The National Aging Network serves millions of older Americans seeking home- and community-based services, but places others on waitlists due to limited resources. Little is known about how states determine service delivery and waitlists. We therefore conducted a process evaluation and analyzed data from one five-county Area Agency on Aging in Florida, where an algorithm calculates clients’ priority scores for service delivery. From 23,225 screenings over 5.5 years, clients with higher priority scores were older, married, living with caregivers, and had more health problems and needs for assistance. Approximately 51% received services (e.g., meals/nutrition, case management, caregiver support), 11% were eligible/being enrolled, and 38% remained on waitlists. Service status was complex due to multiple service enrollments and terminations, funding priorities, and transfers to third-party providers. More research is needed regarding how other states determine eligibility and deliver services, potentially informing national standards that promote optimal health in older Americans.

Introduction As patients, members of the public, and professional stakeholders engage in co‐producing health‐related research, an important issue to consider is trauma. Trauma is very common and associated with a wide range of physical and behavioural health conditions. Thus, it may benefit research partnerships to consider its impact on their stakeholders as well as its relevance to the health condition under study. The aims of this article are to describe the development and evaluation of a training programme that applied principles of trauma‐informed care (TIC) to patient‐ and public‐engaged research. Methods A research partnership focused on addressing trauma in primary care patients (‘ my PATH’) explicitly incorporated TIC into its formation, governance document and collaborative processes, and developed and evaluated a free 3‐credit continuing education online training. The training was presented by 11 partners (5 professionals, 6 patients) and included academic content and lived experiences. Results Training participants ( N = 46) positively rated achievement of learning objectives and speakers' performance (ranging from 4.39 to 4.74 on a 5‐point scale). The most salient themes from open‐ended comments were that training was informative ( n = 12) and that lived experiences shared by patient partners were impactful ( n = 10). Suggestions were primarily technical or logistical. Conclusion This preliminary evaluation indicates that it is possible to incorporate TIC principles into a research partnership's collaborative processes and training about these topics is well‐received. Learning about trauma and TIC may benefit research partnerships that involve patients and public stakeholders studying a wide range of health conditions, potentially improving how stakeholders engage in co‐producing research as well as producing research that addresses how trauma relates to their health condition under study. Patient or Public Contribution The my PATH Partnership includes 22 individuals with professional and lived experiences related to trauma ( https://www.usf.edu/cbcs/mhlp/centers/mypath/ ); nine partners were engaged due to personal experiences with trauma; other partners are community‐based providers and researchers. All partners contributed ideas that led to trauma‐informed research strategies and training. Eleven partners (5 professionals, 6 patients) presented the training, and 12 partners (8 professionals, 4 patients) contributed to this article and chose to be named as authors.

Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) screen older adults and oversee delivery of a wide range of home- and community-based services (HCBS). We examined the assessment process, services, and mortality and health outcomes for older adults screened by an Area Agency on Aging in west-central Florida. Most were self/family referred (78.9%). Using data from July 2013-December 2018, 23,225 older adults were screened. Individuals had an average of 2.6 years follow-up in the dataset, during which time 63.6% received additional assessments: follow-up screening (50.6%), comprehensive assessment for enrollment in HCBS (35.7%), or assessments for congregate meals or other services (13.7%). Results revealed differences in mortality: 22.5% of clients receiving services died compared to 32.1% of clients prioritized as lower risk and on waiting lists for services. Long-term care placement and functional decline outcomes also will be reviewed, along with implications for service delivery and managing waitlists.