Leda F Espinoza1, Laura C Simko1, Richard Goldstein1, Kara A McMullen2, Chloe Slocum1, Julie K Silver3, David N Herndon4, Oscar E Suman4, Walter J Meyer4, Nicole S Gibran5, Karen Kowalske6, Ross Zafonte1, Colleen M Ryan7, Jeffrey C Schneider8. 1. Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 3. Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. University of Texas Medical Branch, Shriners Hospitals for Children-Galveston, Galveston, Texas. 5. Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 6. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 7. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Shriners Hospitals for Children-Boston, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: jcschneider@partners.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in long-term employment outcomes in the postacute care setting. DESIGN: Retrospective review of the prospectively collected Burn Model System National Database. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 695 adult survivors of burn injury enrolled between May 1994 and June 2016 who required postacute care at a Burn Model System center following acute care discharge were included. Participants were divided into 2 groups based on acute care discharge disposition. Those who received postacute care at an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) following acute care were included in the IRF group (N=447), and those who were treated at a skilled nursing facility, long-term care hospital, or other extended-care facility following acute care were included in the Other Rehab group (N=248). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Employment status at 12 months postinjury. Propensity score matching and logistic regression were utilized to determine the effect of postacute care setting on employment status. RESULTS: Individuals in the IRF group had larger burns and were more likely to have an inhalation injury and to undergo amputation. At 12 months postinjury, the IRF group had over 9 times increased odds of being employed compared to the Other Rehab group, using propensity score matching (P=.046). CONCLUSIONS: While admitting patients with more severe injuries, IRFs provided a long-term benefit for survivors of burn injury in terms of regaining employment. Given the current lack of evidence-based guidelines on postacute care decisions, the results of this study shed light on the potential benefits of the intensive services provided at IRFs in this population.
OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in long-term employment outcomes in the postacute care setting. DESIGN: Retrospective review of the prospectively collected Burn Model System National Database. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 695 adult survivors of burn injury enrolled between May 1994 and June 2016 who required postacute care at a Burn Model System center following acute care discharge were included. Participants were divided into 2 groups based on acute care discharge disposition. Those who received postacute care at an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) following acute care were included in the IRF group (N=447), and those who were treated at a skilled nursing facility, long-term care hospital, or other extended-care facility following acute care were included in the Other Rehab group (N=248). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Employment status at 12 months postinjury. Propensity score matching and logistic regression were utilized to determine the effect of postacute care setting on employment status. RESULTS: Individuals in the IRF group had larger burns and were more likely to have an inhalation injury and to undergo amputation. At 12 months postinjury, the IRF group had over 9 times increased odds of being employed compared to the Other Rehab group, using propensity score matching (P=.046). CONCLUSIONS: While admitting patients with more severe injuries, IRFs provided a long-term benefit for survivors of burn injury in terms of regaining employment. Given the current lack of evidence-based guidelines on postacute care decisions, the results of this study shed light on the potential benefits of the intensive services provided at IRFs in this population.
Authors: Tina L Palmieri; Fred Molitor; Grace Chan; Elizabeth Phelan; Brian J Shier; Soman Sen; David G Greenhalgh Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2012 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Deepika Nehra; Zeynep A Nixon; Claudia Lengenfelder; Eileen M Bulger; Joseph Cuschieri; Ronald V Maier; Saman Arbabi Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Peter C Esselman; Shelley Wiechman Askay; Gretchen J Carrougher; Dennis C Lezotte; Radha K Holavanahalli; Gina Magyar-Russell; James A Fauerbach; Loren H Engrav Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Clifford C Sheckter; Sabina Brych; Gretchen J Carrougher; Steven E Wolf; Jeffrey C Schneider; Nicole Gibran; Barclay T Stewart Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 1.819
Authors: Tam N Pham; Richard Goldstein; Gretchen J Carrougher; Nicole S Gibran; Jeremy Goverman; Peter C Esselman; Lewis E Kazis; Colleen M Ryan; Jeffrey C Schneider Journal: Burns Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 2.609