Timothy A Reistetter1, Yong-Fang Kuo2, Amol M Karmarkar3, Karl Eschbach4, Srinivas Teppala3, Jean L Freeman4, Kenneth J Ottenbacher3. 1. Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. Electronic address: tareiste@utmb.edu. 2. Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. 3. Division of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. 4. Internal Medicine-Division of Geriatrics, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine geographic and facility variation in cognitive and motor functional outcomes after postacute inpatient rehabilitation in patients with stroke. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort design using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) claims files. Records from 1209 rehabilitation facilities in 298 hospital referral regions (HRRs) were examined. Patient records were analyzed using linear mixed models. Multilevel models were used to calculate the variation in outcomes attributable to facilities and geographic regions. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation units and facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=145,460) with stroke discharged from inpatient rehabilitation from 2006 through 2009. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cognitive and motor functional status at discharge measured by items in the CMS Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility-Patient Assessment Instrument. RESULTS: Variation profiles indicated that 19.1% of rehabilitation facilities were significantly below the mean functional status rating (mean ± SD, 81.58±22.30), with 221 facilities (18.3%) above the mean. Total discharge functional status ratings varied by 3.57 points across regions. Across facilities, functional status values varied by 29.2 points, with a 9.1-point difference between the top and bottom deciles. Variation in discharge motor function attributable to HRR was reduced by 82% after controlling for cluster effects at the facility level. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that variation in motor and cognitive function at discharge after postacute rehabilitation in patients with stroke is accounted for more by facility than geographic location.
OBJECTIVE: To examine geographic and facility variation in cognitive and motor functional outcomes after postacute inpatient rehabilitation in patients with stroke. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort design using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) claims files. Records from 1209 rehabilitation facilities in 298 hospital referral regions (HRRs) were examined. Patient records were analyzed using linear mixed models. Multilevel models were used to calculate the variation in outcomes attributable to facilities and geographic regions. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation units and facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=145,460) with stroke discharged from inpatient rehabilitation from 2006 through 2009. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cognitive and motor functional status at discharge measured by items in the CMS Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility-Patient Assessment Instrument. RESULTS: Variation profiles indicated that 19.1% of rehabilitation facilities were significantly below the mean functional status rating (mean ± SD, 81.58±22.30), with 221 facilities (18.3%) above the mean. Total discharge functional status ratings varied by 3.57 points across regions. Across facilities, functional status values varied by 29.2 points, with a 9.1-point difference between the top and bottom deciles. Variation in discharge motor function attributable to HRR was reduced by 82% after controlling for cluster effects at the facility level. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that variation in motor and cognitive function at discharge after postacute rehabilitation in patients with stroke is accounted for more by facility than geographic location.
Authors: Anne Deutsch; Carl V Granger; Allen W Heinemann; Roger C Fiedler; Gerben DeJong; Robert L Kane; Kenneth J Ottenbacher; John P Naughton; Maurizio Trevisan Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-04-20 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; Thérèse A Stukel; Daniel J Gottlieb; F L Lucas; Etoile L Pinder Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-02-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Dale C Strasser; Judith A Falconer; Jeph S Herrin; Susan E Bowen; Alan B Stevens; Jay Uomoto Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2005-03 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: Margaret G Stineman; Pui L Kwong; Barbara E Bates; Jibby E Kurichi; Diane Cowper Ripley; Dawei Xie Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Michael P Cary; Janet Prvu Bettger; Jessica M Jarvis; Kenneth J Ottenbacher; James E Graham Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Kirk Roberts; Mary Regina Boland; Lisiane Pruinelli; Jina Dcruz; Andrew Berry; Mattias Georgsson; Rebecca Hazen; Raymond F Sarmiento; Uba Backonja; Kun-Hsing Yu; Yun Jiang; Patricia Flatley Brennan Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Ickpyo Hong; Amol Karmarkar; Winston Chan; Yong-Fang Kuo; Trudy Mallinson; Kenneth J Ottenbacher; James S Goodwin; Clark R Andersen; Timothy A Reistetter Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Timothy A Reistetter; Karl Eschbach; John Prochaska; Daniel C Jupiter; Ickpyo Hong; Allen M Haas; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 2.159