Joshua K. Johnson

Importance: Identifying patients most likely to benefit from physical therapy in the hospital could aid physical therapists in optimizing treatment allocation for the purpose of increasing discharge to home. Objective: The aims of this study were to develop and externally validate a predictive model for discharge to home on the basis of physical therapy frequency for patients who were hospitalized. Design: A predictive model was developed using retrospective cohort data collected between April 2017 and August 2022, with external validation conducted in a separate sample. Setting: The setting was a large health system. Participants: Participants were adult patients who were hospitalized and received physical therapy. Main Outcome and Measures: Predictors were extracted from the electronic health record and included demographics, clinical characteristics, and therapist-entered variables such as home set-up and prehospital level of function. Physical therapy frequency was quantified as once daily, defined as ≥5 times per week. The outcome was discharge to home. Variables were included in the final multivariable logistic regression model on the basis of associations with physical therapy frequency and/or outcome and clinical relevance. Calibration and discrimination of the models were assessed. Results: The development sample included 205,659 adult patient (average age = 72.2 [SD = 14.3] years; 55.3% female) hospitalizations, with 52.5% of patients receiving physical therapy daily and an overall proportion of 67.1% being discharged to home. The final multivariable model included 8 variables, with good calibration and discrimination. Internal validity was established with an optimism-corrected concordance statistic of 0.874 (95% CI = 0.872–0.875). The external sample included 102,311 patient (average age = 67.7 [SD = 16.5] years; 50.9% female) admissions, with 64.5% of patients receiving physical therapy daily and 77.8% being discharged to home. Predictive performance was high (calibration slope = 0.908), and discrimination was good (concordance statistic = 0.851). Conclusions and Relevance: This study developed and externally validated the underlying prediction model for a clinical decision support tool, termed Physical Therapy Frequency Clinical Decision Support Tool (PT-PENCIL), to identify patients most likely to benefit from daily physical therapy to discharge to home. Future work will evaluate the implementation of PT-PENCIL to determine its effect on patient-centered outcomes.

Health care value, quantified as outcome per unit cost, requires knowing which outcomes are influenced by which intervention at what cost. The value of rehabilitation is still largely unknown. Much of the reason for this limited evidence is historically poor standardization and collection of rehabilitation interventions, and objectively measured outcomes across care settings, care providers, and health care systems. The purposeful standardization and aggregation of rehabilitation-relevant data about interventions, cost, and outcomes from routine clinical practices offers potential to understand and improve the value of rehabilitation. This perspective details the critical need for rehabilitation-relevant data that are aggregated across settings, providers, and systems and proposes 3 options to meet this need, including (1) integrating rehabilitation-relevant data into existing research registry databases that are condition specific, (2) adding rehabilitation-relevant data to federally funded research networks, and (3) creating a novel rehabilitation registry database. There must be continued pursuit of discovering which rehabilitation interventions achieve which specific outcomes, in which settings, for which patients, and at what costs. Successfully aggregating rehabilitation-relevant data is critical for generating evidence that answers these key questions about the value of rehabilitation.

Objectives: Patients are often discharged to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) for postacute rehabilitation. Functional outcomes achieved in SNFs are variable, and costs are high. Especially for accountable care organizations (ACOs), home-based postacute rehabilitation offers a high-value option if outcomes are not compromised. The objective was to compare outcomes for episodes in a novel high-intensity home-based rehabilitation (HIHR) model vs an SNF. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: Medicare patients from a large integrated multihospital health system who had low to moderate medical complexity and mild to moderate mobility deficits at hospital discharge were included. The primary exposure was discharge to HIHR (intervention) or an SNF (control) after hospitalization. The primary outcome was Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) mobility score. Secondary outcomes were Medicare costs within 30 and 90 days post hospitalization, 30-day readmission rate, and index hospital length of stay (LOS). Inverse probability of treatment-weighted regression was used for comparison between cohorts. Results: There were 171 patients discharged to HIHR and 841 to SNFs. The adjusted AM-PAC mobility T-score was 8.2 (95% CI, 6.3-10.1) points higher after HIHR vs SNF. Adjusted Medicare costs were lower for the HIHR cohort (within 90 days, –$17,123; 95% CI, –$20,757 to –$13,490). Hospital LOS and odds for readmission did not differ between cohorts. Conclusions: The HIHR cohort demonstrated better functional outcomes and lower posthospital costs. HIHR may be a high-value option for patients attributed to a Medicare ACO who have moderate medical complexity and moderate functional deficits at the time of hospital discharge.

Background: Individuals with Parkinson disease (PD) can improve their overall mobility and participation in daily activities as they engage in frequent exercise. Despite the need for individually tailored exercises, persons with PD often face barriers to accessing physical rehabilitation professionals who can provide them. Telerehabilitation (TR) may facilitate access to necessary and individually tailored rehabilitation for individuals with PD. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of TR for individuals with PD and explore clinical outcomes compared to in-person care. Methods: This was a pilot randomized controlled trial conducted at 2 outpatient neurorehabilitation clinics with 3 study groups: clinic+TR, TR-only, and usual care (UC). TR was administered using a web-based application with a mobile app option. One-hour interventions were performed weekly for 4 weeks, in-person for the clinic+TR and UC groups and virtually for the TR-only group. Home exercises were provided on paper for the UC group and via the web-based platform for the clinic+TR and TR-only groups. Feasibility was assessed by recruitment and retention success and patient and therapist satisfaction, as rated in surveys. Clinical outcomes were explored using performance and patient-reported measures in between- and within-group analyses. Results: Of 389 patients screened, 68 (17.5%) met eligibility criteria, and 20 (29.4% of those eligible) were enrolled (clinic+TR, n=6; TR-only, n=6; and UC, n=8). One patient (TR-only) was withdrawn due to a non–study-related injurious fall. Regardless of group allocation, both patients and therapists generally rated the mode of care delivery as “good” or “very good” across all constructs assessed, including overall satisfaction and safety. In the analysis of all groups, there were no differences in clinical outcomes at the discharge visit. Within-group differences (from baseline to discharge) were also generally not significant except in the UC group (faster 5-time sit-to-stand time and higher mini balance evaluation systems test balance score) and clinic+TR group (higher mini balance evaluation systems test balance score). Conclusions: High satisfaction amongst patients and clinicians regardless of group, combined with nonsignificant between-group differences in clinical outcomes, suggest that TR is feasible for individuals with PD in early-moderate stages. Future trials with a larger sample are necessary to test clinical effectiveness. As larger trials enroll patients with diverse characteristics (eg, in terms of age, disease progression, caregiver support, technology access and capacity, etc), they could begin to identify opportunities for matching patients to the optimal utilization of TR as part of the therapy episode. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06246747; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06246747

Background: The iPRISM webtool is an interactive tool designed to aid the process of applying the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) for the assessment of and fit with context. A learning community (LC) is a multidisciplinary group of partners addressing a complex problem. Our LC coproduced the Physical TheraPy frEqueNcy Clinical decIsion support tooL (PT‐PENCIL) to guide the use of physical therapist services in acute care hospitals. Objective: To describe our LC's activities to co‐produce the PT‐PENCIL, use of the iPRISM webtool to assess its preimplementation context and fit, and develop a multicomponent implementation strategy for the PT‐PENCIL. Design: A descriptive research design. Setting: Three tertiary care hospitals. Participants: Thirteen LC partners: six clinical physical therapists, three rehabilitation managers, three researchers, and a bioinformaticist. Interventions: Not applicable. Outcome Measures: Using the iPRISM webtool, expected fit of the PT‐PENCIL was rated 1 (not aligned) to 6 (well aligned) for each PRISM domain and expected reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance were rated 1 (not likely at all) to 6 (very likely). Discrete implementation strategies were identified from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change. Results: The process spanned 18 meetings over 8 months. Ten LC partners completed the iPRISM webtool. PRISM domains with the lowest expected alignment were the “implementation and sustainability infrastructure” (mean = 4.7 out of 6; range = 3–6) and the “external environment” (mean = 4.9 of 6; range = 4–6). Adoption was the outcome with the lowest expected likelihood (mean = 4.5 out of 6; range = 1–6). Six discrete implementation strategies were identified and combined into a multicomponent strategy. Conclusions: Within a LC, we used existing implementation science resources to co‐produce a novel clinical decision support tool for acute care physical therapists and develop a strategy for its implementation. Our methodology can be replicated for similar projects given the public availability of each resource used.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is continually working to mitigate unnecessary expenditures, particularly in post-acute care (PAC). Medicare reimburses for orthopaedic surgeon services in varied models, including fee-for-service, bundled payments, and merit-based incentive payment systems. The goal of these models is to improve the quality of care, reduce health-care costs, and encourage providers to adopt innovative and efficient health-care practices. This article delves into the implications of each payment model for the field of orthopaedic surgery, highlighting their unique features, incentives, and potential impact in the PAC setting. By considering the historical, current, and future Medicare reimbursement models, we hope to provide an understanding of the optimal payment model based on the specific needs of patients and providers in the PAC setting.

Background: The postoperative period and subsequent discharge planning are critical in our continued efforts to decrease the risk of complications after THA. Patients discharged to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) have consistently exhibited higher readmission rates compared with those discharged to home healthcare. This elevated risk has been attributed to several factors but whether readmission is associated with patient functional status is not known. Questions/purposes: After controlling for relevant confounding variables (functional status, age, gender, caregiver support available at home, diagnosis [osteoarthritis (OA) versus non-OA], Charlson comorbidity index [CCI], the Area Deprivation Index [ADI], and insurance), are the odds of 30- and 90-day hospital readmission greater among patients initially discharged to SNFs than among those treated with home healthcare after THA? Methods: This was a retrospective, comparative study of patients undergoing THA at any of 11 hospitals in a single, large, academic healthcare system between 2017 and 2022 who were discharged to an SNF or home healthcare. During this period, 13,262 patients were included. Patients discharged to SNFs were older (73 ± 11 years versus 65 ± 11 years; p < 0.001), less independent at hospital discharge (6-click score: 16 ± 3.2 versus 22 ± 2.3; p < 0.001), more were women (71% [1279 of 1796] versus 56% [6447 of 11,466]; p < 0.001), insured by Medicare (83% [1497 of 1796] versus 52% [5974 of 11,466]; p < 0.001), living in areas with greater deprivation (30% [533 of 1796] versus 19% [2229 of 11,466]; p < 0.001), and had less assistance available from at-home caregivers (29% [527 of 1796] versus 57% [6484 of 11,466]; p < 0.001). The primary outcomes assessed in this study were 30- and 90-day hospital readmissions. Although the system automatically flags readmissions occurring within 90 days at the various facilities in the overall healthcare system, readmissions occurring outside the system would not be captured. Therefore, we were not able to account for potential differential rates of readmission to external healthcare systems between the groups. However, given the large size and broad geographic coverage of the healthcare system analyzed, we expect the readmissions data captured to be representative of the study population. The focus on a single healthcare system also ensures consistency in readmission identification and reporting across subjects. We evaluated the association between discharge disposition (home healthcare versus SNF) and readmission. Covariates evaluated included age, gender, primary payer, primary diagnosis, CCI, ADI, the availability of at-home caregivers for the patient, and the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) 6-clicks basic mobility score in the hospital. The adjusted relative risk (ARR) of readmission within 30 and 90 days of discharge to SNF (versus home healthcare) was estimated using modified Poisson regression models. Results: After adjusting for the 6-clicks mobility score, age, gender, ADI, OA versus non-OA, living environment, CCI, and insurance, patients discharged to an SNF were more likely to be readmitted within 30 and 90 days compared with home healthcare after THA (ARR 1.46 [95% CI 1.01 to 2.13]; p= 0.046 and ARR 1.57 [95% CI 1.23 to 2.01]; p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: Patients discharged to SNFs after THA had a slightly higher likelihood of hospital readmission within 30 and 90 days compared with those discharged with home healthcare. This difference persisted even after adjusting for relevant factors like functional status, home support, and social determinants of health. These results indicate that for suitable patients, direct home discharge may be a safer and more cost-effective option than SNFs. Clinicians should carefully consider these risks and benefits when making postoperative discharge plans. Policymakers could consider incentives and reforms to improve care transitions and coordination across settings. Further research using robust methods is needed to clarify the reasons for higher SNF readmission rates. Detailed analysis of patient complexity, care processes, and causes of readmission in SNFs versus home health could identify areas for quality improvement. Prospective cohorts or randomized trials would allow stronger conclusions about cause-and-effect. Importantly, no patients should be unfairly “cherry-picked” or “lemon-dropped” based only on readmission risk scores. With proper support and care coordination, even complex patients can have good outcomes. The goal should be providing excellent rehabilitation for all, while continuously improving quality, safety, and value across settings. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

BACKGROUND Individuals with Parkinson disease (PD) can improve their overall mobility and participation in daily activities as they engage in frequent exercise. Despite the need for individually tailored exercises, persons with PD often face barriers to accessing physical rehabilitation professionals who can provide them. Telerehabilitation (TR) may facilitate access to necessary and individually tailored rehabilitation for individuals with PD. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of TR for individuals with PD and explore clinical outcomes compared to in-person care. METHODS This was a pilot randomized controlled trial conducted at 2 outpatient neurorehabilitation clinics with 3 study groups: clinic+TR, TR-only, and usual care (UC). TR was administered using a web-based application with a mobile app option. One-hour interventions were performed weekly for 4 weeks, in-person for the clinic+TR and UC groups and virtually for the TR-only group. Home exercises were provided on paper for the UC group and via the web-based platform for the clinic+TR and TR-only groups. Feasibility was assessed by recruitment and retention success and patient and therapist satisfaction, as rated in surveys. Clinical outcomes were explored using performance and patient-reported measures in between- and within-group analyses. RESULTS Of 389 patients screened, 68 (17.5%) met eligibility criteria, and 20 (29.4% of those eligible) were enrolled (clinic+TR, n=6; TR-only, n=6; and UC, n=8). One patient (TR-only) was withdrawn due to a non–study-related injurious fall. Regardless of group allocation, both patients and therapists generally rated the mode of care delivery as “good” or “very good” across all constructs assessed, including overall satisfaction and safety. In the analysis of all groups, there were no differences in clinical outcomes at the discharge visit. Within-group differences (from baseline to discharge) were also generally not significant except in the UC group (faster 5-time sit-to-stand time and higher mini balance evaluation systems test balance score) and clinic+TR group (higher mini balance evaluation systems test balance score). CONCLUSIONS High satisfaction amongst patients and clinicians regardless of group, combined with nonsignificant between-group differences in clinical outcomes, suggest that TR is feasible for individuals with PD in early-moderate stages. Future trials with a larger sample are necessary to test clinical effectiveness. As larger trials enroll patients with diverse characteristics (eg, in terms of age, disease progression, caregiver support, technology access and capacity, etc), they could begin to identify opportunities for matching patients to the optimal utilization of TR as part of the therapy episode. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06246747; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06246747