Accepted Manuscript Rehabilitation Outcomes among Burns Patients with a Second Admission to an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Margaret A. DiVita , PhD, MS Jacqueline M. Mix , MPH Richard Goldstein , PhD Paul Gerrard , MD Paulette Niewczyk , PhD, MPH Colleen M. Ryan , MD Karen Kowalske , MD Ross Zafonte , DO Jeffrey C. Schneider , MD PII:

S1934-1482(14)00241-X

DOI:

10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.05.010

Reference:

PMRJ 1258

To appear in:

PM&R

Received Date: 29 August 2013 Revised Date:

12 May 2014

Accepted Date: 16 May 2014

Please cite this article as: DiVita MA, Mix JM, Goldstein R, Gerrard P, Niewczyk P, Ryan CM, Kowalske K, Zafonte R, Schneider JC, Rehabilitation Outcomes among Burns Patients with a Second Admission to an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, PM&R (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.05.010. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Rehabilitation Outcomes among Burns Patients with a Second Admission to an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility

RI PT

Margaret A DiVita PhD, MS1,2, Jacqueline M Mix MPH1, Richard Goldstein PhD3, Paul Gerrard MD3, Paulette Niewczyk PhD, MPH1,4, Colleen M. Ryan MD5,6, Karen Kowalske MD7, Ross

1

SC

Zafonte DO3, Jeffrey C. Schneider MD3,6

Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation, Amherst, NY 2Health Department, State

M AN U

University of New York at Cortland, Cortland, NY 3Dept. of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston MA 4Daemen College, Health Care Studies Dept., Amherst NY 5Sumner Redstone Burn Center, Surgical Services Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 6Shriners

TE D

Hospitals for Children®-Boston, Boston, MA 7Department of Physical Medicine and

AC C

EP

Rehabilitation, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, TX

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Abstract

1

Background: Burn survivors tend to have complex medical issues requiring rehabilitation to

3

improve overall function and quality of life. A subset of burn patients treated in inpatient

4

rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) may require more than one rehabilitation stay for the same injury.

5

Objective: To compare the rehabilitation outcomes among burn patients admitted to an IRF who

6

were discharged to acute care and then readmitted to an IRF with burn patients admitted to an

7

IRF only one time.

8

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

9

Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

M AN U

SC

RI PT

2

Participants: Burn injury patients aged 18 years or above admitted to IRFs between 2002 and

11

2011.

12

Methods: We performed a secondary data analysis of data from Uniform Data System for

13

Medical Rehabilitation, a national data repository. Outcomes of the repeaters’ second stay (n =

14

188) were compared to the non-repeaters’ first and only stay (n = 6,855) utilizing linear

15

regression and logistic regression to determine whether repeater status was associated with

16

rehabilitation outcomes.

17

Main Outcome Measurements: Functional status (using the FIM® instrument) at admission,

18

discharge and change, length of stay, FIM® Efficiency (Total FIM® points gained per day) and

19

discharge disposition.

20

Results: Repeater status was inversely associated with discharge FIM® total (Coefficient = -

21

3.42, 95% CI -5.76, -1.07) and FIM® change (Coefficient = -4.05, 95% CI -6.34, -1.75) in linear

22

regression models. No other significant differences were found, and those differences in

23

discharge FIM® total and FIM® change were small.

AC C

EP

TE D

10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Conclusions: Differences found in rehabilitation outcomes between the repeater and non-repeater

25

groups were small and may not reflect clinically meaningful differences. Burn injury patients

26

who required a second IRF admission had similar rehabilitation outcomes as burn injury patients

27

who did not require a second IRF admission, emphasizing the value of inpatient rehabilitation for

28

burn injury IRF readmissions.

RI PT

24

29

SC

30 31

M AN U

32 33 34 35

TE D

36 37 38

41 42 43 44

AC C

40

EP

39

45 46

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

47

Introduction Due to recent advances in burn care, burn injury patients have improved survival

49

likelihoods.1-3 However, burn survivors generally have complex medical needs and may require

50

intensive rehabilitation to improve their quality of life by increasing their ability to perform basic

51

life activities. Inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) are one part of a multi-level post-acute

52

care continuum which provides intensive rehabilitation therapy services for patients who require

53

an extensive multidisciplinary team approach to rehabilitation therapy due to the complexity of

54

their nursing, medical management and rehabilitation needs. Patients admitted to an IRF are

55

required to participate in at least three hours of intensive therapy per day. The goal of is to return

56

patients to the community as a high-functioning individuals who require a minimum amount of

57

assistance from caregivers.

SC

M AN U

58

RI PT

48

IRFs often serve the needs of those with the most severe burns who have functional disabilities related to their injuries. Some burn injury patients may require more than one IRF

60

admission for the same acute injury, when subsequent visits to an acute care hospital are needed

61

between rehabilitation stays. Typically, readmissions back to an acute care venue after an IRF

62

admission are an unfavorable outcome and may be reflect unresolved medical problems from

63

acute care, poor transitions of care, or medically complex patients that were not ready to

64

participate in an intensive therapy program. In burn injury patients, it has been shown that

65

functional level at admission, age, and admission classification are significant predictors of acute

66

care transfer.4 Readmissions to acute care hospitals cost millions of Medicare dollars each year.5

67

There is a lack of knowledge concerning the trajectory of patients discharged to an acute

AC C

EP

TE D

59

68

care hospital from an IRF. Patients who are discharged from an IRF to an acute care facility may

69

subsequently be readmitted to an IRF for a second stay. Currently, empirical evidence does not

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

exist regarding the rehabilitation outcomes of patients that require a second IRF stay. The aim of

71

this study was to compare the characteristics and outcomes among burn injury patients that were

72

discharged to an acute care hospital during their IRF stay and then required an additional IRF

73

admission (2.7%), with burn patients that had only one IRF stay (97.3%). Our goal in this study

74

was to determine if patients that require an IRF readmission have different rehabilitation

75

outcomes than those who only require one IRF stay. This will assist in determining the

76

rehabilitation needs of burn injury patients that have more complex medical needs.

SC

RI PT

70

78

Methods

79

Data Source

80

M AN U

77

We completed a secondary data analysis with data from the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation (UDSMR) for burn injury patients discharged between 2002 and 2011.

82

UDSMR is the world’s largest non-governmental medical rehabilitation data repository. Over 800

83

IRFs provide data to UDSMR, which accounts for over 70% of all IRFs in the United States. All

84

IRFs are required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to complete the Inpatient

85

Rehabilitation Facility Patient Assessment Instrument (IRF-PAI) to receive payment under the

86

federal prospective payment system. The IRF-PAI collects demographic, social, medical, and

87

functional data. Functional data is measured by the FIM® instrument.

EP

AC C

88

TE D

81

The FIM® instrument is an 18-item functional assessment tool which was designed to

89

evaluate the extent of functional disability and to monitor rehabilitation outcomes. The tool

90

assesses both motor and cognitive domains and includes items such as eating, grooming, bathing,

91

upper body dressing, lower body dressing, toileting, bowel management, bladder management,

92

bed/chair/wheelchair transfer, bed transfer, tub/shower transfer, walk/wheelchair, stairs,

3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

comprehension, expression, social interaction, problem solving, and memory. Each item in the

94

FIM® assessment is rated on a 7-level scale, with 1 corresponding to total assistance and 7

95

corresponding to complete independence. The individual items are summed to create a

96

composite measure which is utilized to determine the burden of care that is required from a

97

caregiver to assist the patient once they return to the community. The FIM® instrument has been

98

utilized to study functional outcomes in various IRF populations including patients with stroke,

99

traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury and burn injuries, and has been shown to be a valid and reliable measure of functional status.6,7

101

Study Population

102

M AN U

100

SC

RI PT

93

Our study included adult patients with an age of 18 or greater with a primary diagnosis of burn injury. The identification of burn injury patients was done by impairment group code,

104

which is a code entered upon IRF admission indicating the primary reason for entering the

105

rehabilitation program. Burn injury impairment was an inclusion criterion for both initial and

106

repeat admission. Patients were excluded if they were discharged against medical advice (n= 40),

107

or came from a facility with a high frequency of zero onset day patients (n= 11). Onset to

108

rehabilitation is a variable collected by UDSMR which indicates the number of days from onset

109

of the injury to admission to an IRF. Admission to an IRF on onset day zero in the burn injury

110

population is clinically unexpected, as burn injuries typically require medical management in an

111

acute care setting prior to their transition to an IRF. It has been demonstrated in prior studies

112

utilizing this dataset that facilities with >5% of cases admitted on onset day zero have

113

characteristics that are not consistent with other facilities in the dataset.8,9 There were 2 facilities

114

in our dataset that demonstrated >5% of patients admitted on onset day zero, and cases from

115

these facilities were excluded from the analysis.

AC C

EP

TE D

103

4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

116

Patients who had more than one admission to any IRF but had the same date of burn injury were defined as repeater patients. In addition, the first visit for repeater patients ended in a

118

discharge to an acute care hospital. Date of birth and gender variables were also utilized to

119

confirm repeated admission to an IRF. The comparison population consists of “non-repeater”

120

patients with a single IRF admission.

RI PT

117

121

Outcome Variables

SC

122

Continuous rehabilitation outcome variables examined include admission FIM® total,

124

rehabilitation length of stay, discharge FIM® total, FIM® change, and FIM® efficiency. FIM®

125

change is defined as the difference in FIM® total rating from admission to discharge from the

126

IRF. FIM® efficiency is defined by the number of FIM® points gained per day and is

127

mathematically defined as the FIM® change divided by the length of stay (LOS) in the inpatient

128

rehabilitation facility. We also examined discharge disposition as an outcome variable, which

129

was categorized as community versus non-community settings.

TE D

M AN U

123

132

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics including means and standard deviations for continuous variables

AC C

131

EP

130

133

and counts and percentages for categorical variables were calculated for the total population

134

together, and separately for the repeater and non-repeater groups. Independent sample t-tests

135

were performed for normal continuous variables (age and admission FIM® total), Kruskal-Wallis

136

tests were performed for non-normal continuous variables (onset days and length of stay), and

137

chi-square tests were performed for categorical variables. In addition, a separate analysis as

138

completed comparing the characteristics of the repeaters’ first admission to their second 5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

admission; particularly we compared the admission FIM® average, the discharge FIM® average,

140

FIM® gain, the length of stay, and the percentage of cases by comorbidity tier. We utilized paired

141

sample t-tests when comparing continuous variables between the first and second admission

142

among repeaters and the McNemar test for the categorical variable of comorbidity tier. A p-value

143

of less than .05 was considered statistically significant.

RI PT

139

Multivariable backwards linear regression analyses were used to calculate coefficients

144

and 95% confidence intervals for repeater status for continuous rehabilitation outcome variables.

146

Multivariable backwards logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) 95%

147

confidence intervals for repeater status for discharge disposition. Covariates were kept in the

148

models if the associated p value was less than .20 since using a traditional threshold of p < .05

149

can lead to the exclusion of important variables.10 Covariates included age, gender, race, marital

150

status, employment status prior to injury (employed, not employed, retired), primary payer

151

(Medicare, Medicaid, worker’s compensation, commercial, other), pre-hospital living setting

152

(community, other), pre-hospital living situation (alone or with others), pre-rehabilitation setting

153

(acute care hospital, other), and admission comorbidity tier (Tier A-none, Tier B-major, Tier C-

154

medium, Tier D-minor). The standard errors for all models were adjusted for clustering at the

155

facility level. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 21 and STATA version 12.1.

156 157 158

Results

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

145

There were 7,094 adult patients from 2002 to 2011 with a primary diagnosis of burn

159

injury in the UDSMR® database. Of those subjects, 40 were discharged against medical advice,

160

and 11 were from zero onset facilities. Therefore, a total of 7,043 subjects meet inclusion

161

criteria. Among those patients, there were 188 who had more than one IRF stay for the same 6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

burns injury and were discharged to acute care after their first admission to the IRF (repeater

163

patients) and 6,855 patients who only had one IRF admission (non-repeater patients). Among the

164

repeater patients, 60% of the cases were readmitted to an IRF within one month (31 days) of

165

discharge from the first IRF admission (range 5-235 days). Demographic, medical and

166

rehabilitation characteristics of the study population are displayed in Table 1. The repeaters were

167

more functionally impaired at both admission and discharge of their first visit, compared to the

168

second visit; admission FIM® average 53.1 versus 65.0, and discharge FIM® average 68.2

169

versus 90.4, respectively. In addition, the first rehabilitation stay was shorter by an average of

170

over 8 days; rehabilitation length of stay average 13.4 versus 21.8. The repeaters were also more

171

likely to be in the most severe CMS comorbidity tier group (tier B) in their first visit when

172

compared to their second visit, 16% versus 10.1%, respectively. It is noted that part of the

173

inclusion criteria for repeaters was a discharge destination of acute care for their first visit,

174

explaining the large difference in discharged destination between the first and second visits. All

175

other differences between the first and second visit of the repeaters were negligible.

SC

M AN U

TE D

176

RI PT

162

There were significant differences in demographic and medical variables between repeaters and non-repeaters in onset days to rehabilitation, (87 days versus 32 days, p < .001),

178

employment status (30% retired versus 37% retired, p = .03), primary payer source (30%

179

Medicare versus 35% Medicare, p = .02), pre-hospital living situation (19% lived alone versus

180

28% lived alone, p = .01), and admission setting type (99% from acute care versus 77% from

181

acute care, p < .001). No other demographic or medical characteristics were significantly

182

different. All rehabilitation related characteristics were significantly different between repeaters

183

and non-repeaters except for FIM® change. Repeater patients had a significantly lower admission

184

FIM® total (65 versus 70, p < .001), a significantly lower discharge FIM® total (90 versus 96, p

Rehabilitation outcomes among burn injury patients with a second admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility.

Burn survivors tend to have complex medical issues requiring rehabilitation to improve overall function and quality of life. A subset of burn patients...
193KB Sizes 1 Downloads 3 Views