↓ Skip to main content

Geographic Region and Profit Status Drive Variation in Hospital Readmission Outcomes Among Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities in the United States

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Geographic Region and Profit Status Drive Variation in Hospital Readmission Outcomes Among Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities in the United States
Published in
Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, December 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.11.011
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To examine whether there are differences in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs') all-cause, 30-day post-discharge hospital readmission rates by organizational characteristics and geographic regions. Observational study. We analyzed Medicare claims and administrative data sources for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged from all IRFs nationally (N=1,166) in 2013 and 2014. We applied specifications for an existing quality measure adopted by CMS for public reporting that assesses all-cause unplanned hospital readmissions for 30 days post-discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. We estimated facility-level observed and risk-standardized readmission rates and then examined variation by several organizational characteristics (facility type, profit status, teaching status, proportion of low-income patients, size) and geographic factors (rural/urban, census division, and state). The mean IRF risk-standardized hospital readmission rate was 13.00 percent (SD 0.77). After controlling for organizational characteristics and practice patterns, we found substantial variation in IRFs' readmission rates: for-profit IRFs had significantly higher readmission rates compared to not-for-profit IRFs (p<0.001). We also found geographic variation: IRFs in the South Atlantic and South Central census regions had the highest hospital readmission rates compared to IRFs in New England that had the lowest rates. Our findings point to variation in the quality of care, as measured by risk-standardized hospital readmission rates following IRF discharge. Thus, monitoring of readmission outcomes is important to encourage quality improvement in discharge care planning, care transitions and follow-up.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 11 39%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2018.
All research outputs
#22,326,550
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
#5,495
of 7,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#296,970
of 494,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
#49
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,771 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 494,131 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.