Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA.
Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Jun;99(6):1124-1140.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.09.005. Epub 2017 Sep 28.
To synthesize research comparing poststroke health outcomes between patients rehabilitated in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and those in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) as well as to evaluate relations between facility characteristics and outcomes.
PubMed and CINAHL searches spanned January 1, 1998, to October 6, 2016, and encompassed MeSH and free-text keywords for stroke, IRF/SNF, and study outcomes. Searches were restricted to peer-reviewed research in humans published in English.
Observational and experimental studies examining outcomes of adult patients with stroke rehabilitated in an IRF or SNF were eligible. Studies had to provide site of care comparisons and/or analyses incorporating facility-level characteristics and had to report ≥1 primary outcome (discharge setting, functional status, readmission, quality of life, all-cause mortality). Unpublished, single-center, descriptive, and non-US studies were excluded. Articles were reviewed by 1 author, and when uncertain, discussion with study coauthors achieved consensus. Fourteen titles (0.3%) were included.
The types of data, time period, size, design, and primary outcomes were extracted. We also extracted 2 secondary outcomes (length of IRF/SNF stay, cost) when reported by included studies. Effect measures, modeling approaches, methods for confounding adjustment, and potential confounders were extracted. Data were abstracted by 1 author, and the accuracy was verified by a second reviewer.
Two studies evaluating community discharge, 1 study evaluating the predicted probability of readmission, and 3 studies evaluating all-cause mortality favored IRFs over SNFs. Functional status comparisons were inconsistent. No studies evaluated quality of life. Two studies confirmed increased costs in the IRF versus SNF setting. Although substantial facility variation was described, few studies characterized sources of variation.
The few studies comparing poststroke outcomes indicated better outcomes (with higher costs) for patients in IRFs versus those in SNFs. Contemporary research on the role of the postacute care setting and its attributes in determining health outcomes should be prioritized to inform reimbursement system reform.
综合比较在熟练护理机构(SNF)和住院康复机构(IRF)康复的脑卒中患者的健康结果,并评估机构特征与结果之间的关系。
从 1998 年 1 月 1 日至 2016 年 10 月 6 日,通过 PubMed 和 CINAHL 进行检索,检索词包括脑卒中、IRF/SNF 和研究结果的 MeSH 和自由文本。检索仅限于发表在英文期刊上的人类同行评议研究。
符合条件的研究为观察性和实验性研究,研究对象为在 IRF 或 SNF 康复的成年脑卒中患者,比较了其出院地点和/或分析了包含机构层面特征的结果,并报告了≥1 项主要结果(出院地点、功能状态、再入院、生活质量、全因死亡率)。未发表的、单中心的、描述性的和非美国的研究被排除在外。由 1 位作者对文章进行了审查,对于不确定的文章,通过与研究合著者的讨论达成了共识。共纳入了 14 篇标题(0.3%)。
提取数据类型、时间范围、规模、设计和主要结果。当研究报告了次要结果(IRF/SNF 停留时间、成本)时,我们也提取了这两个结果。提取效应量、建模方法、混杂调整方法和潜在混杂因素。由 1 位作者提取数据,另一位作者对其准确性进行了验证。
有 2 项研究评估了社区出院情况,1 项研究评估了再入院的预测概率,3 项研究评估了全因死亡率,结果均表明 IRF 优于 SNF。功能状态的比较结果不一致。没有研究评估生活质量。有 2 项研究证实了 IRF 比 SNF 花费更高。尽管描述了大量机构差异,但很少有研究描述了差异的来源。
比较脑卒中后结果的少数研究表明,IRF 中的患者比 SNF 中的患者有更好的结果(但成本更高)。应优先考虑关于急性期后护理机构及其属性在确定健康结果方面的作用的当代研究,为报销制度改革提供信息。