Journal Home
Search for

Volume 89, Issue 12, Pages 2274-2277 (December 2008)


View previous. 10 of 33 View next.

Apparent Changes in Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Outcomes Due to a Change in the Definition of Program Interruption

Anne Deutsch, PhD, RN, CRRNabCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Carl V. Granger, MDcd, Carol Russell, BAc, Allen W. Heinemann, PhD, ABPPab, Kenneth J. Ottenbacher, PhDe

Abstract 

Deutsch A, Granger CV, Russell C, Heinemann AW, Ottenbacher KJ. Apparent changes in inpatient rehabilitation facility outcomes due to a change in the definition of program interruption.

Objective

To describe changes in inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) outcomes due to the program interruption definitional change, from 30 days to 3 days, in 2002.

Design

Secondary data analysis of the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation (UDSMR) database.

Setting

Four hundred eleven IRFs that submitted data to the UDSMR database in each of the years 1998 through 2003.

Participants

Patient assessment data for 772,584 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries.

Interventions

None.

Main Outcome Measures

The number of IRF patient discharges, percent of IRF patients discharged to the community, percent of IRF patients discharged to acute care, percent of IRF patients with program interruptions, percent of IRF inpatient deaths, and average IRF length of stay (LOS).

Results

IRF outcomes appeared to change because of the program interruption redefinition, with changes varying by impairment group. The largest changes due to the redefinition occurred for patients with traumatic spinal cord injury, including the largest percentage increase in patients (5.16%), the largest decrease in program interruptions (5.14%), the largest increase in acute care discharges (5.04%), and the largest mean decrease in LOS (1.27d). Community discharge showed the largest decrease for patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome (4.03%).

Conclusion

The change in the definition of program interruptions creates the appearance of changes in IRF performance and is important to consider when comparing the preprospective payment system (PPS) and PPS assessment data.

a Center for Rehabilitation Outcomes Research, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL

b Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Institute for Health Care Studies, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL

c Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation, Amherst, NY

d Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY

e University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX

Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence to Anne Deutsch, PhD, RN, CRRN, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, 345 E Superior St, Chicago, IL 60611

 Supported by a Switzer Fellowship (award no. H133F040032) and Disability and Rehabilitation Research Program (grant no. H133A030807) from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

 No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit on the authors or on any organization with which the authors are associated.

 Reprints are not available from the author.

PII: S0003-9993(08)01486-X

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2008.06.014


View previous. 10 of 33 View next.