Factors Influencing Admission Decisions in Skilled Nursing Facilities: Retrospective Quantitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupancy rates within skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) in the United States have reached a record low. Understanding drivers of occupancy, including admission decisions, is critical for assessing the recovery of the long-term care sector as a whole. We provide the first comprehensive analysis of financial, clinical, and operational factors that impact whether a patient referral to an SNF is accepted or denied, using a large health informatics database. OBJECTIVE: Our key objectives were to describe the distribution of referrals sent to SNFs in terms of key referral- and facility-level features; analyze key financial, clinical, and operational variables and their relationship to admission decisions; and identify the key potential reasons behind referral decisions in the context of learning health systems. METHODS: We extracted and cleaned referral data from 627 SNFs from January 2020 to March 2022, including information on SNF daily operations (occupancy and nursing hours), referral-level factors (insurance type and primary diagnosis), and facility-level factors (overall 5-star rating and urban versus rural status). We computed descriptive statistics and applied regression modeling to identify and describe the relationships between these factors and referral decisions, considering them individually and controlling for other factors to understand their impact on the decision-making process. RESULTS: When analyzing daily operation values, no significant relationship between SNF occupancy or nursing hours and referral acceptance was observed (P>.05). By analyzing referral-level factors, we found that the primary diagnosis category and insurance type of the patient were significantly related to referral acceptance (P<.05). Referrals with primary diagnoses within the category "Diseases of the Musculoskeletal System" are least often denied whereas those with diagnoses within the "Mental Illness" category are most often denied (compared with other diagnosis categories). Furthermore, private insurance holders are least often denied whereas "medicaid" holders are most often denied (compared with other insurance types). When analyzing facility-level factors, we found that the overall 5-star rating and urban versus rural status of an SNF are significantly related to referral acceptance (P<.05). We found a positive but nonmonotonic relationship between the 5-star rating and referral acceptance rates, with the highest acceptance rates found among 5-star facilities. In addition, we found that SNFs in urban areas have lower acceptance rates than their rural counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: While many factors may influence a referral acceptance, care challenges associated with individual diagnoses and financial challenges associated with different remuneration types were found to be the strongest drivers. Understanding these drivers is essential in being more intentional in the process of accepting or denying referrals. We have interpreted our results using an adaptive leadership framework and suggested how SNFs can be more purposeful with their decisions while striving to achieve appropriate occupancy levels in ways that meet their goals and patients' needs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".