Estimating the Impact of Hospital-Level Variation on the Use of Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities Versus Skilled Nursing Facilities on Individual Patients With Stroke.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial hospital-level variation in the use of Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs) versus Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) among patients with stroke, which is poorly understood. Our objective was to quantify the net effect of the admitting hospital on the probability of receiving IRF or SNF care for individual patients with stroke. METHODS: Using Medicare claims data (2011-2013), a cohort of patients with acute stroke discharged to an IRF or SNF was identified. We generated 2 multivariable logistic regression models. Model 1 predicted IRF admission (versus SNF) using only patient-level factors, whereas model 2 added a hospital random effect term to quantify the hospital effect. The statistical significance and direction of the random effect terms were used to categorize hospitals as being either IRF-favoring, SNF-favoring, or neutral with respect to their discharge patterns. The hospital's impact on individual patient's probability of IRF discharge was estimated by taking the change in individual predicted probabilities (change in individual predicted probability) between the 2 models. Hospital-level effects were categorized as small (<10%), moderate (10%-19%), or large (≥20%) depending on change in individual predicted probability. RESULTS: The cohort included 135 415 patients (average age, 81.5 [SD=8.0] years, 61% female, 91% ischemic stroke) who were discharged from 1816 acute care hospitals to IRFs (n=66 548) or SNFs (n=68 867). Half of hospitals were classified as being either IRF-favoring (n=461, 25.4%) or SNF-favoring (n=485, 26.7%) with the remainder (n=870, 47.9%) considered neutral. Overall, just over half (n=73 428) of patients were treated at hospitals that had moderate or large independent effects on discharge settings. Hospital effects for neutral hospitals were small (ie, change in individual predicted probability <10%) for most patients (72.5%). However, hospital effects were moderate or large for 78.8% and 84.6% of patients treated at IRF- or SNF-favoring hospitals, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For most patients with stroke, the admitting hospital meaningfully changed the type of rehabilitation care that they received.

Health Care Disparities in Stroke Rehabilitation.

Stroke outcomes are influenced by factors such as education, lifestyle, and access to care, which determine the extent of functional recovery. Disparities in stroke rehabilitation research have traditionally included age, race/ethnicity, and sex, but other areas make up a gap in the literature. This article conducted a literature review of original research articles published between 2008 and 2022. The article also expands on research that highlights stroke disparities in risk factors, rehabilitative stroke care, language barriers, outcomes for stroke survivors, and interventions focused on rehabilitative stroke disparities.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Medical Management of Poststroke Complications Among Patients With Acute Stroke.

BACKGROUND: To inform clinical practice, we sought to identify racial and ethnic differences in the medical management of common poststroke complications. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cohort of acutely hospitalized, first-time non-Hispanic White (NHW), non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic patients with stroke was identified from electronic medical records of 51 large health care organizations (January 1, 2003 to December 5, 2022). Matched propensity scores were used to account for baseline differences. Primary outcomes included receipt of medication(s) associated with the management of the following poststroke complications: arousal/fatigue, spasticity, mood, sleep, neurogenic bladder, neurogenic bowel, and seizure. Differences were measured at 14, 90, and 365 days. Subgroup analyses included differences restricted to patients with ischemic stroke, younger age (<65 years), and stratified by decade (2003-2012 and 2013-2022). Before matching, the final cohort consisted of 348 286 patients with first-time stroke. Matching resulted in 63 722 non-Hispanic Black-NHW pairs and 24 009 Hispanic-NHW pairs. Non-Hispanic Black (versus NHW) patients were significantly less likely to be treated for all poststroke complications, with differences largest for arousal/fatigue (relative risk (RR), 0.58 [95% CI, 0.54-0.62]), spasticity (RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.0.62-0.67]), and mood disorders (RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.70-0.74]) at 14 days. Hispanic-NHW differences were similar, albeit with smaller magnitudes, with the largest differences present for spasticity (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.63-0.72]), arousal/fatigue (RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.70-0.85]), and mood disorders (RR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.77-0.82]). Subgroup analyses revealed similar patterns for ischemic stroke and patients aged <65 years. Disparities for the current decade remained significant but with smaller magnitudes compared with the prior decade. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant racial and ethnic disparities in the treatment of poststroke complications. The differences were greatest at 14 days, outlining the importance of early identification and management.

Emulating 3 Clinical Trials That Compare Stroke Rehabilitation at Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities With Skilled Nursing Facilities.

OBJECTIVE: To inform the design of a potential future randomized controlled trial (RCT), we emulated 3 trials where patient-level outcomes were compared after stroke rehabilitation at inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) with skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). DESIGN: Trials were emulated using a 1:1 matched propensity score analysis. The 3 trials differed because facilities from rehabilitation networks with different case volumes were compared. Rehabilitation network case volumes were based on the number of patients with stroke that each hospital discharged to each specific IRF or SNF. Trial 1 included 60,529 patients from all networks, trial 2 included 34,444 patients from networks with medium and large case volumes (ie, ≥5 patients), and trial 3 included 19,161 patients from networks with large case volumes (ie, ≥10 patients). The E values were calculated to estimate the minimum strength that an unmeasured confounder would need to be to nullify the results. SETTING: A national sample of IRFs and SNFs from across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Fee-for-service Medicare patients with acute stroke who received IRF or SNF based rehabilitation. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: One-year successful community discharge (home for >30 consecutive days) and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 29,500, 15,156, and 7450 patients were matched for trials 1, 2, and 3. For 1-year successful community discharge, absolute risk differences for IRF patients were 0.21 (95% CI, 0.20-0.22), 0.17 (95% CI, 0.16-0.19), and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.10-0.14) in trials 1, 2, and 3, respectively. For 1-year all-cause mortality, corresponding risk differences were -0.11 (95% CI, -0.12 to -0.11), -0.11 (95% CI, -0.12 to -0.09), and -0.08 (95% CI, -0.10 to -0.06). The E values indicated that a moderately sized unmeasured confounder, with a relative risk of 1.6-2.0 would nullify differences in successful community discharge. CONCLUSIONS: IRF patients had superior outcomes, but differences were attenuated when IRFs and SNFs from larger rehabilitation networks were compared. The vulnerability of the findings to unmeasured confounding supports the need for an RCT.

Rationale for a Clinical Trial That Compares Acute Stroke Rehabilitation at Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities to Skilled Nursing Facilities: Challenges and Opportunities.

In the United States, approximately 400,000 patients with acute stroke are discharged annually to inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) or skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). Typically, IRFs provide time-intensive therapy for an average of 2-3 weeks, whereas SNFs provide more moderately intensive therapy for 4-5 weeks. The factors that influence discharge to an IRF or SNF are multifactorial and poorly understood. The complexity of these factors in combination with subjective clinical indications contributes to large variations in the use of IRFs and SNFs. This has significant financial implications for health care expenditure, given that stroke rehabilitation at IRFs costs approximately double that at SNFs. To control health care spending without compromising outcomes, the Institute of Medicine has stated that policy reforms that promote more efficient use of IRFs and SNFs are critically needed. A major barrier to the formulation of such policies is the highly variable and low-quality evidence for the comparative effectiveness of IRF- vs SNF-based stroke rehabilitation. The current evidence is limited by the inability of observational data to control for residual confounding, which contributes to substantial uncertainty around any magnitude of benefit for IRF- vs SNF-based care. Furthermore, it is unclear which specific patients would receive the most benefit from each setting. A randomized controlled trial addresses these issues, because random treatment allocation facilitates an equitable distribution of measured and unmeasured confounders. We discuss several measurement, practical, and ethical issues of a trial and provide our rationale for design suggestions that overcome some of these issues.

Race/Ethnic and Stroke Subtype Differences in Poststroke Functional Recovery After Acute Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: Significant racial/ethnic disparities in poststroke function exist, but whether these disparities vary by stroke subtype is unknown. Study goals were to (1) determine if racial/ethnic disparities in the recovery of poststroke function varied by stroke subtype and (2) identify confounding factors associated with these racial/ethnic disparities. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the 1-year Stroke Recovery in Underserved Populations Cohort Study. SETTING: Eleven inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1066 patients (n=868 with ischemic stroke and n=198 with hemorrhagic stroke, N=1066) who self-identified as White (n=813), Black (n=183), or Hispanic (n=70). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: FIM scores at IRF admission, discharge, 3 months, and 12 months were modeled using multivariable mixed effects longitudinal regression. RESULTS: Compared with White patients, Black (-6.1 and -4.6) and Hispanic (-10.1 and -9.9) patients had significantly lower FIM scores at 3 and 12 months, respectively. A significant (P<.01) 3-way interaction (race/ethnic*subtype*time) indicated that disparities varied by stroke subtype. The stroke subtype differences were most prominent for Black-White disparities because disparities in hemorrhagic stroke were present at IRF admission (vs 3 months for ischemic stroke). Additionally, at 12 months, the magnitude of Black-White disparities was over 3 times larger for hemorrhagic stroke (-10.4) than ischemic stroke (-3.1). Age primarily influenced Black-White disparities (especially for hemorrhagic stroke), but factors that influenced Hispanic-White disparities were not identified. Sensitivity analyses showed that there were stroke subtype differences in racial/ethnic disparities for cognitive (but not motor) function, and results were robust to adjustments for missing data because of attrition. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences between stroke subtypes in the timing and magnitude of Black-White disparities in poststroke function. Age was a major confounding factor for Black-White disparities (particularly for hemorrhagic stroke). Overall, Hispanic patients had the lowest levels of poststroke function, and more work is needed to identify significant factors that influence Hispanic-White disparities.