BACKGROUND: Postacute care rehabilitation is critically important to recover after trauma, but many patients do not have access. A better understanding of the drivers behind inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) use has the potential for major cost-savings as well as higher-quality and more equitable patient care. We sought to quantify the variation in hospital rates of trauma patient discharge to inpatient rehabilitation and understand which factors (patient vs. injury vs. hospital level) contribute the most. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 668,305 adult trauma patients admitted to 900 levels I to IV trauma centers between 2011 and 2015 using the National Trauma Data Bank. Participants were included if they met the following criteria: age >18 years, Injury Severity Score of ≥9, identifiable injury type, and who had one of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services preferred diagnoses for inpatient rehabilitation under the "60% rule." RESULTS: The overall risk- and reliability-adjusted hospital rates of discharge to IRF averaged 18.8% in the nonelderly adult cohort (18-64 years old) and 23.4% in the older adult cohort (65 years or older). Despite controlling for all patient-, injury-, and hospital-level factors, hospital discharge of patients to IRF varied substantially between hospital quintiles and ranged from 9% to 30% in the nonelderly adult cohort and from 7% to 46% in the older adult cohort. Proportions of total variance ranged from 2.4% (patient insurance) to 12.1% (injury-level factors) in the nonelderly adult cohort and from 0.3% (patient-level factors) to 26.0% (unmeasured hospital-level factors) in the older adult cohort. CONCLUSION: Among a cohort of injured patients with diagnoses that are associated with significant rehabilitation needs, the hospital at which a patient receives their care may drive a patient's likelihood of recovering at an IRF just as much, if not more, than their clinical attributes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care management, level IV.
BACKGROUND: Postacute care rehabilitation is critically important to recover after trauma, but many patients do not have access. A better understanding of the drivers behind inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) use has the potential for major cost-savings as well as higher-quality and more equitable patient care. We sought to quantify the variation in hospital rates of trauma patient discharge to inpatient rehabilitation and understand which factors (patient vs. injury vs. hospital level) contribute the most. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 668,305 adult trauma patients admitted to 900 levels I to IV trauma centers between 2011 and 2015 using the National Trauma Data Bank. Participants were included if they met the following criteria: age >18 years, Injury Severity Score of ≥9, identifiable injury type, and who had one of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services preferred diagnoses for inpatient rehabilitation under the "60% rule." RESULTS: The overall risk- and reliability-adjusted hospital rates of discharge to IRF averaged 18.8% in the nonelderly adult cohort (18-64 years old) and 23.4% in the older adult cohort (65 years or older). Despite controlling for all patient-, injury-, and hospital-level factors, hospital discharge of patients to IRF varied substantially between hospital quintiles and ranged from 9% to 30% in the nonelderly adult cohort and from 7% to 46% in the older adult cohort. Proportions of total variance ranged from 2.4% (patient insurance) to 12.1% (injury-level factors) in the nonelderly adult cohort and from 0.3% (patient-level factors) to 26.0% (unmeasured hospital-level factors) in the older adult cohort. CONCLUSION: Among a cohort of injured patients with diagnoses that are associated with significant rehabilitation needs, the hospital at which a patient receives their care may drive a patient's likelihood of recovering at an IRF just as much, if not more, than their clinical attributes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care management, level IV.
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: Shelby Chun Fat; Juan P Herrera-Escobar; Anupamaa J Seshadri; Syeda S Al Rafai; Zain G Hashmi; Elzerie de Jager; Constantine Velmahos; George Kasotakis; George Velmahos; Ali Salim; Adil H Haider; Deepika Nehra Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Cheryl K Zogg; John W Scott; David Metcalfe; Abbe R Gluck; Gregory D Curfman; Kimberly A Davis; Justin B Dimick; Adil H Haider Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Greg D Sacks; Elise H Lawson; Aaron J Dawes; Robert E Weiss; Marcia M Russell; Robert H Brook; David S Zingmond; Clifford Y Ko Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Zaid M Abdelsattar; Andrew A Gonzalez; Samantha Hendren; Scott E Regenbogen; Sandra L Wong Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Laure Wynants; Dirk Timmerman; Tom Bourne; Sabine Van Huffel; Ben Van Calster Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2013-10-23 Impact factor: 4.615