Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1996 May;44(5):545-54.
doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb01440.x.

Do rehabilitative nursing homes improve the outcomes of care?

R L Kane  1 , Q Chen, L A Blewett, J Sangl
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Do rehabilitative nursing homes improve the outcomes of care?

R L Kane et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996 May.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the differences in outcomes of Medicare patients discharged from hospital to two types of nursing homes, rehabilitative and regular, and to rehabilitative facilities.

Design: Criteria for distinguishing rehabilitative nursing homes (RNHs) from ordinary nursing homes (NH), based on staffing criteria, were developed by an expert panel and validated on a national sample of nursing homes. Those criteria that significantly discriminated the two types of NHs were then applied to a sample of nursing homes from a study of the outcomes of care for more than 2500 Medicare patients to classify the nursing homes in which patients were discharged. Actual discharge outcomes were compared with optimal outcomes based of predictive equations for different types of treatment (ordinary NH care, RNH care, and formal rehabilitative care).

Participants: Medicare patients with strokes an hip fractures discharged from 52 hospitals in three cities.

Measurements: A disability scale that weights components of ADL measures was used as the primary outcome indicator. Nursing homes were classified as rehabilitative on the basis of the extent of staffing in rehabilitative areas.

Results: Patients discharged to various types of care varied on several parameters. After adjusting for these differences, stroke patients fared better when treated in rehabilitative facilities; there was no substantial benefit for RNH care over NH care. Healthier hip fracture patients who received RNH care fared better, but functional change for sicker hip fracture patients was not different among the three groups.

Conclusions: The study suggests that at least a preliminary distinction among NHs can be made on the basis of staffing patterns and that the benefits of the additional staffing may vary with the problem under consideration. More work is needed to establish just what sorts of patients are most likely to benefit from the higher level of NH care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Post-hospital subacute care.
    von Sternberg T. von Sternberg T. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997 Mar;45(3):384-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1997.tb00962.x. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997. PMID: 9063292 No abstract available.
  • In re HMO versus fee-for-service systems.
    Frank JM, Libow LS, Lesser GT. Frank JM, et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001 Mar;49(3):334-5. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49303341.x. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001. PMID: 11300247 No abstract available.

Publication types