Advertisement

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

Published:August 31, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2021.08.004

      Abstract

      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.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      AM-PAC (Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care), HTE (heterogeneity of treatment effect), IRF (inpatient rehabilitation facility), IV (instrumental variable), LTFU (loss to follow-up), MedPAC (Medicare Payment Advisory Commission), PAC (postacute care), RCT (randomized controlled trial), SIS-16 (Stroke Impact Scale 16), SNF (skilled nursing facility)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Benjamin EJ
        • Muntner P
        • Alonso A
        • et al.
        Heart disease and stroke statistics-2019 update: a report from the American Heart Association.
        Circulation. 2019; 139: e56-528
        • Smith EE
        • Shobha N
        • Dai D
        • et al.
        Risk score for in-hospital ischemic stroke mortality derived and validated within the get with the guidelines-stroke program.
        Circulation. 2010; 122: 1496-1504
        • Prvu Bettger J
        • McCoy L
        • Smith EE
        • Fonarow GC
        • Schwamm LH
        • Peterson ED
        Contemporary trends and predictors of postacute service use and routine discharge home after stroke.
        J Am Heart Assoc. 2015; 4e001038
        • Winstein CJ
        • Stein J
        • Arena R
        • et al.
        Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the.
        American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. 2016; 47: e98-169
        • Skolarus LE
        • Feng C
        • Burke JF.
        No racial difference in rehabilitation therapy across all post-acute care settings in the year following a stroke.
        Stroke. 2017; 48: 3329-3335
        • Deutsch A
        • Granger CV
        • Heinemann AW
        • et al.
        Poststroke rehabilitation: outcomes and reimbursement of inpatient rehabilitation facilities and subacute rehabilitation programs.
        Stroke. 2006; 37: 1477-1482
        • Freburger JK
        • Holmes GM
        • Ku LJ
        • Cutchin MP
        • Hearwole-Shank K
        • Edwards LJ.
        Disparities in post-acute rehabilitation care for stroke: an analysis of the state inpatient databases.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92: 1220-1229
        • Xian Y
        • Thomas L
        • Liang L
        • et al.
        Unexplained Vvriation for hospitals’ use of inpatient rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities after an acute ischemic stroke.
        Stroke. 2017; 48: 2836-2842
        • Hong I
        • Karmarkar A
        • Chan W
        • et al.
        Discharge patterns for ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke patients going from acute care hospitals to inpatient and skilled nursing rehabilitation.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2018; 97: 636-645
        • Birkmeyer JD
        • Reames BN
        • McCulloch P
        • Carr AJ
        • Campbell WB
        • Wennberg JE.
        Understanding of regional variation in the use of surgery.
        Lancet. 2013; 382: 1121-1129
      1. Medicare Payment Advisory Comission. MedPAC report to Congress: Medicare payment policy. Available at: http://www.medpac.gov/docs/default-source/reports/mar21_medpac_report_to_the_congress_sec.pdf?sfvrsn=0. Accessed June 1, 2021.

      2. (editors)Newhouse JP Garber AM Graham RP McCoy MA Mancher M Kibria A Variation in health care spending: target decision making, not geography. National Acadamies Press, Washington (DC)2013
      3. MedPAC. Implementing a unified payment system for post-acute care. 2017. Available at: http://www.medpac.gov/docs/default-source/reports/jun17_ch1.pdf?sfvrsn=0. Accessed November 15, 2020.

        • Alcusky M
        • Ulbricht CM
        • Lapane KL.
        Postacute care setting, facility characteristics, and poststroke outcomes : a systematic review.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018; 99: 1124-1140
        • Hong I
        • Goodwin JS
        • Reistetter TA
        • et al.
        Comparison of functional status improvements among patients with stroke receiving postacute care in inpatient rehabilitation vs skilled nursing facilities.
        JAMA Netw Open. 2019; 2e1916646
      4. Bettger JP, Thomas L, Li L. Comparing recovery options for stroke patients. Washington (DC): Patients Centered Outcomes Research Institute; 2019.

        • Hoenig H
        • Sloane R
        • Horner RD
        • Zolkewitz M
        • Reker D.
        Differences in rehabilitation services and outcomes among stroke patients cared for in veterans hospitals.
        Health Serv Res. 2001; 35: 1293-1318
        • Kind AJH
        • Smith MA
        • Liou JI
        • Pandhi N
        • Frytak JR
        • Finch MD.
        Discharge destination's effect on bounce-back risk in Black, White, and Hispanic acute ischemic stroke patients.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010; 91: 189-195
        • Wang H
        • Sandel E
        • Terdiman J
        • et al.
        Postacute care and ischemic stroke mortality: findings from an integrated health care system in Northern California.
        PM R. 2011; 3: 686-694
        • Chan L
        • Sandel ME
        • Jette AM
        • et al.
        Does postacute care site matter? A longitudinal study assessing functional recovery after a stroke.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013; 94: 622-629
        • Deutsch A.
        Does postacute care site matter? A longitudinal study assessing functional recovery after a stroke.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013; 94: 630-632
        • Katzan IL
        • Spertus J
        • Bettger JP
        • et al.
        Risk adjustment of ischemic stroke outcomes for comparing hospital performance: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.
        Stroke. 2014; 45: 918-944
        • Reistetter TA
        • Kuo YF
        • Karmarkar AM
        • et al.
        Geographic and facility variation in inpatient stroke rehabilitation: multilevel analysis of functional status.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015; 96: 1248-1254
        • Lau C
        • Alpert A
        • Huckfeldt P
        • et al.
        Post-acute referral patterns for hospitals and implications for bundled payment initiatives.
        Healthcare. 2014; 2: 190-195
        • DeJong G
        • Horn SD
        • Conroy B
        • Nichols D
        • Healton EB.
        Opening the black box of post-stroke rehabilitation: stroke rehabilitation patients, processes, and outcomes.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 86: S1-S7
        • DeJong G
        • Hsieh CH
        • Gassaway J
        • et al.
        Characterizing rehabilitation services for patients with knee and hip replacement in skilled nursing facilities and inpatient rehabilitation facilities.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009; 90: 1269-1283
        • Martens EP
        • Pestman WR
        • De Boer A
        • Belitser SV
        • Klungel OH
        Instrumental variables: application and limitations.
        Epidemiology. 2006; 17: 260-267
        • Kane RL
        • Chen Q
        • Finch M
        • Blewett L
        • Burns R
        • Moskowitz M.
        The optimal outcomes of post-hospital care under medicare.
        Health Serv Res. 2000; 35: 615-661
        • Buntin M
        • Carrie C
        • Deb P
        • Sood N
        • Escarce J.
        Medicare spending and outcomes after postacute care for stroke and hip fracture.
        Med Care. 2010; 48: 776-784
        • Kent DM
        • Steyerberg E
        • van Klaveren D.
        Personalized evidence based medicine: predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects.
        BMJ. 2018; 363: k4245
        • Kent DM
        • Rothwell PM
        • Ioannidis JPA
        • Altman DG
        • Hayward RA.
        Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal.
        Trials. 2010; 11: 85
        • Butzer JF
        • Kozlowski AJ
        • Virva R.
        Measuring value in postacute care.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019; 100: 990-994
        • Langhorne P
        • Bernhardt J
        • Kwakkel G.
        Stroke rehabilitation.
        Lancet. 2011; 377: 1693-1702
        • Berges IM
        • Kuo YF
        • Ottenbacher KJ
        • Seale GS
        • Ostir G V
        Recovery of functional status after stroke in a tri-ethnic population.
        PM R. 2012; 4: 290-295
        • Hansson L
        • Hedner T
        • Dahlöf B.
        Prospective randomized open blinded end-point (PROBE) study. A novel design for intervention trials.
        Blood Press. 1992; 1 (Prospective randomized open blinded end-point): 113-119
        • Reeves M
        • Lisabeth L
        • Williams L
        • et al.
        Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for acute stroke: rationale, methods and future directions.
        Stroke. 2018; 49: 1549-1556
        • Reeves MJ
        • Fritz MC
        • Woodward AT
        • et al.
        Michigan stroke transitions trial.
        Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019; 12e005493
        • Duncan PW
        • Bushnell CD
        • Jones SB
        • et al.
        Randomized pragmatic trial of stroke transitional care: the COMPASS study.
        Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020; 13e006285
        • Duncan PW
        • Lai SM
        • Bode RK
        • Perera S
        • DeRosa J.
        Stroke impact scale-16: a brief assessment of physical function.
        Neurology. 2003; 60: 291-296
        • Weisscher N
        • Vermeulen M
        • Roos YB
        • De Haan RJ.
        What should be defined as good outcome in stroke trials; a modified Rankin score of 0-1 or 0-2?.
        J Neurol. 2008; 255: 867-874
        • Jette DU
        • Stilphen M
        • Ranganathan VK
        • Passek SD
        • Frost FS
        • Jette AM.
        Validity of the AM-PAC “6-Clicks” inpatient daily activity and basic mobility short forms.
        Phys Ther. 2014; 94: 379-391
        • Hernan M
        • Alonso A
        • Logan R
        • et al.
        Observational studies analyzed like randomized experiments: an application to postmenopausal hormone therapy and coronary heart.
        Epidemiology. 2008; 43: 824-829
        • Duncan PW
        • Lai SM
        • Tyler D
        • Perera S
        • Reker DM
        • Studenski S.
        Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale.
        Stroke. 2002; 33: 2593-2599
        • Kozlowski AJ
        • Singh R
        • Victorson D
        • et al.
        Agreement between responses from community-dwelling persons with stroke and their proxies on the NIH neurological quality of life (Neuro-QoL) short forms.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015; 96: 1986-1992
        • Worsley SD
        • Oude Rengerink K
        • Irving E
        • et al.
        Series: pragmatic trials and real world evidence: paper 2. Setting, sites, and investigator selection.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 88: 14-20
        • Johnson AM
        • Jones SB
        • Duncan PW
        • et al.
        Hospital recruitment for a pragmatic cluster-randomized clinical trial: lessons learned from the COMPASS study.
        Trials. 2018; 19: 74
        • Colla CH
        • Lewis VA
        • Stachowski C
        • Usadi B
        • Gottlieb DJ
        • Bynum JPW.
        Changes in use of postacute care associated with accountable care organizations in hip fracture, stroke, and pneumonia hospitalized cohorts.
        Med Care. 2019; 57: 444-452
        • Holmes GM
        • Freburger JK
        • Ku LJE.
        Decomposing racial and ethnic disparities in the use of postacute rehabilitation care.
        Health Serv Res. 2012; 47: 1158-1178
        • Magdon-Ismail Z
        • Sicklick A
        • Hedeman R
        • Bettger JP
        • Stein J.
        Selection of postacute stroke rehabilitation facilities a survey of discharge planners from the Northeast Cerebrovascular Consortium (NECC) region.
        Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95: e3206
        • Loudon K
        • Treweek S
        • Sullivan F
        • Donnan P
        • Thorpe KE
        • Zwarenstein M.
        The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose.
        BMJ. 2015; 350: h2147
        • Schwartz D
        • Leelouch J.
        Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials.
        J Chronic Dis. 1967; 20: 637-648
        • Chan L.
        The state-of-the-science: challenges in designing postacute care payment policy.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 88: 1522-1525
        • Jette AM.
        Opening the black box of rehabilitation interventions.
        Phys Ther. 2020; 100: 883-884
        • Zanca JM
        • Turkstra LS
        • Chen C
        • et al.
        Advancing rehabilitation practice through improved specification of interventions.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019; 100: 164-171
        • Stein J
        • Bettger JP
        • Sicklick A
        • Hedeman R
        • Magdon-Ismail Z
        • Schwamm LH.
        Use of a standardized assessment to predict rehabilitation care after acute stroke.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015; 96: 210-217
        • Hall MJ
        • Levant S
        • deFrances CJ
        Hospitalization for stroke in U.S. hospitals, 1989-2009.
        NCHS Data Brief. 2012; 95: 1-8
        • Freedman B.
        Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research.
        N Engl J Med. 1987; 317: 141-145
        • Kane RL.
        Assessing the effectiveness of postacute care rehabilitation.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 88: 1500-1504
        • Cormier DJ
        • Frantz MA
        • Rand E
        • Stein J.
        Physiatrist referral preferences for postacute stroke rehabilitation.
        Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95: e4356
        • Kramer A
        • Holthaus D
        • Goodrish G
        • Epstein A.
        A study of stroke post-acute care costs and outcomes: final report.
        U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC2006
        • Dunn DT
        • Copas AJ
        • Brocklehurst P.
        Superiority and non-inferiority: two sides of the same coin?.
        Trials. 2018; 19: 499
      5. Medicare Payment Advisory Comission. MedPAC report to Congress: Medicare payment policy. 2014. Available at: http://www.medpac.gov/docs/default-source/reports/march-2014-report-to-the-congress-medicare-payment-policy.pdf?Status=Temp&sfvrsn=0. Accessed November 30, 2021.

        • Jette AM
        • Haley SM
        • Tao W
        • et al.
        Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC in outpatient rehabilitation settings.
        Phys Ther. 2007; 87: 385-398
        • Hoyer EH
        • Young DL
        • Klein LM
        • et al.
        Toward a common language for measuring patient mobility in the hospital: reliability and construct validity of interprofessional mobility measures.
        Phys Ther. 2018; 98: 133-142
        • Fulk G
        • Ludwig M
        • Dunning K
        • Golden S
        • Boyne P
        • West T.
        How much change in the Stroke Impact Scale-16 is important to people who have experienced a stroke?.
        Top Stroke Rehabil. 2010; 17: 477-483
        • Simmonds KP
        • Luo Z
        • Reeves M.
        Race/ethnic and stroke subtype differences in poststroke functional recovery after acute rehabilitation.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021; 102: 1473-1481
        • Ellis C
        • Hyacinth HI
        • Beckett J
        • et al.
        Racial/ethnic differences in poststroke rehabilitation outcomes.
        Stroke Res Treat. 2014; 2014950746
        • Altman DG
        • Bland M.
        Treatment allocation by minimisation.
        BMJ. 2005; 330: 843