脑损伤和脑卒中患者的转诊来源和住院康复的急性护理转移的关系。

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
PM&R Pub Date : 2025-10-23 DOI:10.1002/pmrj.70041
Steven Bou, Heide Klumpp, Burke Crawford, William Chang
{"title":"脑损伤和脑卒中患者的转诊来源和住院康复的急性护理转移的关系。","authors":"Steven Bou, Heide Klumpp, Burke Crawford, William Chang","doi":"10.1002/pmrj.70041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Logistics of admissions to inpatient rehabilitation facilities have been reported to affect patient outcomes. One aspect that has not been previously assessed is the impact of referral source on outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The primary aim was to determine whether there is an association between referral source and the prevalence of acute care transfers. The secondary aim was to explore whether there is an association between referral source and functional improvement achieved with inpatient rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective chart review.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Rehabilitation unit at a Veterans Affairs hospital.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Veterans with a diagnosis of stroke or brain injury who were initially admitted to the rehabilitation unit from 2019 to 2023 were included. Veterans were placed into the external referral group or the internal referral group.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Admission functional status measurement with Functional Independence Measure (FIM) scores and comorbidity measurement with Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores were submitted to independent t-tests to examine potential baseline differences between the two groups. To evaluate frequency of discharge outcomes, chi-square analysis was performed. To evaluate functional improvement during inpatient rehabilitation, FIM effectiveness was submitted to independent t-tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>177 veterans were included, with 97 (54.8%) from external referrals and 80 (45.2%) from internal referrals. There were no baseline differences between the two groups in terms of admission FIM and CCI scores (p > .05). Although acute care transfer rates were higher for admissions from external referrals (17.5%) compared to those from internal referrals (11.3%), this difference was not statistically significant (p = .45). FIM effectiveness during inpatient rehabilitation was similar between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Preliminary findings showed that referral source may not be a factor in acute care transfer frequency or functional improvement. It will be important for a multicenter study to replicate findings before drawing conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":20354,"journal":{"name":"PM&R","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Association of referral source and acute care transfers from inpatient rehabilitation among patients with brain injury and stroke.\",\"authors\":\"Steven Bou, Heide Klumpp, Burke Crawford, William Chang\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pmrj.70041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Logistics of admissions to inpatient rehabilitation facilities have been reported to affect patient outcomes. One aspect that has not been previously assessed is the impact of referral source on outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The primary aim was to determine whether there is an association between referral source and the prevalence of acute care transfers. The secondary aim was to explore whether there is an association between referral source and functional improvement achieved with inpatient rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective chart review.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Rehabilitation unit at a Veterans Affairs hospital.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Veterans with a diagnosis of stroke or brain injury who were initially admitted to the rehabilitation unit from 2019 to 2023 were included. Veterans were placed into the external referral group or the internal referral group.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Admission functional status measurement with Functional Independence Measure (FIM) scores and comorbidity measurement with Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores were submitted to independent t-tests to examine potential baseline differences between the two groups. To evaluate frequency of discharge outcomes, chi-square analysis was performed. To evaluate functional improvement during inpatient rehabilitation, FIM effectiveness was submitted to independent t-tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>177 veterans were included, with 97 (54.8%) from external referrals and 80 (45.2%) from internal referrals. There were no baseline differences between the two groups in terms of admission FIM and CCI scores (p > .05). Although acute care transfer rates were higher for admissions from external referrals (17.5%) compared to those from internal referrals (11.3%), this difference was not statistically significant (p = .45). FIM effectiveness during inpatient rehabilitation was similar between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Preliminary findings showed that referral source may not be a factor in acute care transfer frequency or functional improvement. It will be important for a multicenter study to replicate findings before drawing conclusions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PM&R\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PM&R\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.70041\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PM&R","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.70041","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:据报道,住院康复设施的入院后勤会影响患者的预后。以前没有评估的一个方面是转诊来源对结果的影响。目的:主要目的是确定转诊来源和急症转诊的流行率之间是否存在关联。次要目的是探讨转诊来源与住院康复患者功能改善之间是否存在关联。设计:回顾性图表回顾。环境:退伍军人事务医院的康复部。患者:包括在2019年至2023年期间最初入住康复部门的诊断为中风或脑损伤的退伍军人。退伍军人被分为外部转诊组和内部转诊组。主要结果测量:采用功能独立测量(FIM)评分的入院功能状态测量和采用Charlson共病指数(CCI)评分的共病测量进行独立t检验,以检查两组之间潜在的基线差异。为了评估出院结果的频率,采用卡方分析。为了评估住院康复期间的功能改善,FIM的有效性提交独立t检验。结果:共纳入177例退伍军人,其中外部转诊97例(54.8%),内部转诊80例(45.2%)。两组在入院FIM和CCI评分方面无基线差异(p < 0.05)。虽然外部转诊入院的急症转诊率(17.5%)高于内部转诊入院的急症转诊率(11.3%),但差异无统计学意义(p = 0.45)。两组在住院康复期间的FIM效果相似。结论:初步研究结果显示转诊来源可能不是影响急症转诊频率或功能改善的因素。在得出结论之前,多中心研究重复研究结果是很重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Association of referral source and acute care transfers from inpatient rehabilitation among patients with brain injury and stroke.

Background: Logistics of admissions to inpatient rehabilitation facilities have been reported to affect patient outcomes. One aspect that has not been previously assessed is the impact of referral source on outcomes.

Objective: The primary aim was to determine whether there is an association between referral source and the prevalence of acute care transfers. The secondary aim was to explore whether there is an association between referral source and functional improvement achieved with inpatient rehabilitation.

Design: Retrospective chart review.

Setting: Rehabilitation unit at a Veterans Affairs hospital.

Patients: Veterans with a diagnosis of stroke or brain injury who were initially admitted to the rehabilitation unit from 2019 to 2023 were included. Veterans were placed into the external referral group or the internal referral group.

Main outcome measures: Admission functional status measurement with Functional Independence Measure (FIM) scores and comorbidity measurement with Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores were submitted to independent t-tests to examine potential baseline differences between the two groups. To evaluate frequency of discharge outcomes, chi-square analysis was performed. To evaluate functional improvement during inpatient rehabilitation, FIM effectiveness was submitted to independent t-tests.

Results: 177 veterans were included, with 97 (54.8%) from external referrals and 80 (45.2%) from internal referrals. There were no baseline differences between the two groups in terms of admission FIM and CCI scores (p > .05). Although acute care transfer rates were higher for admissions from external referrals (17.5%) compared to those from internal referrals (11.3%), this difference was not statistically significant (p = .45). FIM effectiveness during inpatient rehabilitation was similar between the two groups.

Conclusions: Preliminary findings showed that referral source may not be a factor in acute care transfer frequency or functional improvement. It will be important for a multicenter study to replicate findings before drawing conclusions.

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
PM&R
PM&R REHABILITATION-SPORT SCIENCES
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
187
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Topics covered include acute and chronic musculoskeletal disorders and pain, neurologic conditions involving the central and peripheral nervous systems, rehabilitation of impairments associated with disabilities in adults and children, and neurophysiology and electrodiagnosis. PM&R emphasizes principles of injury, function, and rehabilitation, and is designed to be relevant to practitioners and researchers in a variety of medical and surgical specialties and rehabilitation disciplines including allied health.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信