IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0232017.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of three methods in categorizing functional status to predict hospital readmission across post-acute care

Author

Listed:
  • Chih-Ying Li
  • Amol Karmarkar
  • Yong-Fang Kuo
  • Hemalkumar B Mehta
  • Trudy Mallinson
  • Allen Haas
  • Amit Kumar
  • Kenneth J Ottenbacher

Abstract

Background: Methods used to categorize functional status to predict health outcomes across post-acute care settings vary significantly. Objectives: We compared three methods that categorize functional status to predict 30-day and 90-day hospital readmission across inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF), skilled nursing facilities (SNF) and home health agencies (HHA). Research design: Retrospective analysis of 2013–2014 Medicare claims data (N = 740,530). Data were randomly split into two subsets using a 1:1 ratio. We used half of the cohort (development subset) to develop functional status categories for three methods, and then used the rest (testing subset) to compare outcome prediction. Three methods to generate functional categories were labeled as: Method I, percentile based on proportional distribution; Method II, percentile based on change score distribution; and Method III, functional staging categories based on Rasch person strata. We used six differentiation and classification statistics to determine the optimal method of generating functional categories. Setting: IRF, SNF and HHA. Subjects: We included 130,670 (17.7%) Medicare beneficiaries with stroke, 498,576 (67.3%) with lower extremity joint replacement and 111,284 (15.0%) with hip and femur fracture. Measures: Unplanned 30-day and 90-day hospital readmission. Results: For all impairment conditions, Method III best predicted 30-day and 90-day hospital readmission. However, we observed overlapping confidence intervals among some comparisons of three methods. The bootstrapping of 30-day and 90-day hospital readmission predictive models showed the area under curve for Method III was statistically significantly higher than both Method I and Method II (all paired-comparisons, p

Suggested Citation

  • Chih-Ying Li & Amol Karmarkar & Yong-Fang Kuo & Hemalkumar B Mehta & Trudy Mallinson & Allen Haas & Amit Kumar & Kenneth J Ottenbacher, 2020. "A comparison of three methods in categorizing functional status to predict hospital readmission across post-acute care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0232017
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232017
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232017&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0232017?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0232017. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.