Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objective To identify US hospital characteristics associated with higher rates of feeding tube insertion in nursing home residents with advanced cognitive impairment. A multivariable model with the unit of the analysis being the hospital admission identified hospital-level factors independently associated with feeding tube insertion rates, including bed size, ownership, urban location, and medical school affiliation. Results In 2797 acute care hospitals with 280,869 admissions among 163,022 nursing home residents with advanced cognitive impairment, the rate of feeding tube insertion varied from 0 to 38.9 per 100 hospitalizations (mean [SD], 6.5 [5.3]; median [interquartile range], 5.3 [2.6-9.3]). Higher insertion rates were associated with the following hospital features: for-profit ownership vs government owned (8.5 vs 5.5 insertions per 100 hospitalizations; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.46), larger size (>310 beds vs <101 beds: 8.0 vs 4.3 insertions per 100 hospitalizations; AOR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.35-1.63), and greater ICU use in the last 6 months of life (highest vs lowest decile: 10.1 vs 2.9 insertions per 100 hospitalizations; AOR, 2.60; 95% CI, 2.20-3.06). Specialist to primary care ratio and hospice use were weakly or not associated with feeding tube placement. Conclusion Among nursing home residents with advanced cognitive impairment admitted to acute care hospitals, for-profit ownership, larger hospital size, and greater ICU use was associated with increased rates of feeding tube insertion, even after adjusting for patient-level characteristics.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 41/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 10 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 24 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 41 of 100. Total 41 of 100.24 of the 58 points we could judge = 41 of 100

Published in a top-tier journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 10 / 10 Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (JAMA)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2010 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 20145231)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 24 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100.
Total 41 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Teno, J. M., Mitchell, S. L., Gozalo, P. L., Dosa, D., Hsu, A., Intrator, O., et al. (2010). Hospital characteristics associated with feeding tube placement in nursing home residents with advanced cognitive impairment. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.79

Vancouver

Teno JM, Mitchell SL, Gozalo PL, Dosa D, Hsu A, Intrator O, et al. Hospital characteristics associated with feeding tube placement in nursing home residents with advanced cognitive impairment. JAMA. 2010. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.79. PMID: 20145231.

BibTeX

@article{teno2010-20145231,
  author  = {Teno, J. M. and Mitchell, S. L. and Gozalo, P. L. and Dosa, D. and Hsu, A. and Intrator, O. and Mor, V.},
  title   = {{Hospital characteristics associated with feeding tube placement in nursing home residents with advanced cognitive impairment}},
  journal = {JAMA},
  year    = {2010},
  doi     = {10.1001/jama.2010.79},
  pmid    = {20145231},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.79}
}

Related studies in End-of-life care

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →