Matthew Alcusky1, Christine M Ulbricht2, Kate L Lapane2. 1. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA. Electronic address: matthew.alcusky@umassmed.edu. 2. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To synthesize research comparing poststroke health outcomes between patients rehabilitated in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and those in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) as well as to evaluate relations between facility characteristics and outcomes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and CINAHL searches spanned January 1, 1998, to October 6, 2016, and encompassed MeSH and free-text keywords for stroke, IRF/SNF, and study outcomes. Searches were restricted to peer-reviewed research in humans published in English. STUDY SELECTION: Observational and experimental studies examining outcomes of adult patients with stroke rehabilitated in an IRF or SNF were eligible. Studies had to provide site of care comparisons and/or analyses incorporating facility-level characteristics and had to report ≥1 primary outcome (discharge setting, functional status, readmission, quality of life, all-cause mortality). Unpublished, single-center, descriptive, and non-US studies were excluded. Articles were reviewed by 1 author, and when uncertain, discussion with study coauthors achieved consensus. Fourteen titles (0.3%) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: The types of data, time period, size, design, and primary outcomes were extracted. We also extracted 2 secondary outcomes (length of IRF/SNF stay, cost) when reported by included studies. Effect measures, modeling approaches, methods for confounding adjustment, and potential confounders were extracted. Data were abstracted by 1 author, and the accuracy was verified by a second reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two studies evaluating community discharge, 1 study evaluating the predicted probability of readmission, and 3 studies evaluating all-cause mortality favored IRFs over SNFs. Functional status comparisons were inconsistent. No studies evaluated quality of life. Two studies confirmed increased costs in the IRF versus SNF setting. Although substantial facility variation was described, few studies characterized sources of variation. CONCLUSIONS: The few studies comparing poststroke outcomes indicated better outcomes (with higher costs) for patients in IRFs versus those in SNFs. Contemporary research on the role of the postacute care setting and its attributes in determining health outcomes should be prioritized to inform reimbursement system reform.
OBJECTIVES: To synthesize research comparing poststroke health outcomes between patients rehabilitated in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and those in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) as well as to evaluate relations between facility characteristics and outcomes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and CINAHL searches spanned January 1, 1998, to October 6, 2016, and encompassed MeSH and free-text keywords for stroke, IRF/SNF, and study outcomes. Searches were restricted to peer-reviewed research in humans published in English. STUDY SELECTION: Observational and experimental studies examining outcomes of adult patients with stroke rehabilitated in an IRF or SNF were eligible. Studies had to provide site of care comparisons and/or analyses incorporating facility-level characteristics and had to report ≥1 primary outcome (discharge setting, functional status, readmission, quality of life, all-cause mortality). Unpublished, single-center, descriptive, and non-US studies were excluded. Articles were reviewed by 1 author, and when uncertain, discussion with study coauthors achieved consensus. Fourteen titles (0.3%) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: The types of data, time period, size, design, and primary outcomes were extracted. We also extracted 2 secondary outcomes (length of IRF/SNF stay, cost) when reported by included studies. Effect measures, modeling approaches, methods for confounding adjustment, and potential confounders were extracted. Data were abstracted by 1 author, and the accuracy was verified by a second reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two studies evaluating community discharge, 1 study evaluating the predicted probability of readmission, and 3 studies evaluating all-cause mortality favored IRFs over SNFs. Functional status comparisons were inconsistent. No studies evaluated quality of life. Two studies confirmed increased costs in the IRF versus SNF setting. Although substantial facility variation was described, few studies characterized sources of variation. CONCLUSIONS: The few studies comparing poststroke outcomes indicated better outcomes (with higher costs) for patients in IRFs versus those in SNFs. Contemporary research on the role of the postacute care setting and its attributes in determining health outcomes should be prioritized to inform reimbursement system reform.
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: Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin; Anita Datar Garten; Susan Paddock; Debra Saliba; Mark Totten; José J Escarce Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.402
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: Walter P Wodchis; Gary F Teare; Gary Naglie; Susan E Bronskill; Sudeep S Gill; Michael P Hillmer; Geoff M Anderson; Paula A Rochon; Brant E Fries Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Deborah Dobrez; Allen W Heinemann; Anne Deutsch; Larry Manheim; Trudy Mallinson Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Monique R Pappadis; Shilpa Krishnan; Catherine C Hay; Beata Jones; Angelle M Sander; Susan C Weller; Timothy A Reistetter Journal: Aging Ment Health Date: 2018-10-27 Impact factor: 3.658
Authors: Emily Evans; Cicely Krebill; Roee Gutman; Linda Resnik; Mark R Zonfrillo; Stephanie N Lueckel; Wenhan Zhang; Raj G Kumar; Kristen Dams-O'Connor; Kali S Thomas Journal: PM R Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 2.218
Authors: Eric L Stulberg; Liming Dong; Alexander R Zheutlin; Sehee Kim; Edward S Claflin; Lesli E Skolarus; Lewis B Morgenstern; Lynda D Lisabeth Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Eric J Lenze; Emily Lenard; Marghuretta Bland; Peggy Barco; J Philip Miller; Michael Yingling; Catherine E Lang; Nancy Morrow-Howell; Carolyn M Baum; Ellen F Binder; Thomas L Rodebaugh Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-07-03
Authors: Baris Ercal; Thomas L Rodebaugh; Marghuretta D Bland; Peggy Barco; Emily Lenard; Catherine E Lang; J Philip Miller; Michael Yingling; Eric J Lenze Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 3.412