OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of patient functional status to differentiate between community and institutional discharges after rehabilitation for stroke. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional design. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation facilities contributing to the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=157,066) receiving inpatient rehabilitation for stroke from 2006 and 2007. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Discharge FIM rating and discharge setting (community vs institutional). RESULTS: Approximately 71% of the sample was discharged to the community. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses revealed that FIM total performed as well as or better than FIM motor and FIM cognition subscales in differentiating discharge settings. Area under the curve for FIM total was .85, indicating very good ability to identify persons discharged to the community. A FIM total rating of 78 was identified as the optimal cut point for distinguishing between positive (community) and negative (institution) tests. This cut point yielded balanced sensitivity and specificity (both=.77). CONCLUSIONS: Discharge planning is complex, involving many factors. Identifying a functional threshold for classifying discharge settings can provide important information to assist in this process. Additional research is needed to determine if the risks and benefits of classification errors justify shifting the cut point to weight either sensitivity or specificity of FIM ratings. Copyright 2010 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of patient functional status to differentiate between community and institutional discharges after rehabilitation for stroke. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional design. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation facilities contributing to the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=157,066) receiving inpatient rehabilitation for stroke from 2006 and 2007. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Discharge FIM rating and discharge setting (community vs institutional). RESULTS: Approximately 71% of the sample was discharged to the community. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses revealed that FIM total performed as well as or better than FIM motor and FIM cognition subscales in differentiating discharge settings. Area under the curve for FIM total was .85, indicating very good ability to identify persons discharged to the community. A FIM total rating of 78 was identified as the optimal cut point for distinguishing between positive (community) and negative (institution) tests. This cut point yielded balanced sensitivity and specificity (both=.77). CONCLUSIONS: Discharge planning is complex, involving many factors. Identifying a functional threshold for classifying discharge settings can provide important information to assist in this process. Additional research is needed to determine if the risks and benefits of classification errors justify shifting the cut point to weight either sensitivity or specificity of FIM ratings. Copyright 2010 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Pam M Smith; Kenneth J Ottenbacher; Mecca Cranley; Sharon S Dittmar; Sandra B Illig; Carl V Granger Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Carl V Granger; Samuel J Markello; James E Graham; Anne Deutsch; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Wayne Rosamond; Katherine Flegal; Karen Furie; Alan Go; Kurt Greenlund; Nancy Haase; Susan M Hailpern; Michael Ho; Virginia Howard; Brett Kissela; Bret Kissela; Steven Kittner; Donald Lloyd-Jones; Mary McDermott; James Meigs; Claudia Moy; Graham Nichol; Christopher O'Donnell; Veronique Roger; Paul Sorlie; Julia Steinberger; Thomas Thom; Matt Wilson; Yuling Hong Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-12-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rebecca V Galloway; Amol M Karmarkar; James E Graham; Alai Tan; Mukaila Raji; Carl V Granger; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2015-12-04
Authors: Ching-Yi Wang; James E Graham; Amol M Karmarkar; Timothy A Reistetter; Elizabeth J Protas; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: PM R Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Kristen Dams-O'Connor; Jeffrey P Cuthbert; John Whyte; John D Corrigan; Mark Faul; Cynthia Harrison-Felix Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Timothy A Reistetter; Amol M Karmarkar; James E Graham; Karl Eschbach; Yong-Fang Kuo; Carl V Granger; Jean Freeman; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2013-08-03 Impact factor: 3.966