R L Kane1, Q Chen, L A Blewett, J Sangl. 1. Institute for Health Services Research, University of Minnesota, School of Public Health, Minneapolis 55455, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the differences in outcomes of Medicare patients discharged from hospital to two types of nursing homes, rehabilitative and regular, and to rehabilitative facilities. DESIGN: Criteria for distinguishing rehabilitative nursing homes (RNHs) from ordinary nursing homes (NH), based on staffing criteria, were developed by an expert panel and validated on a national sample of nursing homes. Those criteria that significantly discriminated the two types of NHs were then applied to a sample of nursing homes from a study of the outcomes of care for more than 2500 Medicare patients to classify the nursing homes in which patients were discharged. Actual discharge outcomes were compared with optimal outcomes based of predictive equations for different types of treatment (ordinary NH care, RNH care, and formal rehabilitative care). PARTICIPANTS: Medicare patients with strokes an hip fractures discharged from 52 hospitals in three cities. MEASUREMENTS: A disability scale that weights components of ADL measures was used as the primary outcome indicator. Nursing homes were classified as rehabilitative on the basis of the extent of staffing in rehabilitative areas. RESULTS: Patients discharged to various types of care varied on several parameters. After adjusting for these differences, stroke patients fared better when treated in rehabilitative facilities; there was no substantial benefit for RNH care over NH care. Healthier hip fracture patients who received RNH care fared better, but functional change for sicker hip fracture patients was not different among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that at least a preliminary distinction among NHs can be made on the basis of staffing patterns and that the benefits of the additional staffing may vary with the problem under consideration. More work is needed to establish just what sorts of patients are most likely to benefit from the higher level of NH care.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the differences in outcomes of Medicare patients discharged from hospital to two types of nursing homes, rehabilitative and regular, and to rehabilitative facilities. DESIGN: Criteria for distinguishing rehabilitative nursing homes (RNHs) from ordinary nursing homes (NH), based on staffing criteria, were developed by an expert panel and validated on a national sample of nursing homes. Those criteria that significantly discriminated the two types of NHs were then applied to a sample of nursing homes from a study of the outcomes of care for more than 2500 Medicare patients to classify the nursing homes in which patients were discharged. Actual discharge outcomes were compared with optimal outcomes based of predictive equations for different types of treatment (ordinary NH care, RNH care, and formal rehabilitative care). PARTICIPANTS: Medicare patients with strokes an hip fractures discharged from 52 hospitals in three cities. MEASUREMENTS: A disability scale that weights components of ADL measures was used as the primary outcome indicator. Nursing homes were classified as rehabilitative on the basis of the extent of staffing in rehabilitative areas. RESULTS:Patients discharged to various types of care varied on several parameters. After adjusting for these differences, strokepatients fared better when treated in rehabilitative facilities; there was no substantial benefit for RNH care over NH care. Healthier hip fracturepatients who received RNH care fared better, but functional change for sicker hip fracturepatients was not different among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that at least a preliminary distinction among NHs can be made on the basis of staffing patterns and that the benefits of the additional staffing may vary with the problem under consideration. More work is needed to establish just what sorts of patients are most likely to benefit from the higher level of NH care.
Authors: Kenneth S Boockvar; Ann Litke; Joan D Penrod; Ethan A Halm; R Sean Morrison; Stacey B Silberzweig; Jay Magaziner; Kenneth Koval; Albert L Siu Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Gary Naglie; Catherine Tansey; James L Kirkland; Darryl J Ogilvie-Harris; Allan S Detsky; Edward Etchells; George Tomlinson; Keith O'Rourke; Barry Goldlist Journal: CMAJ Date: 2002-07-09 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Tracy U Nguyen-Oghalai; Yong-fang Kuo; Dong D Zhang; James E Graham; James S Goodwin; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Leighton Chan; M Elizabeth Sandel; Alan M Jette; Jed Appelman; Diane E Brandt; Pengfei Cheng; Marian Teselle; Richard Delmonico; Joseph F Terdiman; Elizabeth K Rasch Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 3.966