Questa pagina è stata tradotta automaticamente e l'accuratezza della traduzione non è garantita. Si prega di fare riferimento al Versione inglese per un testo di partenza.

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

9 luglio 2007 aggiornato da: 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?

Panoramica dello studio

Stato

Completato

Condizioni

Descrizione dettagliata

  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?

Tipo di studio

Osservativo

Iscrizione (Effettivo)

2384

Contatti e Sedi

Questa sezione fornisce i recapiti di coloro che conducono lo studio e informazioni su dove viene condotto lo studio.

Luoghi di studio

    • District of Columbia
      • Washington, District of Columbia, Stati Uniti, 20010
        • National Rehabilitation Hospital

Criteri di partecipazione

I ricercatori cercano persone che corrispondano a una certa descrizione, chiamata criteri di ammissibilità. Alcuni esempi di questi criteri sono le condizioni generali di salute di una persona o trattamenti precedenti.

Criteri di ammissibilità

Età idonea allo studio

21 anni e precedenti (Adulto, Adulto più anziano)

Accetta volontari sani

No

Sessi ammissibili allo studio

Tutto

Descrizione

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.

Piano di studio

Questa sezione fornisce i dettagli del piano di studio, compreso il modo in cui lo studio è progettato e ciò che lo studio sta misurando.

Come è strutturato lo studio?

Dettagli di progettazione

Collaboratori e investigatori

Qui è dove troverai le persone e le organizzazioni coinvolte in questo studio.

Collaboratori

Investigatori

  • Investigatore principale: Gerben DeJong, PhD, NRH
  • Investigatore principale: Susan Horn, PhD, ISIS/ICOR

Pubblicazioni e link utili

La persona responsabile dell'inserimento delle informazioni sullo studio fornisce volontariamente queste pubblicazioni. Questi possono riguardare qualsiasi cosa relativa allo studio.

Collegamenti utili

Studiare le date dei record

Queste date tengono traccia dell'avanzamento della registrazione dello studio e dell'invio dei risultati di sintesi a ClinicalTrials.gov. I record degli studi e i risultati riportati vengono esaminati dalla National Library of Medicine (NLM) per assicurarsi che soddisfino specifici standard di controllo della qualità prima di essere pubblicati sul sito Web pubblico.

Studia le date principali

Inizio studio

1 novembre 2005

Completamento dello studio (Effettivo)

1 febbraio 2007

Date di iscrizione allo studio

Primo inviato

9 luglio 2007

Primo inviato che soddisfa i criteri di controllo qualità

9 luglio 2007

Primo Inserito (Stima)

11 luglio 2007

Aggiornamenti dei record di studio

Ultimo aggiornamento pubblicato (Stima)

11 luglio 2007

Ultimo aggiornamento inviato che soddisfa i criteri QC

9 luglio 2007

Ultimo verificato

1 luglio 2007

Maggiori informazioni

Termini relativi a questo studio

Altri numeri di identificazione dello studio

  • 2005-271

Queste informazioni sono state recuperate direttamente dal sito web clinicaltrials.gov senza alcuna modifica. In caso di richieste di modifica, rimozione o aggiornamento dei dettagli dello studio, contattare register@clinicaltrials.gov. Non appena verrà implementata una modifica su clinicaltrials.gov, questa verrà aggiornata automaticamente anche sul nostro sito web .

Sottoscrivi