估算医院层面的差异对住院康复机构与专业护理机构的使用对中风患者个体的影响》(Estimating the Impact of Hospital-Level Variation on the Use of Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities Versus Skilled Nursing Facilities on Individual Patients with Stroke.

IF 6.2 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Kent P Simmonds, James Burke, Alan Kozlowski, Michael Andary, Zhehui Luo, Mathew J Reeves
{"title":"估算医院层面的差异对住院康复机构与专业护理机构的使用对中风患者个体的影响》(Estimating the Impact of Hospital-Level Variation on the Use of Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities Versus Skilled Nursing Facilities on Individual Patients with Stroke.","authors":"Kent P Simmonds, James Burke, Alan Kozlowski, Michael Andary, Zhehui Luo, Mathew J Reeves","doi":"10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.123.010636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For most patients with stroke, the admitting hospital meaningfully changed the type of rehabilitation care that they received.</p>","PeriodicalId":49221,"journal":{"name":"Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes","volume":" ","pages":"e010636"},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimating the Impact of Hospital-Level Variation on the Use of Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities Versus Skilled Nursing Facilities on Individual Patients With Stroke.\",\"authors\":\"Kent P Simmonds, James Burke, Alan Kozlowski, Michael Andary, Zhehui Luo, Mathew J Reeves\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.123.010636\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For most patients with stroke, the admitting hospital meaningfully changed the type of rehabilitation care that they received.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49221,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e010636\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.123.010636\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.123.010636","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:中风患者使用住院康复机构(IRF)与使用专业护理机构(SNF)在医院层面存在很大差异,但人们对此知之甚少。我们的目的是量化入院医院对中风患者接受 IRF 或 SNF 治疗概率的净影响:利用医疗保险理赔数据(2011-2013 年),确定了一组出院到 IRF 或 SNF 的急性中风患者。我们建立了两个多变量逻辑回归模型。模型 1 仅使用患者水平的因素预测 IRF 入院情况(相对于 SNF),而模型 2 增加了医院随机效应项来量化医院效应。根据随机效应项的统计意义和方向,将医院的出院模式分为倾向于IRF、倾向于SNF或中性。医院对患者个人IRF出院概率的影响是通过两个模型之间个人预测概率的变化(个人预测概率的变化)来估算的。医院层面的影响被归类为小影响(结果:队列包括 135 415 名患者(平均年龄 81.5 [SD=8.0] 岁,61% 为女性,91% 为缺血性卒中),他们从 1816 家急症医院出院后转入 IRF(n=66 548)或 SNF(n=68 867)。半数医院被归类为偏好 IRF(n=461,25.4%)或 SNF(n=485,26.7%),其余医院(n=870,47.9%)被视为中立。总体而言,略多于一半(n=73 428)的患者在对出院设置有中等或较大独立影响的医院接受治疗。中性医院的影响较小(即个体预测概率的变化):对于大多数脑卒中患者来说,入院医院对他们所接受的康复治疗类型有意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
357
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, an American Heart Association journal, publishes articles related to improving cardiovascular health and health care. Content includes original research, reviews, and case studies relevant to clinical decision-making and healthcare policy. The online-only journal is dedicated to furthering the mission of promoting safe, effective, efficient, equitable, timely, and patient-centered care. Through its articles and contributions, the journal equips you with the knowledge you need to improve clinical care and population health, and allows you to engage in scholarly activities of consequence to the health of the public. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes considers the following types of articles: Original Research Articles, Data Reports, Methods Papers, Cardiovascular Perspectives, Care Innovations, Novel Statistical Methods, Policy Briefs, Data Visualizations, and Caregiver or Patient Viewpoints.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信