4.6 Article

Latent Tuberculosis Infection Testing Practices in Long-Term Care Facilities, Boston, Massachusetts

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
Volume 65, Issue 6, Pages 1145-1151

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.14696

Keywords

latent tuberculosis; testing; elderly; long-term care facilities; nursing homes

Funding

  1. Boston University Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health [K12-HD43444]
  2. Medical Student Aging Research program Grant MSTAR from the American Federation for Aging Research [T35AG038027-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectivesTo describe latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) testing practices in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). DesignRetrospective cohort study. SettingThree Boston-area LTCFs. ParticipantsResidents admitted between January 1 and December 31, 2011. MeasurementsResident demographic characteristics, comorbidities, LTCF stay, and LTBI testing and treatment. ResultsData for 291 LTCF residents admitted in 2011 were reviewed. Of the 257 without a history of LTBI and with documentation of testing, 162 (63%) were tested; 114 of 186 (61%) with a stay less than 90 days and 48 of 71 (68%) with a stay of 90 days or longer were tested. Of 196 residents with data on prior LTBI testing, 39 (19.9%) had LTBI; 12 of these (30.8%) were diagnosed at the LTCF. Hispanic participants were more likely than black participants to undergo LTBI testing (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.4, P = .003). Having a length of stay of less than 90 days (aOR = 0.7, P < .001) and history of illicit drug use (aOR = 0.7, P < .001) were associated with lower odds of LTBI testing. ConclusionOne-fifth of LTCF residents had LTBI, but testing was not always performed. The high prevalence of LTBI in older adults combined with the risk of an outbreak if a case of tuberculosis occurs in a LTCF make LTBI testing and treatment an important prevention opportunity. The importance of LTBI testing in LTCFs needs to be reinforced.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available