Cargando…

Addressing non-response data for standardized post-acute functional items

BACKGROUND: The post-acute patient standardized functional items (Section GG) include non-response options such as refuse, not attempt and not applicable. We examined non-response patterns and compared four methods to address non-response functional data in Section GG at nation-wide inpatient rehabi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Chih -Ying, Kim, Hyunkyoung, Downer, Brian, Lee, Mi Jung, Ottenbacher, Kenneth, Kuo, Yong-Fang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10481609/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37674152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09982-8
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The post-acute patient standardized functional items (Section GG) include non-response options such as refuse, not attempt and not applicable. We examined non-response patterns and compared four methods to address non-response functional data in Section GG at nation-wide inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF). METHODS: We characterized non-response patterns using 100% Medicare 2018 data. We applied four methods to generate imputed values for each non-response functional item of each patient: Monte Carlo Markov Chains multiple imputations (MCMC), Fully Conditional Specification multiple imputations (FCS), Pattern-mixture model (PMM) multiple imputations and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approach. We compared changes of Spearman correlations and weighted kappa between Section GG and the site-specific functional items across impairments before and after applying four methods. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-nine thousand six hundred ninety-one Medicare fee-for-services beneficiaries admitted to IRFs with stroke, brain dysfunction, neurologic condition, orthopedic disorders, and debility. At discharge, 3.9% (self-care) and 61.6% (mobility) of IRF patients had at least one non-response answer in Section GG. Patients tended to have non-response data due to refused at discharge than at admission. Patients with non-response data tended to have worse function, especially in mobility; also improved less functionally compared to patients without non-response data. Overall, patients coded as ‘refused’ were more functionally independent in self-care and patients coded as ‘not applicable’ were more functionally independent in transfer and mobility, compared to other non-response answers. Four methods showed similar changes in correlations and agreements between Section GG and the site-specific functional items, but variations exist across impairments between multiple imputations and the CMS approach. CONCLUSIONS: The different reasons for non-response answers are correlated with varied functional status. The high proportion of patients with non-response data for mobility items raised a concern of biased IRF quality reporting. Our findings have potential implications for improving patient care, outcomes, quality reporting, and payment across post-acute settings. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-023-09982-8.