-transport (OR = 0.21, p = 0.03, CI [0.05, 0.85]) and comparable rates of under-transport (OR = 0.70, p = 0.47, CI [0.27, 1.83]) in adjusted models.

Conclusions: CP has effectively managed a diverse population of homebound patients with dementia cared for via home-based primary care. Future work should examine potential cost savings and use of CP in dementia care across geographic and healthcare settings.

Keywords: community paramedicine; dementia; home-based primary care; homebound; hospital diversion.

Grants and funding

NIA R01 AG060967/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States