Cette page a été traduite automatiquement et l'exactitude de la traduction n'est pas garantie. Veuillez vous référer au version anglaise pour un texte source.

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

9 juillet 2007 mis à jour par: 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?

Aperçu de l'étude

Statut

Complété

Les conditions

Description détaillée

  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?

Type d'étude

Observationnel

Inscription (Réel)

2384

Contacts et emplacements

Cette section fournit les coordonnées de ceux qui mènent l'étude et des informations sur le lieu où cette étude est menée.

Lieux d'étude

    • District of Columbia
      • Washington, District of Columbia, États-Unis, 20010
        • National Rehabilitation Hospital

Critères de participation

Les chercheurs recherchent des personnes qui correspondent à une certaine description, appelée critères d'éligibilité. Certains exemples de ces critères sont l'état de santé général d'une personne ou des traitements antérieurs.

Critère d'éligibilité

Âges éligibles pour étudier

21 ans et plus (Adulte, Adulte plus âgé)

Accepte les volontaires sains

Non

Sexes éligibles pour l'étude

Tout

La description

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.

Plan d'étude

Cette section fournit des détails sur le plan d'étude, y compris la façon dont l'étude est conçue et ce que l'étude mesure.

Comment l'étude est-elle conçue ?

Détails de conception

Collaborateurs et enquêteurs

C'est ici que vous trouverez les personnes et les organisations impliquées dans cette étude.

Collaborateurs

Les enquêteurs

  • Chercheur principal: Gerben DeJong, PhD, NRH
  • Chercheur principal: Susan Horn, PhD, ISIS/ICOR

Publications et liens utiles

La personne responsable de la saisie des informations sur l'étude fournit volontairement ces publications. Il peut s'agir de tout ce qui concerne l'étude.

Liens utiles

Dates d'enregistrement des études

Ces dates suivent la progression des dossiers d'étude et des soumissions de résultats sommaires à ClinicalTrials.gov. Les dossiers d'étude et les résultats rapportés sont examinés par la Bibliothèque nationale de médecine (NLM) pour s'assurer qu'ils répondent à des normes de contrôle de qualité spécifiques avant d'être publiés sur le site Web public.

Dates principales de l'étude

Début de l'étude

1 novembre 2005

Achèvement de l'étude (Réel)

1 février 2007

Dates d'inscription aux études

Première soumission

9 juillet 2007

Première soumission répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité

9 juillet 2007

Première publication (Estimation)

11 juillet 2007

Mises à jour des dossiers d'étude

Dernière mise à jour publiée (Estimation)

11 juillet 2007

Dernière mise à jour soumise répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité

9 juillet 2007

Dernière vérification

1 juillet 2007

Plus d'information

Termes liés à cette étude

Autres numéros d'identification d'étude

  • 2005-271

Ces informations ont été extraites directement du site Web clinicaltrials.gov sans aucune modification. Si vous avez des demandes de modification, de suppression ou de mise à jour des détails de votre étude, veuillez contacter register@clinicaltrials.gov. Dès qu'un changement est mis en œuvre sur clinicaltrials.gov, il sera également mis à jour automatiquement sur notre site Web .

S'abonner