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

Functional Recovery Rate: A Feasible Method for Evaluating and Comparing Rehabilitation Outcomes Between Skilled Nursing Facilities

OBJECTIVES

The recovery of patients' physical function and the rate at which this occurs are important parameters for evaluating value in post-acute care (PAC). However, no metrics are presently used to compare skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) based on the functional recovery rates (FRRs) for patients in their care. The objectives of this study were to examine whether the average FRR differed significantly among SNFs and to compare the FRR to other measures currently used to assess care quality in SNFs.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

3913 patients discharged from hospitals in one health system to one of 10 partner SNFs between January 2017 and September 2019.

METHODS

The FRR-the difference in Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care 6-Clicks basic mobility score from SNF admission to discharge relative to the SNF length of stay (in days)-was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included metrics from the SNF Quality Reporting Program (functional recovery alone, discharge to the community, and 30-day hospital readmission). Differences in patients' outcomes between SNFs were tested using multiple regression in order to adjust for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Across the 10 SNFs, the highest adjusted mean FRR was 0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55, 0.90] and the lowest was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.46) points per day. Two SNFs had an adjusted mean FRR statistically higher, and 2 had an FRR statistically lower, than the sample mean (0.50, 95% CI: 0.48-0.52). SNF rankings varied by metric.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Individual SNFs vary in their mean FRR for patients making it a potentially useful measure of value for comparing SNFs. Standardized measurement and reporting of FRR could be beneficial to patients and their families as they consider specific SNFs for necessary post-acute rehabilitation and to hospital systems seeking to identify high-value PAC providers with whom to partner in collaborative care models.

Characteristics of Acute Stroke Patients Readmitted to Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities: A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Reducing acute care readmissions from inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) is a healthcare reform goal. Stroke patients have higher acute readmission rates and persistent impairments, warranting second IRF hospitalization consideration.

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based information to justify IRF readmission for patients with post-stroke impairments.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Variables that increase the likelihood of a second IRF hospitalization.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Seven-center rehabilitation network.

PARTICIPANTS

Stroke patients, readmitted to acute care, who returned or did not return to an in-network IRF between 1 October 2014-31 December 2017(n = 380).

INTERVENTIONS

Univariable analyses (Returned/Did Not Return to IRF) described demographics, stroke type and risk factors. Between group differences in readmission causes, motor impairments and functional independence measure (FIM) scores were examined. Return to IRF logistic regression model included variables with P < .1. Odds ratio and 95% CI were calculated; Relative risk was calculated for categorical variables. P < .05 equaled statistical significance.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-two stroke patients returned to IRF, 188 did not. Returned to IRF patients were younger (60.6 vs. 66 years; P < .001), sustained hemorrhagic strokes (22.4 vs. 14.2%; P = .01), had lower cardiac disease prevalence (41.7 vs. 55.3%; P = .008) or non-Medicare insurance (59.9 vs. 39.4%; P < .001). Did Not Return to IRF patients had higher admission and discharge motor and total FIM scores. Per point decrease in discharge FIM, second IRF hospitalization odds increased 4% (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.07; P = .02). Hemorrhagic stroke patients had 33% increased odds or a 15% higher relative risk of second IRF hospitalization than patients with ischemic stroke [OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.21-1.47; RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.1-1.2; P < .001]. Non-Medicare insurance was associated with 39% increased odds or a 20% higher relative risk of second IRF hospitalization than Medicare [OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.01-1.92; RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.006-1.404; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Hemorrhagic stroke, non-Medicare insurance or lower discharge FIM score during the first IRF hospitalization predict a second IRF stay. Further work is needed to establish the validity of within IRF stay readmission measures.

Are Stroke Survivors Discharged to the Recommended Postacute Setting?

OBJECTIVE

To examine the processes and barriers involved in providing postdischarge stroke care.

DESIGN

Prospective study of discharge planners' (DP) and physical therapists' (PT) interpretation of factors contributing to patients' discharge destination.

SETTING

Twenty-three hospitals in the northeastern United States.

PARTICIPANTS

After exclusions, data on patients (N=427) hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of stroke between May 2015 and November 2016 were examined. Of the patients, 45% were women, and the median age was 71 years. DPs and PTs caring for these patients were queried regarding the selection of discharge destination.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparison of actual discharge destination for stroke patients with the destinations recommended by their DPs and PTs.

RESULTS

In total, 184 patients (43.1%) were discharged home, 146 (34.2%) to an inpatient rehabilitation facility, 94 (22.0%) to a skilled nursing facility, and 3 (0.7%) to a long-term acute care hospital. DPs and PTs agreed on the recommended discharge destination in 355 (83.1%) cases. The actual discharge destination matched the DP and PT recommended discharge destination in 92.5% of these cases. In 23 cases (6.5%), the patient was discharged to a less intensive setting than recommended by both respondents. In 4 cases (1.1%), the patient was discharged to a more intensive level of care. In 2 cases (0.6%), the patient was discharged to a long-term acute care hospital rather than an inpatient rehabilitation facility as recommended. Patient or family preference was cited by at least 1 respondent for the discrepancy in discharge destination for 13 patients (3.1%); insurance barriers were cited for 9 patients (2.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most stroke survivors in the northeast United States are discharged to the recommended postacute care destination based on the consensus of DP and PT opinions. Further research is needed to guide postacute care service selection.