RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
The change in self-care score quality measure for inpatient rehabilitation facilities
Exclusion criteria and the risk-adjustment model
Deutsch, A. F., McMullen, T., Vaughan, M., Palmer, L. A. M., Kwon, M. S., & Ingber, M. J. (2022). The change in self-care score quality measure for inpatient rehabilitation facilities: Exclusion criteria and the risk-adjustment model. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 103(6), 1085-1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2022.02.009
OBJECTIVE: To describe the exclusion criteria and risk-adjustment model developed for the quality measure Change in Self-Care. The exclusion criteria and risk adjustment model are used to calculate Change in Self-Care scores, allowing scores to be compared across inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs).
DESIGN: This national cohort study examined admission demographic and clinical factors associated with IRF patients' self-care change scores using standardized self-care data for Medicare patients discharged in calendar year 2017.
SETTING: A total of 1129 IRFs in the United States.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 493,209 (N=493,209) Medicare Fee-for-Service and Medicare Advantage IRF patient stays INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-care change scores using admission and discharge standardized assessment data elements from the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility-Patient Assessment Instrument.
RESULTS: Approximately 53% of patients were female, and 67% were between 65 and 84 years old. The final risk-adjustment model contained 93 clinically relevant risk adjusters and explained 23.1% of variance in self-care change scores. Risk adjusters that had the greatest effect on change scores and included IRF primary diagnosis group (ie, binary risk adjusters representing 13 diagnoses), prior self-care functioning, and age older than 90 years. When split by deciles of expected scores, the ratio of the average expected and observed change scores was within 2% of 1.0 across 8 groups and within 8% at the extremes, showing good predictive accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk adjustment model quantifies the relationship between IRF patients' demographic and clinical characteristics and their self-care score changes. The exclusion criteria and model are used to risk-adjust the IRF Change in Self-Care quality measure.