Forecasting the Economic Burden of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in the United States Through 2050: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying the economic burden of cardiovascular disease and stroke over the coming decades may inform policy, health system, and community-level interventions for prevention and treatment. METHODS: We used nationally representative health, economic, and demographic data to project health care costs attributable to key cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia) and conditions (coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation) through 2050. The human capital approach was used to estimate productivity losses from morbidity and premature mortality due to cardiovascular conditions. RESULTS: One in 3 US adults received care for a cardiovascular risk factor or condition in 2020. Annual inflation-adjusted (2022 US dollars) health care costs of cardiovascular risk factors are projected to triple between 2020 and 2050, from $400 billion to $1344 billion. For cardiovascular conditions, annual health care costs are projected to almost quadruple, from $393 billion to $1490 billion, and productivity losses are projected to increase by 54%, from $234 billion to $361 billion. Stroke is projected to account for the largest absolute increase in costs. Large relative increases among the Asian American population (497%) and Hispanic American population (489%) reflect the projected increases in the size of these populations. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of cardiovascular risk factors and overt cardiovascular disease in the United States is projected to increase substantially in the coming decades. Development and deployment of cost-effective programs and policies to promote cardiovascular health are urgently needed to rein in costs and to equitably enhance population health.

Trends in the Characteristics and Outcomes of Older Medicare Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury Treated in Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities: 2013 to 2018.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of older (65+) Medicare beneficiaries with traumatic brain injury (TBI) treated in inpatient rehabilitation facilities between 2013 and 2018. DESIGN: Descriptive study using IRF Patient Assessment Instrument (IRF-PAI) data reporting trends of the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and outcomes of inpatient rehabilitation facilities Medicare patients with TBI. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation facilities in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 99,804 older Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage patients with TBI (N=99,804). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Length of stay, self-care, and mobility functional outcomes, discharge destination. RESULTS: The number of older Medicare beneficiaries with TBI treated in inpatient rehabilitation facilities increased from 14,657 in 2013 to 18,791 in 2018, an increase of 28.2%. In addition to this overall increase in patients, we also found the percentage of men increased slightly (52.9% to 54.8%), there was a higher percentage of patients with tier 3 comorbidities, there was a decrease in the variability of length of stay, there was slightly more self-care and mobility improvement and a slightly higher percentage of patients discharged to the community (67.8% in 2013 and 71.6% in 2018). Newer standardized data showed that prior to the injury, more than one-third used a walker and more than three-quarters had a history of recent falls. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2013 and 2018, the number of Medicare beneficiaries with TBI treated in IRFs increased by approximately 28%. The characteristics of IRF older patients with TBI changed between 2013 and 2018 toward a slightly higher proportion of men, more comorbidities, and a higher percentage being discharged home after inpatient rehabilitation.

Near real-time patient experience feedback with data relay to providers: a systematic review of its effectiveness.

Near Real-Time Feedback (NRTF) on the patient's experience with care, coupled with data relay to providers, can inform quality-of-care improvements, including at the point of care. The objective is to systematically review contemporary literature on the impact of the use of NRTF and data relay to providers on standardized patient experience measures. Six scientific databases and five specialty journals were searched supplemented by snowballing search strategies, according to the registered study protocol. Eligibility included studies in English (2015-2023) assessing the impact of NRTF and data relay on standardized patient-reported experience measures as a primary outcome. Eligibility and quality appraisals were performed by two independent reviewers. An expert former patient (Patient and Family Advisory Council and communication sciences background) helped interpret the results. Eight papers met review eligibility criteria, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-randomized study. Three of these studies involved in-person NRTF prior to data relay (patient-level data for immediate corrective action or aggregated and peer-compared) and led to significantly better results in all or some of the experience measures. In turn, a kiosk-based NRTF achieved no better experience results. The remaining studies were pre-post designs with mixed or neutral results and greater risks of bias. In-person NRTF on the patient experience followed by rapid data relay to their providers, either patient-level or provider-level as peer-compared, can improve the patient experience of care. Reviewed kiosk-based or self-reported approaches combined with data relay were not effective. Further research should determine which approach (e.g. who conducts the in-person NRTF) will provide better, more efficient improvements and under which circumstances.

Cross-setting Comparison of Risk Factors for Pressure Injuries Acquired in Post-Acute Care.

GENERAL PURPOSE: To provide information on the association between risk factors and the development of new or worsened stage 2 to 4 pressure injuries (PIs) in patients in long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant will:1. Compare the unadjusted PI incidence in SNF, IRF, and LTCH populations.2. Explain the extent to which the clinical risk factors of functional limitation (bed mobility), bowel incontinence, diabetes/peripheral vascular disease/peripheral arterial disease, and low body mass index are associated with new or worsened stage 2 to 4 PIs across the SNF, IRF, and LTCH populations.3. Compare the incidence of new or worsened stage 2 to 4 PI development in SNF, IRF, and LTCH populations associated with high body mass index, urinary incontinence, dual urinary and bowel incontinence, and advanced age.

To compare the incidence of new or worsened pressure injuries (PIs) and associated risk factors for their development in inpatient post-acute care settings: long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). The authors investigated Medicare Part A SNF resident stays and LTCH patient stays that ended between October 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016 and IRF patient stays that ended between October 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. They calculated the incidence of new or worsened PIs using the specifications of the National Quality Forum-endorsed PI quality measure #0678: Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers that are New or Worsened . The incidences of new or worsened stages 2 through 4 PIs varied across settings: 1.23% in SNFs, 1.56% in IRFs, and 3.07% in LTCHs. Seven risk factors were positively and consistently associated with new or worsened PIs across settings: limited bed mobility, bowel incontinence, low body mass index, diabetes/peripheral vascular disease/peripheral arterial disease, advanced age, urinary incontinence, and dual urinary and bowel incontinence. These findings provide empirical support for the alignment of risk factors for the PI quality measures across post-acute care settings.

Why and How to Demonstrate the Value of Rehabilitation Services.

The health care delivery landscape in the United States is changing as payment models consider both costs and health outcomes, which are key components of value in health care. Without evidence about the effectiveness and costs of rehabilitation interventions, it is difficult to judge the value of rehabilitation interventions. Understanding the short- and long-term costs associated with implementing a rehabilitation intervention and the intervention's cost-effectiveness compared with other alternatives is critical to supporting decision-making by policymakers, health care administrators, and other decision makers. This article describes the policy context for considering the costs and outcomes of postacute care and rehabilitation interventions, introduces methods for assessing the value of rehabilitation interventions, and summarizes the challenges and opportunities associated with applying value measurement to rehabilitation services. Assessing the value of rehabilitation interventions is critical as we continue to identify, implement, and sustain evidence-based interventions that promote the health and function of people with disabilities.

Change in Mobility Quality Measure for Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities: Exclusion Criteria and the Risk Adjustment Model.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the exclusion criteria and updated risk adjustment model developed for the Change in Mobility quality measure in the inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) quality reporting program. Facility-level quality measures focused on patient outcomes usually require risk adjustment to account for varied admission characteristics of patients across facilities. DESIGN: This cohort study analyzed admission demographic and clinical factors associated with mobility change scores using the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Patient Assessment Instrument (IRF-PAI) data for Medicare patients discharged from IRFs in calendar year 2017. SETTING: A total of 1129 IRFs in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 493,209 (N=493, 209) Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage IRF patient stays discharged in calendar year 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mobility change scores using admission and discharge standardized assessment data from the IRF-PAI. RESULTS: Approximately 53% of patients in the study were female, 67% were aged 65-84 years, and nearly 80% were White. In the final risk adjustment model, 105 covariates were included, explaining 20% of variance in mobility change scores. Key risk adjusters included IRF primary diagnosis group, prior indoor ambulation functioning, age older than 90 years, and 14 of the comorbidities. The model showed good calibration across the range of deciles of predicted IRF mobility change scores; the ratio of the average expected to observed change scores ranged from 0.93-1.03, with all but 1 within ±0.03. CONCLUSIONS: The updated risk adjustment model uses IRF patients' demographic and clinical characteristics to predict their mobility change scores. The exclusion criteria and resulting risk model are used to calculate the risk adjusted Change in Mobility quality measure scores, enabling comparisons of Change in Mobility scores across IRFs.

Change in Self-Care Quality Measure for Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities: Exclusion Criteria and Risk-Adjustment Model.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the exclusion criteria and risk-adjustment model developed for the quality measure Change in Self-Care. The exclusion criteria and risk adjustment model are used to calculate Change in Self-Care scores, allowing scores to be compared across inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). DESIGN: This national cohort study examined admission demographic and clinical factors associated with IRF patients' self-care change scores using standardized self-care data for Medicare patients discharged in calendar year 2017. SETTING: A total of 1129 IRFs in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 493,209 (N=493,209) Medicare Fee-for-Service and Medicare Advantage IRF patient stays INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-care change scores using admission and discharge standardized assessment data elements from the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility-Patient Assessment Instrument. RESULTS: Approximately 53% of patients were female, and 67% were between 65 and 84 years old. The final risk-adjustment model contained 93 clinically relevant risk adjusters and explained 23.1% of variance in self-care change scores. Risk adjusters that had the greatest effect on change scores and included IRF primary diagnosis group (ie, binary risk adjusters representing 13 diagnoses), prior self-care functioning, and age older than 90 years. When split by deciles of expected scores, the ratio of the average expected and observed change scores was within 2% of 1.0 across 8 groups and within 8% at the extremes, showing good predictive accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The risk adjustment model quantifies the relationship between IRF patients' demographic and clinical characteristics and their self-care score changes. The exclusion criteria and model are used to risk-adjust the IRF Change in Self-Care quality measure.

Rehabilitation Length of Stay, Body Mass Index, and Functional Improvement Among Adults With Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the modifying effect of body mass index (BMI) on the association between rehabilitation length of stay (LOS), severity of injury, and motor FIM (mFIM) improvement in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Seventeen SCI Model Systems (SCIMS) centers in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3413 patients (N=3413) who had a TSCI were admitted to an SCIMS between October 2011 and August 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The mFIM (12 items) improvement by discharge. Four rehabilitation LOS groups split by quartiles were created for each neurologic severity of injury group (C1-C4 level with American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale [AIS] ABC, C5-C8 AIS ABC, T1-S3 AIS ABC, AIS DE). The interrelationship among rehabilitation LOS, BMI, and mFIM improvement were examined using multivariate linear regressions. A stratified analysis was performed to examine the association between rehabilitation LOS and mFIM improvement by BMI status (underweight or normal weight, overweight, obesity) and neurologic groups. RESULTS: A total of 1099 (32.2%) and 821 (24.1%) patients were overweight and had obesity, respectively. Patients with obesity had less improvement in mFIM than those who were underweight or normal weight (unit of mFIM improvement, -3.71). After stratifying by BMI status, among patients with obesity, those with the longest rehabilitation LOS showed greater improvement in mFIM than those in the shortest LOS (unit of mFIM improvement=4.78). CONCLUSIONS: Longer inpatient rehabilitation LOS may benefit patients with TSCI by increasing mFIM improvement by discharge. Obesity is negatively associated with mFIM improvement.

Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Patients' Functional Abilities and Validity Testing of the Standardized Self-Care and Mobility Data Elements.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the abilities of Medicare patients in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) at admission and discharge using the standardized self-care and mobility data elements and examine the validity of the data elements. These data are used in the Center for Medicare & Medicaid's IRF payment and quality reporting programs. DESIGN: Descriptive study reporting IRF patients' self-care and mobility scores. We also examined content validity and the associations between admission scores and length of stay (LOS), discharge scores and discharge destination, and change scores and the number of comorbidities. SETTING: Patients discharged from 1129 IRFs in 2017. PARTICIPANTS: IRF Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage patient stays (N = 493,209). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Self-care and mobility item scores, IRF LOS, discharge destination, and categories of the number of comorbidities. RESULTS: For each self-care and mobility activity, patients in IRFs overall made substantial improvements in function between admission and discharge. For example, the percentage of patients independent with eating and toilet transfers increased from 29.04% to 66.68% and 0.80% to 39.87%, respectively, between admission and discharge. Activities represented in the standardized data elements are included in other functional assessment instruments addressing content validity. Analyses showed a monotonic relationship between admission scores and LOS and between discharge scores and discharge to community percentages with only a few exceptions. Self-care and mobility scale change scores decreased as the number of comorbidities increased across categories. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in IRFs overall show functional improvement across each of the activities as defined by the standardized self-care and mobility data elements. The results showing the associations between patient functioning and 3 metrics (LOS, discharge to community rates, and number of comorbidities) support the validity of the data elements measuring functional abilities in the IRF Medicare population.

Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Change in Self-Care and Change in Mobility Quality Measures: Development and Reliability and Validity Testing.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development, implementation and reliability and validity testing of the inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) Change in Self-Care and Change in Mobility quality measures. DESIGN: We describe the activities involved in developing and implementing the 2 facility-level quality measures, including public comment opportunities. We examined facility-level reliability using split-half testing and Pearson product-moment correlations, Spearman rank correlations, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,1). We examined validity by comparing facility-level quality measure scores and facility disease-specific certification status. SETTING: All 1117 IRFs in the United States with at least 20 Medicare stays that ended in 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Facility-level quality measure scores (N=1117) were derived from data from 427,517 (self-care) and 427,956 (mobility) Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage IRF patient stays in 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Facility-level Change in Self-Care and Change in Mobility quality measure scores and facility Disease-Specific Certification for Stroke Rehabilitation from The Joint Commission were used in validity analysis. RESULTS: The split-half quality measure scores showed strong, positive correlations for the facility-level self-care (Pearson=0.903, Spearman=0.884, ICC=0.903, P<.0001) and mobility (Pearson=0.903, Spearman=0.884, ICC= 0.903, P<.0001) quality measure scores, providing evidence of reliability. ICCs remained strong when stratifying by provider volume. IRFs with stroke certification had slightly higher mean and median quality measure scores than IRFs without certification, and IRFs with the higher quality measure scores tended to have a higher percentage of certified IRFs. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses support the reliability and validity of the Change in Self-Care and Change in Mobility quality measure scores in IRFs.

A Postacute Care Function Process Quality Measure for the Collection of Standardized Self-Care and Mobility Data: Development, Implementation, and Quality Measure Scores.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of and quality measure scores for the cross-setting postacute care function process quality measure that requires the collection of standardized self-care and mobility data at admission and discharge and at least 1 function goal. DESIGN: Description of the development and implementation of the quality measure and the associated standardized self-care and mobility data elements. Descriptive analyses of quality measure scores for the first calendar year using data from the Minimum Data Set, the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Patient Assessment Instrument, the Long-Term Care Hospitals (LTCH) Continuity Assessment Record and Evaluation Data Set, and Outcome and Assessment Information Set. SETTING: 15,127 skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), 1129 inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), 414 LTCHs, and 10,352 home health agencies (HHAs) in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: In total there were 9,216,943 stays/quality episodes (N = 9,216,943), including 2,084,774 SNF Medicare fee-for-service patient stays, 493,209 IRF Medicare patient stays, 161,714 patient stays, and 6,477,246 Medicare and Medicaid quality episodes. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores for the cross-setting postacute care function process quality measure. RESULTS: The mean process quality measure scores for SNFs, IRFs, LTCHs, and HHAs were 95.5%, 99.7%, 99.1%, and 95.8, respectively. The 10th percentile scores for SNFs, IRFs, LTCHs, and HHAs were 88.5%, 99.3%, 98.4%, and 89.4, respectively, indicating that at least 90% of postacute care providers submitted the standardized data for a large proportion of their patients. Mean quality measure scores did not vary by provider characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Most SNFs, IRFs, LTCHs, and HHAs submitted the self-care and mobility data, resulting in high quality measure scores during the first year of implementation. The availability of the standardized self-care and mobility data across postacute care settings offers the opportunity to compare the characteristics and functional outcomes of patients treated in postacute care.

Rehabilitation length of stay and functional improvement among patients with traumatic spinal cord injury.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Investigate the association between rehabilitation length of stay (LOS) and motor FIM® (mFIM) between rehabilitation admission and discharge among patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING: Seventeen SCI Model Systems (SCIMS) centers in the United States. METHODS: A total of 3386 patients with traumatic SCI enrolled in the SCIMS Database from 2011 to 2018. The main outcome measure was the mean change in mFIM (12 items) between rehabilitation admission and discharge by twelve neurological categories (C1-C4 American Spinal Injury Association impairment scale (AIS) A-B, AIS C, AIS D, and C5-C8 AIS A-B, AIS C, AIS D, and T1-T10 AIS A-B, AIS C, AIS D, and T11-S3 AIS A-B, C, D). Linear regression models were applied to estimate changes across rehabilitation LOS groups (shortest LOS, quarter2, quarter3, and longest LOS) after adjusting for covariables for each neurological category. RESULTS: The mean age of study patients was 44.5 years. Patients were predominantly men (78.5%), non-Hispanic white (64.8%), and had private insurance (57.1%). The median LOS was 42 days across the entire sample. Longer LOS was associated with a higher mFIM score compared to the shortest LOS among patients with C1-C4 AIS D; C5-C8 AIS D; T1-T10 AIS A-B; and T11-S3 AIS A-B, C, and D after adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics. CONCLUSION: Among patients with C1-C4 AIS D; C5-C8 AIS D; T1-T10 AIS A-B; and T11-S3 AIS A-B, C, and D injuries, those with longer rehabilitation stays tended to have more motor function improvement.

Clinical Performance Measures for Stroke Rehabilitation: Performance Measures From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.

The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association released the adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery guidelines in 2016. A working group of stroke rehabilitation experts reviewed these guidelines and identified a subset of recommendations that were deemed suitable for creating performance measures. These 13 performance measures are reported here and contain inclusion and exclusion criteria to allow calculation of rates of compliance in a variety of settings ranging from acute hospital care to postacute care and care in the home and outpatient setting.

Identifying Instruments to Assess Care Quality for Individuals With Custom Ankle Foot Orthoses: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted 2 complementary scoping reviews to identify instruments that assess the experience and outcomes of custom ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) care in individuals with neurologic and traumatic conditions and to determine to what extent they might be psychometrically sound for AFO users. A stakeholder advisory committee considered to what extent the identified and psychometrically sound instruments might be feasible for use in developing quality measures for custom AFO users. DATA SOURCES: Both scoping reviews were conducted using PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and Cochrane Systematic Reviews. The following were used for the first scoping review only: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. STUDY SELECTION: The initial scoping review yielded 79 articles with 82 instruments, 16 of which were used in 4 or more studies. The second scoping review yielded 57 articles reporting psychometric properties. DATA EXTRACTION: Psychometric properties for populations who use AFOs were summarized for 15 of the 16 instruments. The advisory committee eliminated 2 insrtruments, noted overlap between 4 instruments in terms of the constructs measured, and suggested 6 potential contemporary substitutes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Most instruments assessed activity (specifically mobility) and pertained to the National Quality Forum domain of "Health-Related Quality of Life." The 10-meter walk test, 6-minute walk test, Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go, and Rivermead Mobility Index were reported to have adequate reliability and validity, and were considered feasible for administration in a clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS: Complementary scoping reviews demonstrated that some instruments with reasonable psychometric properties are available that are feasible to use in developing quality measures for custom AFO care. However, experience of care instruments suitable for this population were not identified but are needed for a comprehensive evaluation of care quality for AFO users.

Risk Adjustment, Mode Adjustment, and Nonresponse Bias Analysis on Quality Measures From a Long-Term Care Hospital Experience of Care Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a patient risk adjustment model for experience of care (EOC) quality measures for long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) that includes mode of survey administration. To assess presence of nonresponse bias in the adjusted facility-level scores. DESIGN: We tested 3 modes of collecting the EOC data: mail-only, mixed (ie, mail with telephone follow-up), and in-facility. This study used sequential modeling and impact analysis, specified a risk and mode adjustment model, and evaluated presence of nonresponse after adjustment. SETTING: LTCHs. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=1364) and 69 LTCHs. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk and mode adjusted responses to 28 survey questions and 6 facility-level scores derived from survey responses. RESULTS: Mode of data collection and patient risk variables (age, sex, overall health, overall mental health, marital status, education, race, and whether a proxy responded) were included in the model. Clinical variables were not significant. The in-facility mode was associated with significantly higher performance scores than the other modes. When the recommended risk and mode adjustment model was applied, nonresponse bias was not observed in any mode. CONCLUSIONS: LTCH EOC data should be adjusted for patient risk variables including mode of data collection.

Stroke Survivors' Perspectives on Post-Acute Rehabilitation Options, Goals, Satisfaction, and Transition to Home.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients and caregivers have not typically been involved in the selection of a post-acute care (PAC) provider. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposed the need to involve patients and their families during discharge planning. Engaging patients in rehabilitation decisions encourages shared decision making among patients and their clinicians. The purpose of this study was to examine stroke survivors' perspectives on their involvement in selecting a PAC provider and their goal setting and their satisfaction with the rehabilitation stay and their discharge advice for stroke survivors, prior to 2015. METHODS: This qualitative study utilized semistructured interviews. Thematic content analysis was performed on interviews involving 18 stroke survivors (mean age = 68 years) related to their involvement in planning for their inpatient rehabilitation facility or skilled nursing facility stay, goal setting, and discharge needs. RESULTS: More than half the participants were not involved in the selection of their PAC setting and believed that doctors made these decisions. Around two-fifths of stroke survivors reported that they were not involved in rehabilitation goal setting. Most patients were satisfied with their rehabilitation stay. When asked to recommend discharge topics for other stroke survivors, participants recommended additional information on health care services, interventions, and insurance coverage. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Despite recommendations to include stroke patients in PAC selection and goal setting, many former inpatient rehabilitation facility and skilled nursing facility patients report not being involved in either aspect of care.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A273).

Inpatient Rehabilitation Quality of Care From the Patient's Perspective: Effect of Data Collection Timing and Patient Characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: To compare, by collection time and patient characteristics, inpatient rehabilitation quality measure scores calculated using patient-reported data. DESIGN: Cohort study of rehabilitation inpatients with neurologic conditions who reported their experience of care and pain status at discharge and 1month after discharge. SETTING: Two inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). PARTICIPANTS: Patients with neurologic conditions (N=391). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We calculated 18 quality measure scores using participants' responses to 55 experience of care and health status questions addressing communication, support and encouragement, care coordination, discharge information, goals, new medications, responsiveness of staff, cleanliness, quietness, pain management, care transitions, overall hospital rating, willingness to recommend, and pain. RESULTS: Of the 391 participants reporting at discharge, 277 (71%) also reported postdischarge after multiple attempts by e-mail, mail, and telephone. Discharge experience of care quality scores ranged from 25% (responsiveness of hospital staff) to 75% (willingness to recommend hospital); corresponding postdischarge scores were 32% to 87%, respectively. Five of the 16 experience of care quality scores increased significantly between discharge and postdischarge. The percentage of participants reporting high pain levels at discharge did not change across time periods. Patients with less education, older age, higher motor and cognitive function, and those who were not Hispanic or black had more favorable quality measure scores. CONCLUSION: Patients' experience of care responses tended to be more favorable after discharge compared to discharge, suggesting that survey timing is important. Responses were more favorable for patients with selected characteristics, suggesting the possible need for risk adjustment if patient-reported quality measure scores are compared across IRFs.

Measuring Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Quality of Care: Discharge Self-Care Functional Status Quality Measure.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the calculation and psychometric properties of the discharge self-care functional status quality measure implemented in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) Quality Reporting Program on October 1, 2016. DESIGN: Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) patients from 38 IRFs that participated in the CMS Post-Acute Care Payment Reform Demonstration were included in this cohort study. Data came from the Continuity Assessment Record and Evaluation Item Set, IRF-Patient Assessment Instrument, and Medicare claims. For each patient, we calculated an expected discharge self-care score, risk-adjusted for demographic and baseline clinical characteristics. The performance score of each IRF equaled the percentage of patient stays where the observed discharge self-care score met or exceeded the expected score. We assessed the measure's discriminatory ability across IRFs and reliability. SETTING: IRFs. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare FFS patients aged ≥21 years (N=4769). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Facility-level discharge self-care quality measure performance score. RESULTS: A total of 4769 patient stays were included; 57% of stays were in women, and 12.1% were in patients aged <65 years. Stroke was the most common diagnosis (21.8%). The mean±SD performance score was 55.1%±16.6% (range, 25.8%-100%). About 54% of IRFs had scores significantly different from the percentage of stays that met or exceeded the expected discharge self-care score in the overall demonstration sample. The quality measure showed strong reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients of .91. CONCLUSIONS: The discharge self-care quality measure showed strong discriminatory ability and reliability, representing an important initial step in evaluation of IRF self-care outcomes. A wide range in performance scores suggested a gap in quality of care across IRFs. Future work should include testing the measure with nationwide data from all IRFs.

Geographic Region and Profit Status Drive Variation in Hospital Readmission Outcomes Among Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether there are differences in inpatient rehabilitation facilities' (IRFs') all-cause 30-day postdischarge hospital readmission rates vary by organizational characteristics and geographic regions. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: IRFs. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged from all IRFs nationally in 2013 and 2014 (N = 1166 IRFs). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We applied specifications for an existing quality measure adopted by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for public reporting that assesses all-cause unplanned hospital readmission measure for 30 days postdischarge from inpatient rehabilitation. We estimated facility-level observed and risk-standardized readmission rates and then examined variation by several organizational characteristics (facility type, profit status, teaching status, proportion of low-income patients, size) and geographic factors (rural/urban, census division, state). RESULTS: IRFs' mean risk-standardized hospital readmission rate was 13.00%±0.77%. After controlling for organizational characteristics and practice patterns, we found substantial variation in IRFs' readmission rates: for-profit IRFs had significantly higher readmission rates than did not-for-profit IRFs (P<.001). We also found geographic variation: IRFs in the South Atlantic and South Central census regions had the highest hospital readmission rates than did IRFs in New England that had the lowest rates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings point to variation in quality of care as measured by risk-standardized hospital readmission rates after IRF discharge. Thus, monitoring of readmission outcomes is important to encourage quality improvement in discharge care planning, care transitions, and follow-up.

Evaluating Hospital Readmission Rates After Discharge From Inpatient Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: To examine facility-level rates of all-cause, unplanned hospital readmissions for 30 days after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). DESIGN: Observational design. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (N=567,850 patient-stays). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome is all-cause, unplanned hospital readmission rates for IRFs. We adapted previous risk-adjustment and statistical approaches used for acute care hospitals to develop a hierarchical logistic regression model that estimates a risk-standardized readmission rate for each IRF. The IRF risk-adjustment model takes into account patient demographic characteristics, hospital diagnoses and procedure codes, function at IRF admission, comorbidities, and prior hospital utilization. We presented national distributions of observed and risk-standardized readmission rates and estimated confidence intervals to make statistical comparisons relative to the national mean. We also analyzed the number of days from IRF discharge until hospital readmission. RESULTS: The national observed hospital readmission rate by 30 days postdischarge from IRFs was 13.1%. The mean unadjusted readmission rate for IRFs was 12.4%±3.5%, and the mean risk-standardized readmission rate was 13.1%±0.8%. The C-statistic for our risk-adjustment model was .70. Nearly three-quarters of IRFs (73.4%) had readmission rates that were significantly different from the mean. The mean number of days to readmission was 13.0±8.6 days and varied by rehabilitation diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the ability to assess 30-day, all-cause hospital readmission rates postdischarge from IRFs and the ability to discriminate between IRFs with higher- and lower-than-average hospital readmission rates.