Journal Home
Search for

Volume 90, Issue 8, Pages 1269-1283 (August 2009)


View previous. 7 of 34 View next.

Characterizing Rehabilitation Services for Patients With Knee and Hip Replacement in Skilled Nursing Facilities and Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities

Presented to the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine, October 4, 2007, Washington, DC.

Gerben DeJong, PhDaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Ching-Hui Hsieh, PhDa, Julie Gassaway, MS, RNb, Susan D. Horn, PhDb, Randall J. Smout, MSb, Koen Putman, PT, PhDad, Roberta James, MStatb, Michael Brown, BAa, Elizabeth M. Newman, OTD, OTR/Lc, Mary P. Foley, BS, CRRNc

Abstract 

DeJong G, Hsieh C-H, Gassaway J, Horn SD, Smout RJ, Putman K, James R, Brown M, Newman EM, Foley MP. Characterizing rehabilitation services for patients with knee and hip replacement in skilled nursing facilities and inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

Objective

To characterize rehabilitation services for patients with knee and hip replacement in 3 types of postacute facilities in the U.S.

Design

Multi-site prospective observational cohort study.

Setting

Eight freestanding skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), 1 hospital-based SNF, and 11 inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs).

Participants

Patients (N=2158) with knee or hip replacement.

Interventions

No new interventions.

Main Outcome Measures

Length of stay (LOS), amount and intensity of physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT), types of therapy activities.

Results

Average LOS was about 15 days for freestanding SNF patients, and 9 to 10 days for hospital-based SNF and IRF patients. Freestanding SNFs and IRFs provide about the same number of hours of PT and OT; the hospital-based SNF provided 27% fewer hours. Freestanding SNFs and the hospital-based SNF provided fewer hours a day than did IRFs. Joint replacement patients across all 3 types of facilities spent, on average, 70% to 75% of their PT time in just 2 activities—exercise and gait and spent 56% to 66% of their OT time in 3 activities—exercise, functional mobility, and dressing lower body.

Conclusions

Both freestanding SNFs and IRFs provided similar amounts of PT with a similar emphasis on exercise and gait activities. IRFs, however, provided more OT than freestanding SNFs. IRFs had shorter LOSs and more intensive therapy services than freestanding SNFs. Study freestanding SNFs exhibited greater variation in LOS and intensity of therapy than IRFs.

a Center for Post-acute Studies, National Rehabilitation Hospital, Washington, DC

b Institute for Clinical Outcomes and Research, Salt Lake City, UT

c National Rehabilitation Hospital, Washington, DC

d Department of Medical Sociology and Health Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to Gerben DeJong, PhD, Center for Post-acute Studies, National Rehabilitation Hospital, 102 Irving St, Washington, DC 20010

 Supported by the HealthSouth Corp, ARA Research Institute of the American Rehabilitation Providers Association, Brooks Health, National Rehabilitation Hospital, American Hospital Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, and others.

 A commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has conferred or will confer a financial benefit on the author or one or more of the authors.

PII: S0003-9993(09)00302-5

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2008.11.021


View previous. 7 of 34 View next.