Does postacute care site matter? A longitudinal study assessing functional recovery after a stroke.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of postacute care site on stroke outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Four northern California hospitals that are part of a single health maintenance organization. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with stroke (N=222) enrolled between February 2008 and July 2010. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Baseline and 6-month assessments were performed using the Activity Measure for Post Acute Care (AM-PAC), a test of self-reported function in 3 domains: Basic Mobility, Daily Activities, and Applied Cognition. RESULTS: Of the 222 patients analyzed, 36% went home with no treatment, 22% received home health/outpatient care, 30% included an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) in their care trajectory, and 13% included a skilled nursing facility (but not IRF) in their care trajectory. At 6 months, after controlling for important variables such as age, functional status at acute care discharge, and total hours of rehabilitation, patients who went to an IRF had functional scores that were at least 8 points higher (twice the minimally detectable change for the AM-PAC) than those who went to a skilled nursing facility in all 3 domains and in 2 of 3 functional domains compared with those who received home health/outpatient care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with stroke may make more functional gains if their postacute care includes an IRF. This finding may have important implications as postacute care delivery is reshaped through health care reform.

Designing and implementing a system for tracking functional status after stroke: a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of tracking stroke patients' functional outcomes in an integrated health system across a care continuum using the computer version of the Activity Measure of Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC). SETTING: A large integrated health care system in northern California. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 222 stroke patients (aged ≥18 years) who were hospitalized after an acute cerebrovascular accident. METHODS: An AM-PAC assessment was made at discharge from sites of care, including acute hospital, inpatient rehabilitation hospital, skilled nursing facility, home during home care, and outpatient settings. Assessments also were completed in the patient's home at 6 months. Data from the AM-PAC program were integrated with the health care system's databases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: (1) AM-PAC administration time at the various sites of care; (2) assessment of a floor or a ceiling effect; and (3) administrative burden of tracking participants. RESULTS: AM-PAC assessment sessions averaged 7.9 minutes for data acquisition in 3 domains: Basic Mobility, Activities of Daily Living, and Applied Cognition. Participants answered, on average, 27 AM-PAC questions per session. A small ceiling effect was observed at 6 months, and there was a larger ceiling effect when the instrument was administered in an institution, ie, when the AM-PAC institutional item bank was used rather than the community item bank. It was feasible to track patients and to assess their function using the AM-PAC instrument from institutional to community settings. Implementation of the AM-PAC in clinical environments, and the success of the project, were influenced by instrumental, technological, operational, resource, and cultural factors. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility of implementing a single functional outcome instrument in clinical and community settings to measure rehabilitation functional outcomes of stroke patients. Integrating the AM-PAC measurement system into clinical workflows and the electronic medical record could provide assistance to clinicians for medical decision making, functional prognostication, and discharge planning.