Comparison of Functional Status Improvements Among Patients With Stroke Receiving Postacute Care in Inpatient Rehabilitation vs Skilled Nursing Facilities

Ickpyo Hong, James S. Goodwin, Timothy A. Reistetter, Yong Fang Kuo, Trudy Mallinson, Amol Karmarkar, Yu Li Lin, Kenneth J. Ottenbacher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Importance: Health care reform legislation and Medicare plans for unified payment for postacute care highlight the need for research examining service delivery and outcomes. Objective: To compare functional outcomes in patients with stroke after postacute care in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF) vs skilled nursing facilities (SNF). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients with stroke who were discharged from acute care hospitals to IRF or SNF from January 1, 2013, to November 30, 2014. Medicare claims were used to link to IRF and SNF assessments. Data analyses were conducted from January 17, 2017, through April 25, 2019. Exposures: Inpatient rehabilitation received in IRFs vs SNFs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in mobility and self-care measures during an IRF or SNF stay were compared using multivariate analyses, inverse probability weighting with propensity score, and instrumental variable analyses. Mortality between 30 and 365 days after discharge was included as a control outcome as an indicator for unmeasured confounders. Results: Among 99 185 patients who experienced a stroke between January 1, 2013, and November 30, 2014, 66 082 patients (66.6%) were admitted to IRFs and 33 103 patients (33.4%) were admitted to SNFs. A higher proportion of women were admitted to SNFs (21 466 [64.8%] women) than IRFs (36 462 [55.2%] women) (P < .001). Compared with patients admitted to IRFs, patients admitted to SNFs were older (mean [SD] age, 79.4 [7.6] years vs 83.3 [7.8] years; P < .001) and had longer hospital length of stay (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.0] days vs 5.9 [4.2] days; P < .001) than those admitted to IRFs. In unadjusted analyses, patients with stroke admitted to IRF compared with those admitted to SNF had higher mean scores for mobility on admission (44.2 [95% CI, 44.1-44.3] points vs 40.8 [95% CI, 40.7-40.9] points) and at discharge (55.8 [95% CI, 55.7-55.9] points vs 44.4 [95% CI, 44.3-44.5] points), and for self-care on admission (45.0 [95% CI, 44.9-45.1] points vs 41.8 [95% CI, 41.7-41.9] points) and at discharge (58.6 [95% CI, 58.5-58.7] points vs 45.1 [95% CI, 45.0-45.2] points). Additionally, patients in IRF compared with those in SNF had larger improvements for mobility score (11.6 [95% CI, 11.5-11.7] points vs 3.5 [95% CI, 3.4-3.6] points) and for self-care score (13.6 [95% CI, 13.5-13.7] points vs 3.2 [95% CI, 3.1-3.3] points). Multivariable, propensity score, and instrumental variable analyses showed a similar magnitude of better improvements in patients admitted to IRF vs those admitted to SNF. The differences between SNF and IRF in odds of 30- to 365-day mortality (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.46-0.49]) were reduced but not eliminated in multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.69-0.74]) and propensity score analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.72-0.77]). These differences were no longer statistically significant in the instrumental variable analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of a large national sample, inpatient rehabilitation in IRFs for patients with stroke was associated with substantially improved physical mobility and self-care function compared with rehabilitation in SNFs. This finding raises questions about the value of any policy that would reimburse IRFs or SNFs at the same standard rate for stroke.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e1916646
JournalJAMA network open
Volume2
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2 2019

Fingerprint

Subacute Care
Skilled Nursing Facilities
Inpatients
Rehabilitation
Stroke
Self Care
Propensity Score
Point-of-Care Systems
Odds Ratio
Medicare
Length of Stay
Cohort Studies
Nursing Assessment
Health Care Reform
Mortality
Legislation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparison of Functional Status Improvements Among Patients With Stroke Receiving Postacute Care in Inpatient Rehabilitation vs Skilled Nursing Facilities. / Hong, Ickpyo; Goodwin, James S.; Reistetter, Timothy A.; Kuo, Yong Fang; Mallinson, Trudy; Karmarkar, Amol; Lin, Yu Li; Ottenbacher, Kenneth J.

In: JAMA network open, Vol. 2, No. 12, 02.12.2019, p. e1916646.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{01c31167a72b49649c1bcde9b99989cf,
title = "Comparison of Functional Status Improvements Among Patients With Stroke Receiving Postacute Care in Inpatient Rehabilitation vs Skilled Nursing Facilities",
abstract = "Importance: Health care reform legislation and Medicare plans for unified payment for postacute care highlight the need for research examining service delivery and outcomes. Objective: To compare functional outcomes in patients with stroke after postacute care in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF) vs skilled nursing facilities (SNF). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients with stroke who were discharged from acute care hospitals to IRF or SNF from January 1, 2013, to November 30, 2014. Medicare claims were used to link to IRF and SNF assessments. Data analyses were conducted from January 17, 2017, through April 25, 2019. Exposures: Inpatient rehabilitation received in IRFs vs SNFs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in mobility and self-care measures during an IRF or SNF stay were compared using multivariate analyses, inverse probability weighting with propensity score, and instrumental variable analyses. Mortality between 30 and 365 days after discharge was included as a control outcome as an indicator for unmeasured confounders. Results: Among 99 185 patients who experienced a stroke between January 1, 2013, and November 30, 2014, 66 082 patients (66.6{\%}) were admitted to IRFs and 33 103 patients (33.4{\%}) were admitted to SNFs. A higher proportion of women were admitted to SNFs (21 466 [64.8{\%}] women) than IRFs (36 462 [55.2{\%}] women) (P < .001). Compared with patients admitted to IRFs, patients admitted to SNFs were older (mean [SD] age, 79.4 [7.6] years vs 83.3 [7.8] years; P < .001) and had longer hospital length of stay (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.0] days vs 5.9 [4.2] days; P < .001) than those admitted to IRFs. In unadjusted analyses, patients with stroke admitted to IRF compared with those admitted to SNF had higher mean scores for mobility on admission (44.2 [95{\%} CI, 44.1-44.3] points vs 40.8 [95{\%} CI, 40.7-40.9] points) and at discharge (55.8 [95{\%} CI, 55.7-55.9] points vs 44.4 [95{\%} CI, 44.3-44.5] points), and for self-care on admission (45.0 [95{\%} CI, 44.9-45.1] points vs 41.8 [95{\%} CI, 41.7-41.9] points) and at discharge (58.6 [95{\%} CI, 58.5-58.7] points vs 45.1 [95{\%} CI, 45.0-45.2] points). Additionally, patients in IRF compared with those in SNF had larger improvements for mobility score (11.6 [95{\%} CI, 11.5-11.7] points vs 3.5 [95{\%} CI, 3.4-3.6] points) and for self-care score (13.6 [95{\%} CI, 13.5-13.7] points vs 3.2 [95{\%} CI, 3.1-3.3] points). Multivariable, propensity score, and instrumental variable analyses showed a similar magnitude of better improvements in patients admitted to IRF vs those admitted to SNF. The differences between SNF and IRF in odds of 30- to 365-day mortality (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.48 [95{\%} CI, 0.46-0.49]) were reduced but not eliminated in multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72 [95{\%} CI, 0.69-0.74]) and propensity score analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75 [95{\%} CI, 0.72-0.77]). These differences were no longer statistically significant in the instrumental variable analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of a large national sample, inpatient rehabilitation in IRFs for patients with stroke was associated with substantially improved physical mobility and self-care function compared with rehabilitation in SNFs. This finding raises questions about the value of any policy that would reimburse IRFs or SNFs at the same standard rate for stroke.",
author = "Ickpyo Hong and Goodwin, {James S.} and Reistetter, {Timothy A.} and Kuo, {Yong Fang} and Trudy Mallinson and Amol Karmarkar and Lin, {Yu Li} and Ottenbacher, {Kenneth J.}",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.16646",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "e1916646",
journal = "JAMA network open",
issn = "2574-3805",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Functional Status Improvements Among Patients With Stroke Receiving Postacute Care in Inpatient Rehabilitation vs Skilled Nursing Facilities

AU - Hong, Ickpyo

AU - Goodwin, James S.

AU - Reistetter, Timothy A.

AU - Kuo, Yong Fang

AU - Mallinson, Trudy

AU - Karmarkar, Amol

AU - Lin, Yu Li

AU - Ottenbacher, Kenneth J.

PY - 2019/12/2

Y1 - 2019/12/2

N2 - Importance: Health care reform legislation and Medicare plans for unified payment for postacute care highlight the need for research examining service delivery and outcomes. Objective: To compare functional outcomes in patients with stroke after postacute care in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF) vs skilled nursing facilities (SNF). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients with stroke who were discharged from acute care hospitals to IRF or SNF from January 1, 2013, to November 30, 2014. Medicare claims were used to link to IRF and SNF assessments. Data analyses were conducted from January 17, 2017, through April 25, 2019. Exposures: Inpatient rehabilitation received in IRFs vs SNFs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in mobility and self-care measures during an IRF or SNF stay were compared using multivariate analyses, inverse probability weighting with propensity score, and instrumental variable analyses. Mortality between 30 and 365 days after discharge was included as a control outcome as an indicator for unmeasured confounders. Results: Among 99 185 patients who experienced a stroke between January 1, 2013, and November 30, 2014, 66 082 patients (66.6%) were admitted to IRFs and 33 103 patients (33.4%) were admitted to SNFs. A higher proportion of women were admitted to SNFs (21 466 [64.8%] women) than IRFs (36 462 [55.2%] women) (P < .001). Compared with patients admitted to IRFs, patients admitted to SNFs were older (mean [SD] age, 79.4 [7.6] years vs 83.3 [7.8] years; P < .001) and had longer hospital length of stay (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.0] days vs 5.9 [4.2] days; P < .001) than those admitted to IRFs. In unadjusted analyses, patients with stroke admitted to IRF compared with those admitted to SNF had higher mean scores for mobility on admission (44.2 [95% CI, 44.1-44.3] points vs 40.8 [95% CI, 40.7-40.9] points) and at discharge (55.8 [95% CI, 55.7-55.9] points vs 44.4 [95% CI, 44.3-44.5] points), and for self-care on admission (45.0 [95% CI, 44.9-45.1] points vs 41.8 [95% CI, 41.7-41.9] points) and at discharge (58.6 [95% CI, 58.5-58.7] points vs 45.1 [95% CI, 45.0-45.2] points). Additionally, patients in IRF compared with those in SNF had larger improvements for mobility score (11.6 [95% CI, 11.5-11.7] points vs 3.5 [95% CI, 3.4-3.6] points) and for self-care score (13.6 [95% CI, 13.5-13.7] points vs 3.2 [95% CI, 3.1-3.3] points). Multivariable, propensity score, and instrumental variable analyses showed a similar magnitude of better improvements in patients admitted to IRF vs those admitted to SNF. The differences between SNF and IRF in odds of 30- to 365-day mortality (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.46-0.49]) were reduced but not eliminated in multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.69-0.74]) and propensity score analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.72-0.77]). These differences were no longer statistically significant in the instrumental variable analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of a large national sample, inpatient rehabilitation in IRFs for patients with stroke was associated with substantially improved physical mobility and self-care function compared with rehabilitation in SNFs. This finding raises questions about the value of any policy that would reimburse IRFs or SNFs at the same standard rate for stroke.

AB - Importance: Health care reform legislation and Medicare plans for unified payment for postacute care highlight the need for research examining service delivery and outcomes. Objective: To compare functional outcomes in patients with stroke after postacute care in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF) vs skilled nursing facilities (SNF). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients with stroke who were discharged from acute care hospitals to IRF or SNF from January 1, 2013, to November 30, 2014. Medicare claims were used to link to IRF and SNF assessments. Data analyses were conducted from January 17, 2017, through April 25, 2019. Exposures: Inpatient rehabilitation received in IRFs vs SNFs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in mobility and self-care measures during an IRF or SNF stay were compared using multivariate analyses, inverse probability weighting with propensity score, and instrumental variable analyses. Mortality between 30 and 365 days after discharge was included as a control outcome as an indicator for unmeasured confounders. Results: Among 99 185 patients who experienced a stroke between January 1, 2013, and November 30, 2014, 66 082 patients (66.6%) were admitted to IRFs and 33 103 patients (33.4%) were admitted to SNFs. A higher proportion of women were admitted to SNFs (21 466 [64.8%] women) than IRFs (36 462 [55.2%] women) (P < .001). Compared with patients admitted to IRFs, patients admitted to SNFs were older (mean [SD] age, 79.4 [7.6] years vs 83.3 [7.8] years; P < .001) and had longer hospital length of stay (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.0] days vs 5.9 [4.2] days; P < .001) than those admitted to IRFs. In unadjusted analyses, patients with stroke admitted to IRF compared with those admitted to SNF had higher mean scores for mobility on admission (44.2 [95% CI, 44.1-44.3] points vs 40.8 [95% CI, 40.7-40.9] points) and at discharge (55.8 [95% CI, 55.7-55.9] points vs 44.4 [95% CI, 44.3-44.5] points), and for self-care on admission (45.0 [95% CI, 44.9-45.1] points vs 41.8 [95% CI, 41.7-41.9] points) and at discharge (58.6 [95% CI, 58.5-58.7] points vs 45.1 [95% CI, 45.0-45.2] points). Additionally, patients in IRF compared with those in SNF had larger improvements for mobility score (11.6 [95% CI, 11.5-11.7] points vs 3.5 [95% CI, 3.4-3.6] points) and for self-care score (13.6 [95% CI, 13.5-13.7] points vs 3.2 [95% CI, 3.1-3.3] points). Multivariable, propensity score, and instrumental variable analyses showed a similar magnitude of better improvements in patients admitted to IRF vs those admitted to SNF. The differences between SNF and IRF in odds of 30- to 365-day mortality (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.46-0.49]) were reduced but not eliminated in multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.69-0.74]) and propensity score analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.72-0.77]). These differences were no longer statistically significant in the instrumental variable analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of a large national sample, inpatient rehabilitation in IRFs for patients with stroke was associated with substantially improved physical mobility and self-care function compared with rehabilitation in SNFs. This finding raises questions about the value of any policy that would reimburse IRFs or SNFs at the same standard rate for stroke.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075979107&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85075979107&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.16646

DO - 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.16646

M3 - Article

C2 - 31800069

AN - SCOPUS:85075979107

VL - 2

SP - e1916646

JO - JAMA network open

JF - JAMA network open

SN - 2574-3805

IS - 12

ER -