4.5 Article

Comparing Comorbidity Indices to Predict Post-Acute Rehabilitation Outcomes in Older Adults

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000527

关键词

Community Discharge; Comorbidity; Functional Status; Inpatient Rehabilitation; Medicare

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R24-HD065702, R01-HD069443]
  2. Administration for Community Living, National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research [90IF0071-02-00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Compare 5 comorbidity indices to predict community discharge and functional status following postYacute rehabilitation. Design: This was a retrospective study of Medicare beneficiaries with stroke, lower-extremity fracture, and joint replacement discharged from inpatient rehabilitation in 2011 (N = 105,275). Community discharge and self-care, mobility, and cognitive function were compared using the Charlson, Elixhauser, Tier, Functional Comorbidity, and Hierarchical Condition Category comorbidity indices. Results: Of the patients, 64.4% were female, and 84.6% were non-Hispanic white. Mean age was 79.3 (SD, 7.5) years. Base regression models including sociodemographic and clinical variables explained 56.6%, 42.2%, and 23.0% of the variance (R-2) for discharge self-care; 47.4%, 30.9%, and 18.6% for mobility; and 62.0%, 55.3%, and 37.3% for cognition across the 3 impairment groups. R2 values for self-care, mobility, and cognition increased by 0.2% to 3.3% when the comorbidity indices were added to the models. The base model C statistics for community discharge were 0.58 (stroke), 0.61 (fracture), and 0.62 (joint replacement). The C statistics increased more than 25% with the addition of discharge functional status to the base model. Adding the comorbidity indices individually to the base model resulted in C-statistic increases of 1% to 2%. Conclusion: Comorbidity indices were poor predictors of community discharge and functional status in Medicare beneficiaries receiving inpatient rehabilitation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据