Hospital effects drive variation in access to inpatient rehabilitation after trauma

Health Care Practitioner Bias and Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Services Among Survivors of Violence

Importance

Posthospital inpatient rehabilitation is essential for many patients with traumatic injuries. However, rehabilitation centers lack transparency and oversight in their admission practices and may be influenced by health care practitioner (HCP) use of stigmatizing language in patient medical records, leading to inequities in access to care.

Objectives

To examine differences in admission to inpatient rehabilitation centers for patients hospitalized for violent penetrating (VP) injuries compared with motor vehicle crash (MVC) injuries.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This mixed-methods retrospective qualitative study used data obtained from hospital records from 2015 to 2021. Data analysis occurred between July and December 2023. The study was performed at Boston Medical Center, an urban level I trauma center. The cohort included all patients hospitalized for VP or MVC injuries who were discharged to an inpatient rehabilitation center between 2015 and 2021.

Exposures

Injury type, categorized as VP or MVC.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary quantitative outcome was a denial for admission to an inpatient rehabilitation center. Qualitative content analysis identified similarities and differences across injury types in the manifestations of predetermined stigmatizing language categories in patients' medical records.

Results

Of 323 patients discharged to an inpatient rehabilitation center (median [IQR] age, 38 [25-59] years; 208 men [64.4%]; 29 Hispanic patients [9.0%], 118 non-Hispanic Black patients [36.5%], and 152 non-Hispanic White patients [47.1%]), 107 patients (33.1%) experienced at least 1 denial by a center before being placed (32 of 55 patients with VP injuries [58.2%] vs 75 of 268 patients with MVC injuries [28.0%]). Compared with patients with MVC injuries, patients with VP injuries had greater than 3 times the odds of experiencing a denial (odds ratio, 3.51; 95% CI, 1.93-6.48; P < .001). Medical records of patients with VP injuries had increased use of stigmatizing language that indicated culturally based or injury-related stereotyping, skepticism toward patient-reported symptoms, and heightened HCP-power dynamics contributing to unilateral decision-making.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this mixed-methods qualitative study of hospital patients discharged to rehabilitation centers, significant disparities in denials for admission were observed among survivors of violence, who were disproportionally Black or Hispanic. Stigmatizing language found in medical records suggested that bias within the referral process may have contributed to these disparities. These findings underscore the need for reformed clinical documentation practices and enhanced oversight of rehabilitation referral processes to promote equitable access to care.

Geriatric trauma, frailty, and ACS trauma center verification level: Are there any correlations with outcomes?

INTRODUCTION

It remains unclear whether geriatrics benefit from care at higher-level trauma centers (TCs). We aimed to assess the impact of the TC verification level on frail geriatric trauma patients' outcomes. We hypothesized that frail patients cared for at higher-level TCs would have improved outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients ≥65 years were identified from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database (2017-2019). Patients transferred, discharged from emergency department (ED), and those with head abbreviated injury scale >3 were excluded. 11-factor modified frailty index was utilized. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed. Outcomes included discharge to skilled nursing facility or rehab (SNF/rehab), withdrawal of life-supporting treatment (WLST), mortality, complications, failure-to-rescue, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, hospital length of stay (LOS), and ventilator days.

RESULTS

110,680 patients were matched (Frail:55,340, Non-Frail:55,340). Mean age was 79 (7), 90% presented following falls, and median ISS was 5 [2-9]. Level-I/II TCs had lower rates of discharge to SNF/rehab (52.6% vs. 55.8% vs. 60.9%; p < 0.001), failure-to-rescue (0.5% vs. 0.4% vs. 0.6%;p = 0.005), and higher rates of WLST (2.4% vs. 2.1% vs. 0.3%; p < 0.001) compared to level-III regardless of injury severity and frailty. Compared to Level-III centers, Level-I/II centers had higher complications among moderate-to-severely injured patients (4.1% vs. 3.3% vs. 2.7%; p < 0.001), and lower mortality only among frail patients regardless of injury severity (1.8% vs. 1.5% vs. 2.6%; p < 0.001). Patients at Level-I TCs were more likely to be admitted to ICU, and had longer hospital LOS and ventilator days compared to Level-II and III TCs (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Frailty may play an important role when triaging geriatric trauma patients. In fact, the benefit of care at higher-level TCs is particularly evident for patients who are frail. Level III centers may be underperforming in providing access to palliative and end-of-life care.

Sources of Postacute Care Episode Payment Variation After Traumatic Hip Fracture Repair Among Medicare Beneficiaries: Cross-Sectional Retrospective Study

The objective of this study was to evaluate how much variation in postacute care (PAC) spending after traumatic hip fracture exists between hospitals, and to what degree this variation is explained by patient factors, hospital factors, PAC setting, and PAC intensity.

Background

Traumatic hip fracture is a common and costly event. This is particularly relevant given our aging population and that a substantial proportion of these patients are discharged to PAC settings.

Methods

It is a cross-sectional retrospective study. In a retrospective review using Medicare claims data between 2014 and 2019, we identified PAC payments within 90 days of hospitalization discharges and grouped hospitals into quintiles of PAC spending. The degree of variation present in PAC spending across hospital quintiles was evaluated after accounting for patient case-mix factors and hospital characteristics using multivariable regression models, adjusting for PAC setting choice by fixing the proportion of PAC discharge disposition across hospital quintiles, and adjusting for PAC intensity by fixing the amount of PAC spending across hospital quintiles. The study pool included 125,745 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent operative management for traumatic hip fracture in 2078 hospitals. The primary outcome was PAC spending within 90 days of discharge following hospitalization for traumatic hip fracture.

Results

Mean PAC spending varied widely between top versus bottom spending hospital quintiles ($31,831 vs $17,681). After price standardization, the difference between top versus bottom spending hospital quintiles was $8,964. Variation between hospitals decreased substantially after adjustment for PAC setting ($25,392 vs $21,274) or for PAC intensity ($25,082 vs $21,292) with little variation explained by patient or hospital factors.

Conclusions

There was significant variation in PAC payments after a traumatic hip fracture between the highest- and lowest-spending hospital quintiles. Most of this variation was explained by choice of PAC discharge setting and intensity of PAC spending, not patient or hospital characteristics. These findings suggest potential systems-level inefficiencies that can be targeted for intervention to improve the appropriateness and value of healthcare spending.