Denne side blev automatisk oversat, og nøjagtigheden af ​​oversættelsen er ikke garanteret. Der henvises til engelsk version for en kildetekst.

JOINTS Study - Joint Replacement Outcome in Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities and Nursing Treatment Sites (JOINTS)

9. juli 2007 opdateret af: MedStar National Rehabilitation Network

Joint Replacement Outcome in Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities and Nursing Treatment Sites

  1. What are the characteristics of joint replacement patients (DRGs 209 & 210) served in IRFs and SNFs? How are they similar or different?
  2. How are the interventions and processes of care for joint replacement patients different in IRFs and SNFs?
  3. What specific interventions or combinations of interventions in IRFs and SNFs make the biggest difference in outcomes for joint replacement patients taking into account patient differences?
  4. Which joint replacement patients do better in an IRF and which do better in a SNF?
  5. What is the relative cost-effectiveness of IRF and SNF care for joint replacement patients?
  6. Are comorbidities among joint replacement patients an adequate indicator of additional medical need during the rehabilitation process? Can a severity-of-illness measure serve as a better indicator of medical need? Are patients with greater medical needs served better in an IRF or a SNF?
  7. Can we design a more efficient course of rehabilitation interventions for joint replacement patients in IRFs and SNFs to reduce the length of stay and costs?

Studieoversigt

Status

Afsluttet

Betingelser

Intervention / Behandling

Detaljeret beskrivelse

  1. What are the characteristics of joint replacement patients (DRGs 209 & 210) served in IRFs and SNFs? How are they similar or different?

    We need to know if there are systematic differences among joint replacement patients served in both settings and take these into account when evaluating outcomes and cost effectiveness as outlined below. See also Question 6.

  2. How are the interventions and processes of care for joint replacement patients different in IRFs and SNFs?

    How can we best characterize the differences in the care received in an IRF vs. a SNF? What makes the care in an IRF and a SNF different? What do they do similarly and what do they do differently? Consider all interventions, e.g., nursing services, physician interventions, physical and occupational therapies, nutritional support, medications, passive motion exercises, weight-bearing exercises. Also consider timing, intensity, frequency, and duration of therapies.

  3. What specific interventions or combinations of interventions in IRFs and SNFs make the biggest difference in outcomes for joint replacement patients taking into account patient differences?

    The relevant outcomes for this study include: (1) the onset of complications during the course of treatment, (2) change in severity of illness from admission to discharge, (3) discharge destination (including unscheduled discharges to acute care), and (4) change in functional status from admission to discharge. We will consider (5) rehospitalizations or readmissions in the first 3-6 months following discharge from post-acute care.

  4. Which joint replacement patients do better in an IRF and which do better in a SNF?

    How can we best characterize the differences between patients who do better in one setting or the other? How can these characterizations assist in developing post-acute placement criteria and in characterizing the patient mix that should be used in defining an IRF pursuant to the 75% rule?

  5. What is the relative cost-effectiveness of IRF and SNF care for joint replacement patients?

    For which patients is it more cost-effective to be placed in an IRF and which patients in a SNF taking into account outcomes both at discharge and rehospitalizations during the first 3-6 months following discharge?

  6. Are comorbidities among joint replacement patients an adequate indicator of additional medical need during the rehabilitation process? Can a severity-of-illness measure serve as a better indicator of medical need? Are patients with greater medical needs served better in an IRF or a SNF?

    Do comorbidities or a severity of illness indicator have better predictive validity in terms of service utilization, costs, and outcomes?

  7. Can we design a more efficient course of rehabilitation interventions for joint replacement patients in IRFs and SNFs to reduce the length of stay and costs?

Undersøgelsestype

Observationel

Tilmelding (Faktiske)

2384

Kontakter og lokationer

Dette afsnit indeholder kontaktoplysninger for dem, der udfører undersøgelsen, og oplysninger om, hvor denne undersøgelse udføres.

Studiesteder

    • District of Columbia
      • Washington, District of Columbia, Forenede Stater, 20010
        • National Rehabilitation Hospital

Deltagelseskriterier

Forskere leder efter personer, der passer til en bestemt beskrivelse, kaldet berettigelseskriterier. Nogle eksempler på disse kriterier er en persons generelle helbredstilstand eller tidligere behandlinger.

Berettigelseskriterier

Aldre berettiget til at studere

21 år og ældre (Voksen, Ældre voksen)

Tager imod sunde frivillige

Ingen

Køn, der er berettiget til at studere

Alle

Beskrivelse

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Are 21 years of age or older,
  • Received a hip or knee replacement of any type for any reason, and
  • Admitted from any source.

To be included in the study's database, the above enrollment criteria need to be met. In addition, patients also must:

  • Have a minimum rehabilitation length of stay (LOS) of 3 days, and
  • Have complete admission and discharge FIM data.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Joint replacements such as shoulder and ankle replacements since the rehabilitation for these patients is quite different. For most study patients, the joint replacement will be their first, but with the aging of the population, revisions are becoming more common. According to the MedPAC-RAND report, 4.8% of IRF and 6.3% of SNF joint replacement patients had a revision.

Studieplan

Dette afsnit indeholder detaljer om studieplanen, herunder hvordan undersøgelsen er designet, og hvad undersøgelsen måler.

Hvordan er undersøgelsen tilrettelagt?

Design detaljer

Samarbejdspartnere og efterforskere

Det er her, du vil finde personer og organisationer, der er involveret i denne undersøgelse.

Sponsor

Samarbejdspartnere

Efterforskere

  • Ledende efterforsker: Gerben DeJong, PhD, NRH
  • Ledende efterforsker: Susan Horn, PhD, ISIS/ICOR

Publikationer og nyttige links

Den person, der er ansvarlig for at indtaste oplysninger om undersøgelsen, leverer frivilligt disse publikationer. Disse kan handle om alt relateret til undersøgelsen.

Hjælpsomme links

Datoer for undersøgelser

Disse datoer sporer fremskridtene for indsendelser af undersøgelsesrekord og resumeresultater til ClinicalTrials.gov. Studieregistreringer og rapporterede resultater gennemgås af National Library of Medicine (NLM) for at sikre, at de opfylder specifikke kvalitetskontrolstandarder, før de offentliggøres på den offentlige hjemmeside.

Studer store datoer

Studiestart

1. november 2005

Studieafslutning (Faktiske)

1. februar 2007

Datoer for studieregistrering

Først indsendt

9. juli 2007

Først indsendt, der opfyldte QC-kriterier

9. juli 2007

Først opslået (Skøn)

11. juli 2007

Opdateringer af undersøgelsesjournaler

Sidste opdatering sendt (Skøn)

11. juli 2007

Sidste opdatering indsendt, der opfyldte kvalitetskontrolkriterier

9. juli 2007

Sidst verificeret

1. juli 2007

Mere information

Begreber relateret til denne undersøgelse

Andre undersøgelses-id-numre

  • 2005-271

Disse oplysninger blev hentet direkte fra webstedet clinicaltrials.gov uden ændringer. Hvis du har nogen anmodninger om at ændre, fjerne eller opdatere dine undersøgelsesoplysninger, bedes du kontakte register@clinicaltrials.gov. Så snart en ændring er implementeret på clinicaltrials.gov, vil denne også blive opdateret automatisk på vores hjemmeside .