Dataset Information

Are weekend inpatient rehabilitation services value for money? An economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial with a 30 day follow up.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Providing additional Saturday rehabilitation can improve functional independence and health related quality of life at discharge and it may reduce patient length of stay, yet the economic implications are not known. The aim of this study was to determine from a health service perspective if the provision of rehabilitation to inpatients on a Saturday in addition to Monday to Friday was cost effective compared to Monday to Friday rehabilitation alone.

Methods

Cost utility and cost effectiveness analyses were undertaken alongside a multi-center, single-blind randomized controlled trial with a 30-day follow up after discharge. Participants were adults admitted for inpatient rehabilitation in two publicly funded metropolitan rehabilitation facilities. The control group received usual care rehabilitation services from Monday to Friday and the intervention group received usual care plus an additional rehabilitation service on Saturday. Incremental cost utility ratio was reported as cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained and an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported as cost for a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in functional independence.

Results

996 patients (mean age 74 (standard deviation 13) years) were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 496) or the control group (n = 500). Mean difference in cost of AUD$1,673 (95% confidence interval (CI) -271 to 3,618) was a saving in favor of the intervention group. The incremental cost utility ratio found a saving of AUD$41,825 (95% CI -2,817 to 74,620) per QALY gained for the intervention group. The ICER found a saving of AUD$16,003 (95% CI -3,074 to 87,361) in achieving a MCID in functional independence for the intervention group. If the willingness to pay per QALY gained or for a MCID in functional independence was zero dollars the probability of the intervention being cost effective was 96% and 95%, respectively. A sensitivity analysis removing Saturday penalty rates did not significantly alter the outcome.

Conclusions

From a health service perspective, the provision of rehabilitation to inpatients on a Saturday in addition to Monday to Friday, compared to Monday to Friday rehabilitation alone, is likely to be cost saving per QALY gained and for a MCID in functional independence.

Trial registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry November 2009 ACTRN12609000973213.

SUBMITTER: Brusco NK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4053313 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Are weekend inpatient rehabilitation services value for money? An economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial with a 30 day follow up.

Brusco Natasha Kareem NK Watts Jennifer J JJ Shields Nora N Taylor Nicholas F NF

BMC medicine 20140529

<h4>Background</h4>Providing additional Saturday rehabilitation can improve functional independence and health related quality of life at discharge and it may reduce patient length of stay, yet the economic implications are not known. The aim of this study was to determine from a health service perspective if the provision of rehabilitation to inpatients on a Saturday in addition to Monday to Friday was cost effective compared to Monday to Friday rehabilitation alone.<h4>Methods</h4>Cost utility ...[more]

PMID: 24885811

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesReadmission to acute care from the inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) setting is potentially preventable and an important target of quality improvement and cost savings. The objective of this study was to develop a risk calculator to predict 30-day all-cause readmissions from the IRF setting.DesignRetrospective database analysis using the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation (UDSMR) from 2015 through 2019.Setting and participantsIn total, 956 US inpatient rehabilitation facilities and 1,849,768 IRF discharges comprising patients from 14 impairment groups.MethodsLogistic regression models were developed to calculate risk-standardized 30-day all-cause hospital readmission rates for patients admitted to an IRF. Models for each impairment group were assessed using 12 common clinical and demographic variables and all but 4 models included various special variables. Models were assessed for discrimination (c-statistics), calibration (calibration plots), and internal validation (bootstrapping). A readmission risk scoring system was created for each impairment group population and was graphically validated.ResultsThe mean age of the cohort was 68.7 (15.2) years, 50.7% were women, and 78.3% were Caucasian. Medicare was the primary payer for 73.1% of the study population. The final models for each impairment group included between 4 and 13 total predictor variables. Model c-statistics ranged from 0.65 to 0.70. There was good calibration represented for most models up to a readmission risk of 30%. Internal validation of the models using bootstrap samples revealed little bias. Point systems for determining risk of 30-day readmission were developed for each impairment group.Conclusions and implicationsMultivariable risk factor algorithms based upon administrative data were developed to assess 30-day readmission risk for patients admitted from IRF. This report represents the development of a readmission risk calculator for the IRF setting, which could be instrumental in identifying high risk populations for readmission and targeting resources towards a diverse group of IRF impairment groups.

Project description:BackgroundDischarge location is associated with short-term readmission rates after hospitalization for several medical and surgical diagnoses. We hypothesized that discharge location: home, home health, skilled nursing facility (SNF), long-term acute care (LTAC), or inpatient rehabilitation, independently predicted the risk of 30-day readmission and severity of first readmission after orthotopic liver transplantation.Study designWe performed a retrospective cohort review using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Databases for Florida and California. Patients who underwent orthotopic liver transplantation from 2009 to 2011 were included and followed for 1 year. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to model the effect of discharge location on 30-day readmission controlling for demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors. Total cost of first readmission was used as a surrogate measure for readmission severity and resource use.ResultsA total of 3,072 patients met our inclusion criteria. The overall 30-day readmission rate was 29.6%. Discharge to inpatient rehabilitation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.43, p = 0.013) or LTAC/SNF (aOR 0.63, p = 0.014) were associated with decreased odds of 30-day readmission when compared with home. The severity of 30-day readmissions for patients discharged to inpatient rehabilitation were the same as those discharged home or home with home health. Severity was increased for those discharged to LTAC/SNF. The time to first readmission was longest for patients discharged to inpatient rehabilitation (17 days vs 8 days, p < 0.001).ConclusionsWhen compared with other locations of discharge, inpatient rehabilitation reduces the risk of 30-day readmission and increases the time to first readmission. These benefits come without increasing the severity of readmission. Increased use of inpatient rehabilitation after orthotopic liver transplantation is a strategy to improve 30-day readmission rates.

Project description:BackgroundPost-hospital discharge follow-up appointments are intended to evaluate patients' recovery following a hospitalization, but it is unclear how appointment statuses are associated with readmissions.ObjectiveTo examine the association between post-discharge ambulatory follow-up status, (1) having a scheduled appointment and (2) arriving to said appointment, and 30-day readmission.Design and settingA retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized at 12 hospitals in an Integrated Delivery Network and their ambulatory appointments in that same network.Patients and main measuresWe included 50,772 patients who had an ambulatory appointment within 18 months of an inpatient admission in 2018. Primary outcome was readmission within 30 days post-discharge.Key resultsThere were 32,108 (63.2%) patients with scheduled follow-up appointments and 18,664 (36.8%) patients with no follow-up; 28,313 (88.2%) patients arrived, 3149 (9.8%) missed, and 646 (2.0%) were readmitted prior to their scheduled appointments. Overall 30-day readmission rate was 7.3%; 6.0% [5.75-6.31] for those who arrived, 8.8% [8.44-9.25] for those without follow-up, and 10.3% [9.28-11.40] for those who missed a scheduled appointment (p < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, patients who arrived at their appointment in the first week following discharge were significantly less likely to be readmitted than those not having any follow-up scheduled (medical adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.57 [0.47-0.69], p < 0.001; surgical aHR 0.58 [0.44-0.75], p < 0.001) There was an increased risk at weeks 3 and 4 for medical patients who arrived at a follow-up compared to those with no follow-up scheduled (week 3 aHR 1.29 [1.10-1.51], p = 0.001; week 4 aHR 1.46 [1.26-1.70], p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe benefit of patients arriving to their post-discharge appointments compared with patients who missed their follow-up visits or had no follow-up scheduled, is only significant during first week post-discharge, suggesting that coordination within 1 week of discharge is critical in reducing 30-day readmissions.

Dataset Information

Are weekend inpatient rehabilitation services value for money? An economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial with a 30 day follow up.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Are weekend inpatient rehabilitation services value for money? An economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial with a 30 day follow up.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets