Skip to main content
Download PDF

Evaluation of post-acute care and one-year outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries with hip fractures: a retrospective cohort study

BMC Medicine volume 21, Article number: 232 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Post-acute care (PAC) services after hospitalization for hip fracture are typically provided in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), or at home via home health care (HHC). Little is known about the clinical course following PAC for hip fracture. We examined the nationwide burden of adverse outcomes by PAC setting in the year following discharge from PAC for hip fracture.

Methods

This retrospective cohort included Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries > 65 years who received PAC services in U.S. SNFs, IRFs, or HHC following hip fracture hospitalization between 2012 and 2018. Individuals who had a fall-related injury (FRI) during PAC or received PAC services in multiple settings were excluded. Primary outcomes included FRIs, all-cause hospital readmissions, and death in the year following discharge from PAC. Cumulative incidences and incidence rates for adverse outcomes were reported by PAC setting. Exploratory analyses examined risk ratios and hazard ratios between settings before and after inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighting, which accounted for 43 covariates.

Results

Among 624,631 participants (SNF, 67.78%; IRF, 16.08%; HHC, 16.15%), the mean (standard deviation) age was 82.70 (8.26) years, 74.96% were female, and 91.30% were non-Hispanic White. Crude incidence rates (95%CLs) per 1000 person-years were highest among individuals receiving SNF care for FRIs (SNF, 123 [121, 123]; IRF, 105 [102, 107]; HHC, 89 [87, 91]), hospital readmission (SNF, 623 [619, 626]; IRF, 538 [532, 544]; HHC, 418 [414, 423]), and death (SNF, 167 [165, 169]; IRF, 47 [46, 49]; HHC, 55 [53, 56]). Overall, rates of adverse outcomes generally remained higher among SNF care recipients after covariate adjustment. However, inferences about the group with greater adverse outcomes differed for FRIs and hospital readmissions based on risk ratio or hazard ratio estimates.

Conclusions

In this retrospective cohort study of individuals hospitalized for hip fracture, rates of adverse outcomes in the year following PAC were common, especially among SNF care recipients. Understanding risks and rates of adverse events can inform future efforts to improve outcomes for older adults receiving PAC for hip fracture. Future work should consider calculating risk and rate measures to assess the influence of differential time under observation across PAC groups.

Peer Review reports

Background

Hip fractures are a major source of disability for older adults. Over 300,000 older adults in the United States are hospitalized for hip fractures each year [1]. More than 90% may require post-acute care (PAC) in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), or at home with home health care (HHC) after hospital discharge to facilitate medical recovery, restore physical function, and maximize independence [2,3,4,5,6]. Despite the beneficial effects of PAC, individuals with hip fracture often experience adverse outcomes after discharge from PAC, such as loss of functional independence, hospital readmission, and death [7,8,9,10,11,12,13].

PAC settings differ in their structure and services provided [14]. In general, the selection of PAC setting following hip fracture is determined by the need for rehabilitation services, functional status, management of medical conditions, social support, proximity to patient’s home, insurance coverage, and personal preference [2]. For example, IRFs are required to provide intensive rehabilitation services, with at least three hours of therapy daily for at least 5 days per week, whereas SNFs and HHC do not have these minimum therapy hour requirements. Characteristics of patients receiving care in each setting also differ [4, 15,16,17,18]. Individuals with a hip fracture who receive care in SNFs generally have the greatest medical complexity, cognitive impairment, and physical impairment. These patients’ families and other caregivers often do not feel comfortable with or capable of providing 24-h care at home.

Prior studies examining adverse outcomes following hip fracture have focused on the post-hospitalization period, starting follow-up either at the time of hospital discharge or entry into PAC [4, 10, 13, 16, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. Since goals of PAC for hip fracture include improving physical function, facilitating medical recovery, and successfully discharging patients to the community, understanding the clinical course for patients with a hip fracture following PAC discharge would provide valuable information to patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers. Accurate nationwide estimates of adverse outcomes following discharge from hip fracture PAC across PAC settings could inform future research efforts, quality improvement interventions, and policies aimed at improving outcomes.

Our primary objective was to estimate risks and rates of fall-related injuries (FRIs), hospital readmission, and death in the year following PAC discharge using a nationwide sample of Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries discharged to SNFs, IRFs, or HHC following a hip fracture hospitalization. We hypothesized that individuals receiving SNF care would have the highest rates of adverse outcomes.

Methods

Data sources

We linked Medicare claims to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ publicly available Provider of Service File. The Medicare Beneficiary Summary File (MBSF) included demographic and enrollment information [30]. The timing and location of health services utilization was determined using a validated Residential History File that employs Medicare, Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS), Minimum Data Set (MDS), and other data [31]. Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) claims supplied information on inpatient admissions and diagnoses [32]. Medicare Part D claims contained data on prescription drug dispensings. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Provider of Service File for Hospital and Non-hospital Facilities included information on facilities where participants were hospitalized for hip fracture [33]. The Brown University Institutional Review Board approved the study. Informed consent was not required.

Study design and population

This nationally representative retrospective longitudinal cohort study included over one million Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries hospitalized with a hip fracture between 2012 and 2018. Eligible participants were > 65 years old, hospitalized for hip fracture (based on the principal diagnosis position on the inpatient claim), continuously enrolled in Medicare Parts A, B, and D during PAC and for 12 months prior to the hip fracture hospitalization, discharged to a PAC setting of interest following hospitalization, and discharged alive from PAC. Individuals who left against medical advice during their hip fracture hospitalization, had an FRI during PAC, and those who did not reside within the 48 contiguous states were excluded.

PAC setting

We identified participants who were discharged from the hip fracture hospitalization to a SNF, IRF, or HHC for PAC. Individuals who received PAC in long-term acute care hospitals or multiple institutional settings (i.e., IRF and SNF) were excluded due to limited sample size (0.07% and 2.4% of hip fracture hospitalizations in our sample, respectively) and concerns that there would be limited statistical power to detect a difference in outcomes for comparisons to these groups. We excluded participants who were discharged from the hip fracture hospitalization to critical access hospitals, hospice, and nursing homes (long-term care only) since these settings are generally not intended to deliver PAC.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes were FRIs, all-cause hospital readmission, and death in the year following discharge from PAC. We defined FRIs using a previously published algorithm (Additional file 1: Table S1) [34]. This algorithm was based on studies that identified fractures and FRIs using inpatient claims data (sensitivity 62.1–100%, positive predictive value 53.2–98.6% depending on the study and site of injury) [35,36,37]. Secondary analyses examined specific FRIs, including hip fracture, lower extremity fracture, axial fracture, upper extremity fracture, and intracranial bleeding.

Follow-up

Start of follow-up (time zero) began the day of discharge from SNFs and IRFs or 60 days after hospital discharge for participants receiving HHC. We could not reliably ascertain the exact date that HHC services ended because the dates of discharge from HHC were not consistently reported on OASIS assessments. Thus, we chose to begin follow-up 60 days after hospital discharge as this aligned with Medicare payment policy for an episode of HHC during the study period [38]. Participants were followed from time zero until each outcome of interest, if it occurred. If the outcome of interest did not occur, we recorded the time until disenrollment from Medicare Parts A, B, or D, death (for FRI and hospital readmission analyses), 12 months from PAC discharge, or end of the study period (December 31, 2019), whichever occurred first.

Participant and hospital characteristics

Demographics (e.g., age, sex, and race/ethnicity) and dual Medicare/Medicaid enrollment status were obtained from the MBSF. Participant diagnoses were ascertained from the MedPAR hip fracture hospitalization record and conditions were categorized based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Clinical Classifications Software [39]. MedPAR was also used to obtain characteristics from the index hip fracture hospitalization, including length of stay, intensive care unit use, complications during hospitalization (urinary tract infection, pressure ulcer, pneumonia), fracture management (e.g., partial joint replacement, internal fixation), the Claims-based Frailty Index, and Gagne Combined Comorbidity Score [40, 41]. Prior medication use was defined as at least one dispensing during the 12 months prior to the hip fracture hospitalization in Part D. We ascertained opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gabapentinoids, and benzodiazepines as these medication classes have either been associated with falls and fracture or indicate the presence of pain, which itself is a risk factor for falls [42,43,44,45]. Characteristics of hospitals where participants were treated for hip fracture included number of beds, medical school affiliation, urban/rural location, region, and ownership. All characteristics were measured on or before the date of hospital discharge.

Statistical analyses

Our primary objective was to provide nationwide estimates of the burden of adverse outcomes in the year following discharge from hip fracture PAC. We calculated crude one-year cumulative incidences (i.e., risks) and incidence rates (IRs) for FRIs, all-cause hospital readmission, death, and specific FRIs separately according to PAC setting. IRs were calculated per 1,000 person-years (PYs) of follow-up time. We calculated 95% confidence limits (CLs) for IRs using the non-parametric bootstrap (n = 1,000 resamplings) and the percentile method.

We also conducted exploratory analyses to compare risks and rates of adverse outcomes between PAC settings, before and after adjustment for patient- and hospital-level characteristics. Adjusted risk ratio (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) estimates were calculated using stabilized inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighted (IPW) modified Poisson and Cox regression models with bootstrap 95%CLs [46]. Crude and adjusted risk differences and rate differences were also estimated. The probabilities (i.e., propensity scores) used to construct the IPWs were estimated via a multinomial logistic regression model, where receipt of PAC in SNF, IRF, or HHC were outcomes [47]. We accounted for 43 covariates (Additional file 1: Table S2) and the multi-level C-statistic of the model was 0.66 [48, 49]. The IPWs were properly distributed (mean [SD], 1.00 (0.43); minimum–maximum, 0.27–10.80). Covariate balance was assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs). We conducted a separate analysis using cause-specific hazard regression models to account for the competing risk of death for FRI and hospital readmission outcomes.

Sensitivity analysis

A quantitative bias analysis was conducted by estimating E-values for crude and adjusted HRs and RRs [50, 51].

Software

Data were analyzed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) and Stata version 17 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX).

Results

Study population

Among 624,631 Medicare beneficiaries who experienced a hip fracture hospitalization between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2018 and were discharged to SNFs, IRFs, or HHC for PAC, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 82.70 (8.26) years, 468,247 (74.96%) participants were female, and 570,284 (91.30%) were non-Hispanic White (Table 1). There were 423,347 (67.78%) recipients of SNF care, 100,411 (16.08%) recipients of IRF care, and 100,873 (16.15%) recipients of HHC (Additional file 1: Figure S1). The median (Quartile 1, Quartile 3) length of PAC stay was 37 (20, 63) days for SNF care and 13 (9, 16) days for IRF care.

Table 1 Characteristics of individuals receiving post-acute after hip fracture hospitalization, 2012–2018
Full size table

Before IPW, which balanced measured covariates well (Additional file 1: Table S2), individuals receiving PAC in SNFs were more likely to be older (SNF, 83.76 [8.15] years; IRF, 80.59 [7.95]; HHC, 80.33 [8.13]) and have dual Medicare/Medicaid enrollment (SNF, 29.21%; IRF, 18.65%; HHC, 18.56%) (Table 1). A majority of diagnoses were similar in their distributions between PAC settings; however, a greater proportion of individuals receiving PAC in SNFs had a diagnosis of dementia, delirium, or other cognitive disorders (SNF, 19.66%; IRF, 7.26%; HHC, 9.82%). Individuals receiving SNF care were also more likely to be frail (SNF, 9.74%; IRF, 4.22%; HHC, 4.79%) and multimorbid (comorbidity score, mean [SD]: SNF, 3.21 [2.36]; IRF, 2.66 [2.22]; HHC, 2.56 [2.12]) (Table 1).

Several characteristics for hospitals that discharged individuals with hip fracture to PAC differed by PAC setting before IPW, including number of beds (> 200 beds: SNF, 66.36%; IRF, 75.79%; HHC, 70.85%) and South region (SNF, 37.45%; IRF, 51.28%; HHC, 40.13%) (Table 2).

Table 2 Characteristics of hospitals where hip fracture hospitalizations occurred among individuals later receiving post-acute care, 2012–2018
Full size table

One-year cumulative incidences and incidence rates

The crude one-year cumulative incidences in the year after discharge from PAC were highest among individuals receiving IRF care for FRIs (SNF, 7.70%; IRF, 7.99%; HHC, 7.83%) and hospital readmission (SNF, 35.13%; IRF, 35.85%; HHC, 32.24%), but individuals receiving SNF care had the highest incidence of death (SNF, 10.66%; IRF, 3.65%; HHC, 4.92%) (Table 3). After IPW, the cumulative incidences were highest among individuals receiving HHC for FRIs, IRF care for hospital readmission, and SNF care for death (Additional file 1: Table S3). The most common FRIs were repeat hip fractures, followed by axial, lower extremity, and upper extremity fractures (Table 4, Additional file 1: Table S4).

Table 3 One-year outcomes after discharge from post-acute care between settings following hip fracture, 2012-2018
Full size table
Table 4 One-year specific fall-related injury outcomes after discharge from post-acute care between settings following hip fracture, 2012-2018
Full size table

Crude IRs (95%CLs) per 1000 PYs in the year following discharge from PAC were highest among individuals receiving PAC in SNFs for FRIs (SNF, 123 [121, 123]; IRF, 105 [102, 107]; HHC, 89 [87, 91]), hospital readmission (SNF, 623 [619, 626]; IRF, 538 [532, 544]; HHC, 418 [414, 423]), and death (SNF, 167 [165, 169]; IRF, 47 [46,49]; HHC, 55 [53, 56]) (Table 3). After IPW, the IR for FRIs was highest among individuals receiving IRF care, while IRs for hospital readmission and death were highest among individuals receiving SNF care (Additional file 1: Table S3).

Crude and adjusted risk differences and rate differences for FRIs, hospital readmission, and death are presented in Additional file 1: Table S3. Crude and adjusted risk differences and rate differences for specific FRIs are presented in Additional file 1: Table S4.

Risk ratios and hazard ratios

After IPW, the risk of FRIs was 16% higher for individuals receiving IRF care and 19% higher for individuals receiving HHC care vs. SNF care (IRF vs. SNF, RR 1.16, 95%CLs 1.13, 1.19; HHC vs. SNF, RR 1.19, 95%CLs 1.16, 1.22) (Fig. 1, Additional file 1: Table S5). The risk of hospital readmission was 8% higher among IRF care recipients (RR 1.08; 95%CLs 1.07, 1.09) and similar for HHC recipients (RR 1.00; 95%CLs 0.99, 1.01) versus SNF care recipients. Both IRF and HHC recipients had a substantially lower risk of death after IPW versus SNF care recipients (IRF vs. SNF, RR 0.44, 95%CLs 0.42, 0.45; HHC vs. SNF, RR 0.61, 95%CLs 0.59, 0.64). The adjusted risk of hip fracture and axial fracture was higher among IRF care and HHC recipients versus SNF care (Fig. 2, Additional file 1: Table S5).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Associations between post-acute care setting following hip fracture and outcomes up to one year after discharge from post-acute care, 2012–2018. Presents risk ratios and hazard ratios before and after inverse probability of treatment weighting. Covariates included in adjusted models are listed in Additional file 1: Table S2. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; FRI, fall-related injuries; HHC, Home Health Care; HR, hazard ratio; IPW, inverse probability of treatment weighting; IRF, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities; RR, risk ratio; SNF, Skilled Nursing Facilities

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Associations between post-acute care setting following hip fracture and specific fall-related injury outcomes up to one year after discharge from post-acute care, 2012–2018. Presents risk ratios and hazard ratios before and after inverse probability of treatment weighting. Covariates included in adjusted models are listed in Additional file 1: Table S2. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; FRI, fall-related injuries; HHC, Home Health Care; HR, hazard ratio; IPW, inverse probability of treatment weighting; IRF, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities; RR, risk ratio; SNF, Skilled Nursing Facilities

Full size image

Compared to the SNF group, the rate of FRIs after IPW was 5% higher among the IRF group (HR 1.05; 95%CLs 1.02, 1.08) and 6% lower among the HHC group (HR 0.94; 95%CLs 0.92, 0.97) (Fig. 1, Additional file 1: Table S5). Recipients of HHC had an 18% lower rate of hospital readmission versus SNF care (HR 0.82; 95%CLs 0.81, 0.83) after IPW, but rates were similar for IRF versus SNF care (HR 1.00; 95%CLs 0.99, 1.02). The rate of death after IPW was 60% lower among IRF care recipients (HR 0.40; 95%CLs 0.38, 0.42) and 50% lower among HHC recipients (HR 0.50; 95%CLs 0.49, 0.52) versus SNF care recipients. Accounting for death as a competing risk, the rates of FRIs and hospital readmission were similar for IRF and SNF care recipients, while rates were lower for the HHC group versus SNF group (Additional file 1: Table S6). The rate of hip fracture was higher among individuals receiving IRF and HHC care versus SNF care after IPW (IRF vs. SNF, HR 1.16, 95%CLs 1.11, 1.21; HHC vs. SNF, HR 1.09, 95%CLs 1.04, 1.13) (Fig. 2, Additional file 1: Table S5). Adjusted rates of other specific FRIs were generally lower among the HHC group and not significantly different for the IRF group compared to the SNF group.

IPW adjusted survival curves for FRIs, hospital readmission, and death are presented in Additional file 1: Figures S2-4. Adjusted survival curves for specific FRIs are presented in Additional file 1: Figures S5-9.

Sensitivity analysis

Across crude and IPW adjusted HRs, the lower confidence limits of the E-value ranged from 1.16 to 1.88 for FRIs, 1.00 to 1.85 for hospital readmission, and 3.26 to 5.91 for death (Additional file 1: Table S7). The lower confidence limits of E-values for crude and IPW adjusted RRs ranged from 1.00 to 1.59 for FRIs, 1.00 to 1.36 for hospital readmission, and 2.50 to 5.16 for death.

Discussion

In this cohort of Medicare enrollees hospitalized for hip fracture, the crude rates of adverse outcomes were high in the year following PAC, especially among individuals who received PAC services in SNFs. In general, one-year rates of FRIs, hospital readmission, and death remained highest among SNF care recipients after covariate adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting and accounting for death as a competing risk. These results provide foundational knowledge that can inform future research efforts, quality improvement interventions, and policies aimed at improving outcomes for older adults receiving PAC for hip fracture.

Prior literature has examined the risk of subsequent fracture [19,20,21,22], rehospitalization [13, 16, 23,24,25], and mortality [4, 10, 16, 26,27,28,29] following hip fracture, although these studies began follow-up for outcomes at the time of hospital discharge or entry to PAC. Our study extends prior work by reporting one of the first estimates of adverse outcomes following discharge from PAC for hip fracture. Since PAC is intended to provide short-term care with the goal of facilitating recovery and successfully discharging patients to the community, understanding the risk of adverse outcomes after PAC discharge is meaningful for patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers. Our study also extends prior work by presenting both risk (using persons in the denominator) and rate (using person-time in the denominator) measures. For many outcomes, including FRIs and hospital readmissions, we observed that measures based on risk (e.g., risk ratios) and rates (e.g., hazard ratios) often led to different inferences.

We reported crude (unadjusted) risks and rates that provide needed foundational, descriptive epidemiological evidence on the nationwide burden of adverse outcomes in the year following PAC for hip fracture. We found that risks and rates of adverse outcomes were high for all PAC settings, although the rates of adverse outcomes were especially high for individuals receiving SNF care. Transitions of care services and closer follow-up with clinicians during the post-PAC period could improve outcomes for older adults with hip fracture, particularly those who received PAC in SNFs, although further examination is needed. It may be beneficial for future research to study the drivers of differences in outcomes across PAC settings, including delivery of services during PAC (e.g., duration and intensity of physical therapy, PAC quality of care), coordination of care with community providers after discharge from PAC, and payment models/incentives. Examining differences in adverse outcomes across high-risk subgroups (e.g., cognitive impairment, frailty) could help to target future interventions towards individuals who are most vulnerable. Additionally, reporting measures of post-PAC adverse outcomes using smaller geographic units (i.e., state, county) could be particularly informative for quality improvement interventions by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers at the local level.

Results comparing one-year adverse outcomes across PAC settings were exploratory, but can be used to inform future research efforts in this topic area. In advance of any future work to compare the effects of PAC settings on outcomes, it is worth questioning whether sufficient equipoise exists and the three PAC settings are actually exchangeable alternatives to one another. We found that the lower CLs for E-values were relatively small (< 1.60) for FRIs and hospital readmission after adjustment for 43 person- and hospital-level covariates, which suggests that a small to moderate amount of unmeasured confounding could shift estimates to the null. Future work could consider ascertaining additional covariate information to adjust for potential confounders, including factors at the patient-level (e.g., physical impairment, hip fracture severity, availability of caregivers to care for patients at home, out-of-pocket cost incurred by each setting) and system-level (e.g., availability of PAC services in a given geographic area [e.g., county], referral patterns to different PAC settings by hospitals, variation in PAC availability and referral patterns over time). However, differences in the characteristics of patients discharged to each PAC setting are likely so different that measuring and adjusting for all confounders would be extremely challenging. We also found that the group with greater FRIs and hospital readmission differed by measure (RR or HR), although the risks and rates of death were significantly higher among individuals receiving SNF care. Thus, researchers should strongly consider accounting for person-time under observation when studying the outcomes of PAC care, especially informative censoring by death. Finally, future work aiming to compare PAC settings should account for differences in length of stay. Since the average PAC length of stay differs between settings, starting follow-up at PAC discharge systematically covers different points in time relative to the hip fracture hospitalization.

Limitations

Our study has several potential limitations. First, our results may not generalize well to individuals enrolled in Medicare Advantage, those without Medicare Part D, those who resided outside of the 48 contiguous states, had an FRI during PAC, or who received PAC in multiple settings. Second, our findings do not clarify the exact mechanisms by which differences in the services or care provided within each PAC setting might influence the observed differences in outcomes. We also do not know whether the observed differences in outcomes are true differential effects of the PAC setting after hip fracture, or if they instead represent residual confounding due to unmeasured covariates (e.g., functional status, social support). Residual confounding is probable and interpreting estimates as causal effects may be imprudent. Third, due to the nature of the data, we were not able to ascertain the exact day a person stopped receiving HHC services. Future research should re-estimate rates of adverse outcomes following receipt of HHC if this information becomes reliably available for all Medicare beneficiaries receiving HHC and intervention studies in the HHC setting should take into consideration the variation in the length of PAC. Fourth, the algorithm used to ascertain FRIs was initially developed for individuals receiving long-term care in nursing homes and requires further validation in the PAC setting [34].

Despite these limitations, we conducted a large, nationally representative study that provides some of the first estimates of adverse outcomes following discharge from hip fracture PAC in different settings. Our work also highlights the importance of calculating both risk and rate measures to assess the influence of differential time under observation across PAC groups.

Conclusions

The risks and rates of FRIs, hospital readmission, and death were high following PAC for hip fracture. Crude risks and rates provided information on the nationwide burden of adverse outcomes in the year following PAC for hip fracture in the three most common PAC settings. Closer follow-up and additional services during the post-PAC period may help to improve outcomes for older adults with hip fracture, especially those who received PAC in SNFs, although further examination is needed. Our results suggest that future research should account for differing amounts of follow-up time across PAC settings and the presence of informative censoring by death.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under data use agreements for the current study, and so are not publicly available. However, other researchers can establish their own data use agreement and obtain the datasets employed through the Research Data Assistance Center (ResDAC), a CMS contractor that provides free assistance to researchers interested in CMS data.

Abbreviations

CL:

Confidence limit

FRI:

Fall-related injury

HR:

Hazard ratio

HHC:

Home health care

IR:

Incidence rate

IRF:

Inpatient rehabilitation facility

IPW:

Inverse-probability-of-treatment-weight

MBSF:

Medicare Beneficiary Summary File

MedPAR:

Medicare Provider Analysis and Review

MDS:

Minimum Data Set

OASIS:

Outcome and Assessment Information Set

PY:

Person-year

PAC:

Post-acute care

RR:

Risk ratio

SNF:

Skilled nursing facility

SD:

Standard deviation

References

  1. Agency for healthcare research and quality. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUPnet). Cited 23 Jun 2022. Available from: https://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/#setup.

  2. Reyes BJ, Mendelson DA, Mujahid N, Mears SC, Gleason L, Mangione KK, et al. Postacute management of older adults suffering an osteoporotic hip fracture: a consensus statement from the international geriatric fracture society. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2020;11:2151459320935100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Arshi A, Iglesias BC, Zambrana LE, Lai WC, Zeegen EN, Sassoon AA, et al. Postacute care utilization in postsurgical orthogeriatric hip fracture care. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28(18):743–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Buntin MB, Colla CH, Deb P, Sood N, Escarce JJ. Medicare spending and outcomes after postacute care for stroke and hip fracture. Med Care. 2010;48(9):776–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Leland NE, Gozalo P, Christian TJ, Bynum J, Mor V, Wetle TF, et al. An examination of the first 30 days after patients are discharged to the community from hip fracture postacute care. Med Care. 2015;53(10):879–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Becker DJ, Yun H, Kilgore ML, Curtis JR, Delzell E, Gary LC, et al. Health services utilization after fractures: evidence from Medicare. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2010;65(9):1012–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dyer SM, Crotty M, Fairhall N, Magaziner J, Beaupre LA, Cameron ID, et al. A critical review of the long-term disability outcomes following hip fracture. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16:158.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Abraham DS, Barr E, Ostir GV, Hebel JR, Golden J, Gruber-Baldini AL, et al. Residual disability, mortality, and nursing home placement after hip fracture over 2 decades. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100(5):874–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ali AM, Gibbons CE. Predictors of 30-day hospital readmission after hip fracture: a systematic review. Injury. 2017;48(2):243–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Downey C, Kelly M, Quinlan JF. Changing trends in the mortality rate at 1-year post hip fracture - a systematic review. World J Orthop. 2019;10(3):166–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Neuman MD, Silber JH, Magaziner JS, Passarella MA, Mehta S, Werner RM. Survival and functional outcomes after hip fracture among nursing home residents. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(8):1273–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kumar A, Rahman M, Trivedi AN, Resnik L, Gozalo P, Mor V. Comparing post-acute rehabilitation use, length of stay, and outcomes experienced by Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with hip fracture in the United States: A secondary analysis of administrative data. PLoS Med. 2018;15(6):e1002592.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ottenbacher KJ, Smith PM, Illig SB, Peek MK, Fiedler RC, Granger CV. Hospital readmission of persons with hip fracture following medical rehabilitation. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2003;36(1):15–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. MedPAC. March 2022 report to the Congress: Medicare payment policy. 2022. Cited 5 Oct 2022. Available from: https://www.medpac.gov/document/march-2022-report-to-the-congress-medicare-payment-policy/.

  15. Bentler SE, Liu L, Obrizan M, Cook EA, Wright KB, Geweke JF, et al. The aftermath of hip fracture: discharge placement, functional status change, and mortality. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(10):1290–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Berg K, Intrator O. Postacute care following stroke or hip fracture: single services and combinations used by Medicare beneficiaries (1987–1992). J Aging Health. 1999;11(1):27–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mallinson T, Deutsch A, Bateman J, Tseng HY, Manheim L, Almagor O, et al. Comparison of discharge functional status after rehabilitation in skilled nursing, home health, and medical rehabilitation settings for patients after hip fracture repair. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(2):209–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Deutsch A, Granger CV, Fiedler RC, DeJong G, Kane RL, Ottenbacher KJ, et al. Outcomes and reimbursement of inpatient rehabilitation facilities and subacute rehabilitation programs for Medicare beneficiaries with hip fracture. Med Care. 2005;43(9):892–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Balasubramanian A, Zhang J, Chen L, Wenkert D, Daigle SG, Grauer A, et al. Risk of subsequent fracture after prior fracture among older women. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(1):79–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Adams AL, Ryan DS, Li BH, Williams SA, Wang Y, Weiss RJ, et al. Outcomes post fragility fracture among members of an integrated healthcare organization. Osteoporos Int. 2022;33(4):783–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Weaver J, Sajjan S, Lewiecki EM, Harris ST, Marvos P. Prevalence and cost of subsequent fractures among U.S. patients with an incident fracture. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017;23(4):461–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dang DY, Zetumer S, Zhang AL. Recurrent fragility fractures: a cross-sectional analysis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019;27(2):e85–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Middleton A, Kuo YF, Graham JE, Karmarkar A, Lin YL, Goodwin JS, et al. Readmission patterns over 90-day episodes of care among medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged to post-acute care. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19(10):896–901.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Li CY, Haas A, Pritchard KT, Karmarkar A, Kuo YF, Hreha K, et al. Functional status across post-acute settings is associated with 30-day and 90-day hospital readmissions. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22(12):2447-53 e5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ottenbacher KJ, Karmarkar A, Graham JE, Kuo YF, Deutsch A, Reistetter TA, et al. Thirty-day hospital readmission following discharge from postacute rehabilitation in fee-for-service Medicare patients. JAMA. 2014;311(6):604–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Brown JP, Adachi JD, Schemitsch E, Tarride JE, Brown V, Bell A, et al. Mortality in older adults following a fragility fracture: real-world retrospective matched-cohort study in Ontario. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Schemitsch E, Adachi JD, Brown JP, Tarride JE, Burke N, Oliveira T, et al. Hip fracture predicts subsequent hip fracture: a retrospective observational study to support a call to early hip fracture prevention efforts in post-fracture patients. Osteoporos Int. 2022;33(1):113–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Haleem S, Lutchman L, Mayahi R, Grice JE, Parker MJ. Mortality following hip fracture: trends and geographical variations over the last 40 years. Injury. 2008;39(10):1157–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Neuman MD, Passarella MR, Werner RM. The relationship between historical risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and subsequent hip fracture outcomes: Retrospective cohort study. Healthc (Amst). 2016;4(3):192–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Master Beneficiary Summary File (MBSF) LDS. 2021.  Cited 5 Oct 2022. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Files-for-Order/LimitedDataSets/MBSF-LDS.

  31. Intrator O, Hiris J, Berg K, Miller SC, Mor V. The residential history file: studying nursing home residents’ long-term care histories(*). Health Serv Res. 2011;46(1 Pt 1):120–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. MEDPAR. 2021.  Cited 5 Oct 2022. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/medicarefeeforsvcpartsab/medpar.

  33. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Provider of services file - hospital & non-hospital facilities. 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mintz J, Duprey MS, Zullo AR, Lee Y, Kiel DP, Daiello LA, et al. Identification of fall-related injuries in nursing home residents using administrative claims data. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2022;77(7):1421–29.

  35. Ray WA, Griffin MR, Fought RL, Adams ML. Identification of fractures from computerized Medicare files. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(7):703–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wright NC, Daigle SG, Melton ME, Delzell ES, Balasubramanian A, Curtis JR. The design and validation of a new algorithm to identify incident fractures in administrative claims data. J Bone Miner Res. 2019;34(10):1798–807.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Min L, Tinetti M, Langa KM, Ha J, Alexander N, Hoffman GJ. Measurement of fall injury with health care system data and assessment of inclusiveness and validity of measurement models. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(8):e199679.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Home Health PPS. 2021. Cited 3 Feb 2023. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/HomeHealthPPS.

  39. Agency for healthcare research and quality. Clinical Classifications Software (CCS) for ICD-9-CM. 2017. Cited 5 Oct 2022. Available from: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/ccs/ccs.jsp.

  40. Kim DH, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, Lipsitz LA, Rockwood K, Avorn J. Measuring frailty in medicare data: development and validation of a claims-based frailty index. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2018;73(7):980–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gagne JJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Levin R, Schneeweiss S. A combined comorbidity score predicted mortality in elderly patients better than existing scores. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(7):749–59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Seppala LJ, Wermelink A, de Vries M, Ploegmakers KJ, van de Glind EMM, Daams JG, et al. Fall-risk-increasing drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis: II. Psychotropics. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19(4):371 e11-e17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Seppala LJ, van de Glind EMM, Daams JG, Ploegmakers KJ, de Vries M, Wermelink A, et al. Fall-risk-increasing drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis: III. Others. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19(4):37 e21-e8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yoshikawa A, Ramirez G, Smith ML, Foster M, Nabil AK, Jani SN, et al. Opioid use and the risk of falls, fall injuries and fractures among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2020;75(10):1989–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Li Y, Liu M, Sun X, Hou T, Tang S, Szanton SL. Independent and synergistic effects of pain, insomnia, and depression on falls among older adults: a longitudinal study. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):491.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Cole SR, Hernan MA. Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(6):656–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hand DJ, Till RJ. A simple generalisation of the area under the ROC curve for multiple class classification problems. Machine Learning. 2001;45:171–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. SAS support. Sample 64029: area under the ROC curve measure (AUC) for multinomial models. Cited 3 Feb 2023. Available from: https://support.sas.com/kb/64/029.html.

  50. VanderWeele TJ, Ding P. Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the E-value. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(4):268–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Mathur Maya B, Ding P, Riddell Corinne A, VanderWeele Tyler J. Web site and R package for computing E-values. Epidemiology. 2018;29(5):45–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jen R. Croteau (Brown University, School of Public Health, Center for Gerontology and Healthcare Research) for providing administrative support on this project.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Institute on Aging (R21AG061632). A.R.Z. is also supported by National Institute on Aging grants R01AG065722, R01AG077620, and R01AG079295. K.N.H. is also supported by National Institute on Aging grant R01AG078759. The funder was not involved in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, 200 Dyer Street, Box 2013, Providence, RI, 02912, USA

    Melissa R. Riester, Francesca L. Beaudoin, Richa Joshi, Kaleen N. Hayes, Meghan A. Cupp & Andrew R. Zullo

  2. Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA

    Francesca L. Beaudoin & Andrew R. Zullo

  3. Graduate Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto Leslie Dan, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Kaleen N. Hayes

  4. Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Roslindale, MA, USA

    Sarah D. Berry

  5. Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

    Sarah D. Berry

  6. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Sarah D. Berry

  7. Center of Innovation in Long-Term Services and Supports, Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, RI, USA

    Andrew R. Zullo

Authors
  1. Melissa R. Riester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesca L. Beaudoin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richa Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kaleen N. Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Meghan A. Cupp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sarah D. Berry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andrew R. Zullo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.R.R. contributed to the conception and design of the work, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and substantively revising the work, and approval of the submitted version. F.L.B, R.J., K.N.H, M.A.C, S.D.B, and A.R.Z contributed to the conception and/or design of the work, analysis and/or interpretation of data, substantively revising the work, and approval of the submitted version. All authors agree to be personally accountable for the authors’ own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

Authors’ information

Not applicable.

Authors’ twitter handles

Kaleen N. Hayes, PharmD, PhD (@PharmEpi); Andrew R. Zullo, PharmD, PhD (@andrewzullo)

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa R. Riester.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Brown University Institutional Review Board approved the study (Reference ID #1901002309). Informed consent was not required.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

A.R.Z receives grant funding paid directly to Brown University for collaborative research on the epidemiology of infections and vaccine use among nursing home residents. K.N.H. has received grant funding paid directly to Brown University for collaborative research from Insight Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Genentech for research on complex insulin regimens and influenza outbreak control in nursing homes. K.N.H. has also served as a consultant for the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. Some authors are VA employees (A.R.Z.). The content and views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or official policies of the United States Government or the US Department of Veterans Affairs.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Figure S1.

Flow diagram of the study population. Figure S2. Inverse probability of treatment weighted one-year survival curves for fall-related injuries. Figure S3. Inverse probability of treatment weighted one-year survival curves for hospital readmission. Figure S4. Inverse probability of treatment weighted one-year survival curves for death. Figure S5. Inverse probability of treatment weighted one-year survival curves for hip fracture. Figure S6. Inverse probability of treatment weighted one-year survival curves for lower extremity fracture. Figure S7. Inverse probability of treatment weighted one-year survival curves for axial fracture. Figure S8. Inverse probability of treatment weighted one-year survival curves for upper extremity fracture. Figure S9. Inverse probability of treatment weighted one-year survival curves for intracranial bleeding. Table S1. International Classification of Diseases, Ninthand TenthRevision Codes Used to identify fall related injuries. Table S2. Standardized mean differences before and after inverse probability of treatment weighting among individuals discharged to different post-acute care settings after hip fracture hospitalization. Table S3. Risk differences and rate differences comparing one-year outcomes after discharge from post-acute care between settings following hip fracture, 2012-2018. Table S4. Risk differences and rate differences comparing one-year specific fall-related injury outcomes after discharge from post-acute care between settings following hip fracture, 2012-2018. Table S5. Associations between post-acute care setting following hip fracture and outcomes up to one year after discharge from post-acute care, 2012-2018. Table S6. Associations between post-acute care setting following hip fracture and outcomes, accounting for the competing risk of death. Table S7. E-values for quantitative bias sensitivity analyses.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Riester, M.R., Beaudoin, F.L., Joshi, R. et al. Evaluation of post-acute care and one-year outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries with hip fractures: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Med 21, 232 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02958-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02958-9

Keywords

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us