Journal Home
Search for

Volume 90, Issue 8, Pages 1306-1316 (August 2009)


View previous. 10 of 34 View next.

Long-Term Outcomes of Joint Replacement Rehabilitation Patients Discharged From Skilled Nursing and Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities

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

Gerben DeJong, PhDaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Wenqiang Tian, MD, PhDa, Randall J. Smout, MSb, Susan D. Horn, PhDb, Koen Putman, PhDac, Ching-Hui Hsieh, PhDa, Julie Gassaway, MS, RNb, Pamela Smith, DNs, RNd

Abstract 

DeJong G, Tian W, Smout RJ, Horn SD, Putman K, Hsieh C-H, Gassaway J, Smith P. Long-term outcomes of joint replacement rehabilitation patients discharged from skilled nursing and inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

Objective

To examine functional and health status outcomes of patients with joint replacement discharged from a skilled nursing facility (SNF) or an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF).

Design

Postdischarge follow-up interview study at 7.5 months after admission.

Setting

Five freestanding SNFs, 1 hospital-based SNF, and 6 IRFs.

Participants

Patients (N=856): 561 with knee replacement and 295 with hip replacement.

Interventions

None.

Main Outcome Measures

FIM and Short-Form 12-Item Health Survey (SF-12).

Results

Among patients with knee and hip replacement, IRF patients made larger motor FIM gains from admission and discharge to follow-up. IRF patients, however, were admitted with lower FIM scores and also had more to gain (especially given the ceiling effects within the FIM at follow-up). When adjusted for case mix, IRF patients made larger motor FIM gains and had higher SF-12–related scores among patients with hip replacement but not among patients with knee replacement. Multivariate regressions found modest setting effects that favored IRFs, and the setting effects explained only a modest portion of the variance in motor FIM outcomes.

Conclusions

At follow-up, patients with joint replacement discharged from IRFs had better motor FIM outcomes than those discharged from freestanding SNFs and the hospital-based SNF. Settings did not differ materially in terms of SF-12 outcomes. Findings do not favor one setting decisively over another. A sole focus on initial postacute placement overlooks the larger trajectory of postacute care that needs to be managed to achieve superior outcomes.

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

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

c Department of Medical Sociology and Health Sciences, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

d IT HealthTrack, Williamstown, NY

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 one or more of the authors.

PII: S0003-9993(09)00305-0

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.04.003


View previous. 10 of 34 View next.