[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure.
Participant Flowa
Participant Flowa

admin indicates administrative; EMR, enhanced medical rehabilitation; PI, principal investigator.

aOf the 115 patients assigned to standard of care, 1 participant withdrew before providing sufficient data for primary analysis.

Table 1.  
Enhanced Medical Rehabilitation Toolsa
Enhanced Medical Rehabilitation Toolsa
Table 2.  
Baseline Characteristics of Participants
Baseline Characteristics of Participants
Table 3.  
Therapists’ Techniques Before and After Training in Enhanced Medical Rehabilitation
Therapists’ Techniques Before and After Training in Enhanced Medical Rehabilitation
Table 4.  
Outcomes of Participants in the EMR and Standard-of-Care Groupsa
Outcomes of Participants in the EMR and Standard-of-Care Groupsa
1.
Gustavson  AM, Falvey  JR, Forster  JE, Stevens-Lapsley  JE.  Predictors of functional change in a skilled nursing facility population  [published online June 21, 2017].  J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2017. doi:10.1519/JPT.0000000000000137PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Alcusky  M, Ulbricht  CM, Lapane  KL.  Postacute care setting, facility characteristics, and poststroke outcomes: a systematic review.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(6):1124-1140.e9. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2017.09.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Ouslander  JG, Sehgal  M.  The conundrum of choosing post-acute care: a challenge for patients, families, and clinicians.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(4):638-640. doi:10.1111/jgs.15765PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Wald  HL, Ramaswamy  R, Perskin  MH,  et al; Quality and Performance Measurement Committee of the American Geriatrics Society.  The case for mobility assessment in hospitalized older adults: American Geriatrics Society White Paper Executive Summary.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(1):11-16. doi:10.1111/jgs.15595PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Chandra  A, Dalton  MA, Holmes  J.  Large increases in spending on postacute care in Medicare point to the potential for cost savings in these settings.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(5):864-872. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1262PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Mor  V, Intrator  O, Feng  Z, Grabowski  DC.  The revolving door of rehospitalization from skilled nursing facilities.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(1):57-64. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0629PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Pedersen  MK, Meyer  G, Uhrenfeldt  L.  Risk factors for acute care hospital readmission in older persons in Western countries: a systematic review.  JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2017;15(2):454-485.PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Middleton  A, Downer  B, Haas  A, Lin  YL, Graham  JE, Ottenbacher  KJ.  Functional status is associated with 30-day potentially preventable readmissions following skilled nursing facility discharge among Medicare beneficiaries.  J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19(4):348-354.e4. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2017.12.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Falvey  JR, Burke  RE, Stevens-Lapsley  JE.  Physical function and hospital readmissions.  JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(10):1722. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3922PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Holstege  MS, Caljouw  MAA, Zekveld  IG,  et al.  Successful geriatric rehabilitation: effects on patients’ outcome of a national program to improve quality of care, the SINGER Study.  J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(5):383-387. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2016.10.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Jette  DU, Warren  RL, Wirtalla  C.  The relation between therapy intensity and outcomes of rehabilitation in skilled nursing facilities.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(3):373-379. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2004.10.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Chen  CC, Heinemann  AW, Granger  CV, Linn  RT.  Functional gains and therapy intensity during subacute rehabilitation: a study of 20 facilities.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(11):1514-1523. doi:10.1053/apmr.2002.35107PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Bowblis  JR, Brunt  CS.  Medicare skilled nursing facility reimbursement and upcoding.  Health Econ. 2014;23(7):821-840. doi:10.1002/hec.2959PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
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. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002592PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
O’Brien  SR, Zhang  N.  Association between therapy intensity and discharge outcomes in aged Medicare skilled nursing facilities admissions.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(1):107-115. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2017.07.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Latham  NK, Harris  BA, Bean  JF,  et al.  Effect of a home-based exercise program on functional recovery following rehabilitation after hip fracture: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2014;311(7):700-708. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.469PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Buhagiar  MA, Naylor  JM, Harris  IA,  et al.  Effect of inpatient rehabilitation vs a monitored home-based program on mobility in patients with total knee arthroplasty: the HIHO randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2017;317(10):1037-1046. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.1224PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Talkowski  JB, Lenze  EJ, Munin  MC, Harrison  C, Brach  JS.  Patient participation and physical activity during rehabilitation and future functional outcomes in patients after hip fracture.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(4):618-622. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2008.10.024PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
MacKay-Lyons  MJ, Makrides  L.  Cardiovascular stress during a contemporary stroke rehabilitation program: is the intensity adequate to induce a training effect?  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(10):1378-1383. doi:10.1053/apmr.2002.35089PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Lang  CE, Macdonald  JR, Reisman  DS,  et al.  Observation of amounts of movement practice provided during stroke rehabilitation.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(10):1692-1698. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.04.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Bohannon  RW.  Time use by inpatients receiving neurorehabilitation.  Percept Mot Skills. 2003;97(1):68-70. doi:10.2466/pms.2003.97.1.68PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Bernhardt  J, Dewey  H, Thrift  A, Donnan  G.  Inactive and alone: physical activity within the first 14 days of acute stroke unit care.  Stroke. 2004;35(4):1005-1009. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000120727.40792.40PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Moore  JL, Roth  EJ, Killian  C, Hornby  TG.  Locomotor training improves daily stepping activity and gait efficiency in individuals poststroke who have reached a “plateau” in recovery.  Stroke. 2010;41(1):129-135. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.563247PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Hildebrand  MW, Host  HH, Binder  EF,  et al.  Measuring treatment fidelity in a rehabilitation intervention study.  Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(8):715-724. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e31824ad462PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Skidmore  ER, Whyte  EM, Holm  MB,  et al.  Cognitive and affective predictors of rehabilitation participation after stroke.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(2):203-207. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.10.026PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Lenze  EJ, Skidmore  ER, Dew  MA,  et al.  Does depression, apathy or cognitive impairment reduce the benefit of inpatient rehabilitation facilities for elderly hip fracture patients?  Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2007;29(2):141-146. doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2007.01.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Seematter-Bagnoud  L, Frascarolo  S, Büla  CJ.  How much do combined affective and cognitive impairments worsen rehabilitation outcomes after hip fracture?  BMC Geriatr. 2018;18(1):71. doi:10.1186/s12877-018-0763-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Kringle  EA, Terhorst  L, Butters  MA, Skidmore  ER.  Clinical predictors of engagement in inpatient rehabilitation among stroke survivors with cognitive deficits: an exploratory study.  J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2018;24(6):572-583. doi:10.1017/S1355617718000085PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Lenze  EJ, Host  HH, Hildebrand  M,  et al.  Enhanced medical rehabilitation is feasible in a skilled nursing facility: preliminary data on a novel treatment for older adults with depression.  Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013;21(3):307. doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Lenze  EJ, Host  HH, Hildebrand  MW,  et al.  Enhanced medical rehabilitation increases therapy intensity and engagement and improves functional outcomes in postacute rehabilitation of older adults: a randomized-controlled trial.  J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012;13(8):708-712. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2012.06.014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Bandura  A.  Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.  Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Rasmussen  HN, Wrosch  C, Scheier  MF, Carver  CS.  Self-regulation processes and health: the importance of optimism and goal adjustment.  J Pers. 2006;74(6):1721-1747. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00426.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Ajzen  I.  The theory of planned behavior.  Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-TGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Prochaska  JO, Velicer  WF.  The transtheoretical model of health behavior change.  Am J Health Promot. 1997;12(1):38-48. doi:10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Rehabilitation  EM. Healthy Mind Lab, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis. https://healthymind.wustl.edu/items/enhanced-medical-rehabilitation/. Accessed July 10, 2019.
36.
Davis  PB, Morris  JC, Grant  E.  Brief screening tests versus clinical staging in senile dementia of the Alzheimer type.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 1990;38(2):129-135. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1990.tb03473.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Bland  MD, Birkenmeier  RL, Barco  P, Lenard  E, Lang  CE, Lenze  EJ.  Enhanced medical rehabilitation: effectiveness of a clinical training model.  NeuroRehabilitation. 2016;39(4):481-498. doi:10.3233/NRE-161380PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Montgomery  SA, Äsberg  M.  A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change.  Br J Psychiatry. 1979;134:382-389. doi:10.1192/bjp.134.4.382PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Lenze  EJ, Munin  MC, Quear  T,  et al.  The Pittsburgh Rehabilitation Participation Scale: reliability and validity of a clinician-rated measure of participation in acute rehabilitation.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(3):380-384. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2003.06.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Host  HH, Lang  CE, Hildebrand  MW,  et al.  Patient active time during therapy sessions in postacute rehabilitation: development and validation of a new measure.  Phys Occup Ther Geriatr. 2014;32(2):169-178. doi:10.3109/02703181.2014.915282PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Granger  CV, Dewis  LS, Peters  NC, Sherwood  CC, Barrett  JE.  Stroke rehabilitation: analysis of repeated Barthel index measures.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1979;60(1):14-17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
42.
al-Khawaja  I, Wade  DT, Turner  F.  The Barthel Index and its relationship to nursing dependency in rehabilitation.  Clin Rehabil. 1997;11(4):335-337. doi:10.1177/026921559701100411PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Bond  J, Gregson  B, Smith  M, Lecouturier  J, Rousseau  N, Rodgers  H.  Predicting place of discharge from hospital for patients with a stroke or hip fracture on admission.  J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000;5(3):133-139. doi:10.1177/135581960000500303PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Finch  E. Physical Rehabilitation Outcome Measures. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.
45.
Schmid  A, Duncan  PW, Studenski  S,  et al.  Improvements in speed-based gait classifications are meaningful.  Stroke. 2007;38(7):2096-2100. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.475921PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Duncan  P, Richards  L, Wallace  D,  et al.  A randomized, controlled pilot study of a home-based exercise program for individuals with mild and moderate stroke.  Stroke. 1998;29(10):2055-2060. doi:10.1161/01.STR.29.10.2055PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Miller  MD, Paradis  CF, Houck  PR,  et al.  Rating chronic medical illness burden in geropsychiatric practice and research: application of the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale.  Psychiatry Res. 1992;41(3):237-248. doi:10.1016/0165-1781(92)90005-NPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Harris  PA, Taylor  R, Thielke  R, Payne  J, Gonzalez  N, Conde  JG.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.  J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-381. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
First  M, Spitzer  R, Gibbon  M, Williams  J.  Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1997.
50.
Applegate  WB, Ip  E.  The evolving taxonomy of health in older persons.  JAMA. 2016;316(23):2487-2488. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.16432PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Simning  A, Caprio  TV, Seplaki  CL, Temkin-Greener  H, Szanton  SL, Conwell  Y.  Patient-reported outcomes in functioning following nursing home or inpatient rehabilitation.  J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19(10):864-870. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2018.06.014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Liggins  C, Pryor  L, Bernard  MA.  Challenges and opportunities in advancing models of care for older adults: an assessment of the National Institute on Aging research portfolio.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(12):2345-2349. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03157.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Vong  SK, Cheing  GL, Chan  F, So  EM, Chan  CC.  Motivational enhancement therapy in addition to physical therapy improves motivational factors and treatment outcomes in people with low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(2):176-183. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2010.10.016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Abrahamson  K, Myers  J, Nazir  A.  Implementation of a person-centered medical care model in a skilled nursing facility: a pilot evaluation.  J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(6):539-543. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2017.03.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Stevens-Lapsley  JE, Loyd  BJ, Falvey  JR,  et al.  Progressive multi-component home-based physical therapy for deconditioned older adults following acute hospitalization: a pilot randomized controlled trial.  Clin Rehabil. 2016;30(8):776-785. doi:10.1177/0269215515603219PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Kim  H, Thyer  BA.  Does transitional care prevent older adults from rehospitalization? a review.  J Evid Inf Soc Work. 2015;12(3):261-271. doi:10.1080/15433714.2013.827140PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Barry  LC, Murphy  TE, Gill  TM.  Depression and functional recovery after a disabling hospitalization in older persons.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(7):1320-1325. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03453.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Kortte  KB, Falk  LD, Castillo  RC, Johnson-Greene  D, Wegener  ST.  The Hopkins Rehabilitation Engagement Rating Scale: development and psychometric properties.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(7):877-884. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.03.030PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Lequerica  AH, Kortte  K.  Therapeutic engagement: a proposed model of engagement in medical rehabilitation.  Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89(5):415-422. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181d8ceb2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Views 2,142
    Original Investigation
    Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
    July 31, 2019

    Efecto de la rehabilitación médica mejorada en la recuperación funcional en adultos mayores que reciben atención de enfermería especializada después de la rehabilitación aguda:Un ensayo clínico aleatorizado

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Healthy Mind Lab, Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
    • 2Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
    • 3Program in Occupational Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
    • 4Division of Biostatistics, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
    • 5Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
    • 6Division of Geriatrics and Nutritional Science, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
    • 7Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
    JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(7):e198199. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8199
    Puntos claveEnglish 中文 (chinese)

    Pregunta  ¿La rehabilitación médica mejorada, una técnica para comprometer y motivar sistemáticamente a los pacientes en la terapia física y ocupacional, proporciona mejores resultados funcionales?

    Conclusiones  En este ensayo clínico aleatorizado de 229 adultos mayores que recibieron terapia física y ocupacional en centros de enfermería especializada, aquellos que recibieron rehabilitación médica mejorada mostraron un mayor porcentaje de tiempo activo durante las sesiones de terapia y una recuperación funcional 25 % mayor en comparación con los que recibieron terapia de atención estándar.

    Significado  Involucrar sistemáticamente a los adultos mayores en la terapia después de la rehabilitación aguda puede proporcionar un mejor resultado funcional.

    Abstract

    Importance  Enhanced medical rehabilitation (EMR) is a systematic and standardized approach for physical and occupational therapists to engage patients. Higher patient engagement in therapy might lead to improved functional recovery in rehabilitation settings, such as skilled nursing facilities (SNFs).

    Objective  To determine whether EMR improves older adults’ functional recovery.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  A double-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 29, 2014, to July 13, 2018, in 229 adults aged 65 years or older admitted to 2 US SNFs. Participants were randomized to receive EMR (n = 114) vs standard-of-care rehabilitation (n = 115). Intention-to-treat analysis was used.

    Interventions  The intervention group received their physical and occupational therapy from therapists trained in EMR. Based on models of motivation and behavior change, EMR is a toolkit of techniques to increase patient engagement and therapy intensity. The control group received standard-of-care rehabilitation from physical and occupational therapists not trained in EMR.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome was change in function in activities of daily living and mobility, as assessed with the Barthel Index, which measures 10 basic activities of daily living or mobility items (scale range, 0-100), from SNF admission to discharge; secondary outcomes were gait speed for 10 m, 6-minute walk test, discharge disposition, rehospitalizations, and self-reported functional status at days 30, 60, and 90. To examine the rehabilitation process, therapists’ engagement with patients and patient active time during therapy were measured for a sample of the sessions.

    Results  Of the 229 participants, 149 (65.1%) were women; 177 (77.3%) were white, and 51 (22.3%) were black; mean (SD) age was 79.3 (8.0) years. Participants assigned to EMR showed greater recovery of function than those assigned to standard of care (mean increase in Barthel Index score, 35 points; 95% CI, 31.6-38.3 vs 28 points; 95% CI, 25.2-31.7 points; P = .007). There was no evidence of a difference in the length of stay (mean [SD], 23.5 [13.1] days). However, there were no group by time differences in secondary outcome measures, including self-reported function after SNF discharge out to 90 days as measured on the Barthel Index (mean [SE] score: EMR, 83.65 [2.20]; standard of care, 84.67 [2.16]; P = .96). The EMR therapists used a median (interquartile range) of 24.4 (21.0-37.3) motivational messages per therapy session vs 2.3 (1.1-2.9) for nontrained therapists (P < .001), and EMR patients were active during a mean (SD) of 52.5 (6.6%) of the therapy session time vs 41.2 (6.8%) for nontrained therapists (P = .001).

    Conclusions and Relevance  Enhanced medical rehabilitation modestly improved short-term functional recovery for selected older adults rehabilitating in SNFs. However, there was no evidence that the benefits persisted over the longer term. This study demonstrates the value of engaging and motivating older adults in rehabilitation therapy, but more work is needed to extend these benefits to longer-term outcomes after discharge home.

    Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02114879

    Introduction

    Older adults who experience a disabling medical event, such as hip fracture, require physical and occupational therapy (PT/OT) in postacute care settings, such as skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). The use of postacute care has grown as frail and medically complex older adults survive medical events but with such functional incapacity that they are unable to return home and function independently.1,2 In 2016, Medicare paid approximately $60 billion for postacute care, including 2.4 million SNF stays.3 For such patients, postacute rehabilitation is a window of opportunity to regain functional ability. The alternative is persistent disability, which comes with considerable human costs, as well as high health care costs,4 much of it resulting from rehospitalizations.5-8

    To date, efforts to improve rehabilitation outcomes of older adults have met with limited success in randomized clinical trials.9,10 Increasing intensity by providing more PT/OT time in SNF therapy has modestly improved functional gains11-14 and increased the rate of discharge to community settings.15 Yet, a further increase in the use of therapy is likely not an option owing to cost-containment considerations.16,17 Instead, postacute rehabilitation could be optimized by improving therapists’ engagement with patients and the intensity of the therapy sessions, resulting in greater patient active time or patient activity per minute of PT/OT.4,18-24 Such engagement efforts must account for patient factors, such as depression, cognitive impairment, and multiple medical comorbidities, that can undermine motivation.25-28

    Therefore, enhanced medical rehabilitation (EMR), a set of techniques and tools for therapists to engage patients in therapy, was developed.29,30 Enhanced medical rehabilitation is a systematic and standardized approach based on behavior change principles31-34 to enhance patient engagement and intensity to promote optimal functional outcomes. Enhanced medical rehabilitation was designed for real-world therapists and uses short, intuitive motivational messages and simple tools to help the therapist link PT/OT activities, effort, and progress to attainment of the patient’s selected and personally meaningful goals (Table 1).35

    Preliminary research showed that PT and OT therapists could be trained to use EMR, resulting in higher patient active time and better functional outcomes.30 The purpose of the present study was to compare EMR with standard-of-care therapy for older adults receiving postacute rehabilitation in 2 area SNFs. We hypothesized that patients randomized to receive PT/OT from EMR-trained therapists would have better functional outcomes than those receiving standard-of-care therapy. We also examined whether patient characteristics—depression, cognitive impairment, and medical burden—influenced therapy outcome.

    Methods
    Participants

    From July 29, 2014, to March 22, 2018, patients were recruited on admission to 2 SNFs in the St Louis, Missouri, metropolitan area. These facilities were selected based on their willingness to participate in the study and the number and diversity of patients admitted who were receiving postacute care. Participant inclusion criteria were age 65 years or older, admitted from an acute care hospital (Table 2), and requiring 2 or more weeks of rehabilitation with the potential to return to the community; individuals already residing in long-term care facilities before hospitalization were excluded. Other exclusion criteria were language, visual, or hearing barriers to participation; medical illness preventing study participation (including metastatic cancer, ongoing cancer treatment, hemodialysis, hospice care, or highly unstable cardiac illnesses with anticipated rehospitalization); moderate to severe cognitive impairment (demonstrated by medical record diagnosis of dementia and/or Short Blessed Test36 score >13); or psychotic disorder. The study was completed July 13, 2018.

    This study followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline for randomized clinical trials. This study was a randomized clinical trial with 2 parallel groups (EMR vs standard of care) and blinded outcome assessments. The study was approved by the Washington University Institutional Review Board. Potential participants were enrolled after providing university-approved written informed consent. The trial protocol is available in Supplement 1.

    EMR Therapist Selection

    Therapists were selected for EMR by measuring their pretraining patient active time and number of motivational messages and creating EMR and standard-of-care therapist groups who were equated in these variables (Table 3) as well as years and level of experience. Eleven therapists (occupational therapists, physical therapists, and certified therapy assistants) were trained in EMR, including 7 at the larger facility and 4 at the smaller one. Eighteen therapists were not trained and performed standard-of-care therapy. Therapist selection was conducted in collaboration with therapy managers to ensure adequate staffing coverage in each group (EMR and standard of care). Therapists had the opportunity to decline participation in the training and thus be in the standard-of-care group. To prevent bias or contamination between groups, the research team did not provide the standard-of-care therapists with information about EMR and discouraged the EMR-trained therapists from sharing it with them.

    Training and Supervision for EMR

    Training and coaching were provided by PT and OT coaches who were study investigators (M.B. and P.B.) and included 5 structured group training sessions. Individual and group coaching sessions continued throughout the study to maintain treatment fidelity with EMR. Additional information on training techniques and fidelity testing has been published.24,37

    Randomization

    Eligible participants were randomized to either EMR or standard-of-care therapy. The study statistician (M.Y.) generated the randomization sequence. Enrollment of participants and randomization to study conditions were conducted by research staff; randomization assignment was concealed until determination of participant eligibility by use of sequentially numbered sealed envelopes. Randomization was stratified by site and depressive symptoms (defined by a Montgomery-Äsberg Depression Rating Scale38 score ≥15 [indicating clinically significant depression]) and blocked within strata using random permuted block sizes of 2 and 4. Patients in the EMR arm received their weekday PT/OT only from EMR-trained therapists, while patients in the standard-of-care arm received PT/OT only from licensed therapists not trained in EMR. Otherwise, the 2 conditions did not differ (eg, EMR therapists were not instructed to spend more time with patients). To further equate the 2 conditions, the standard-of-care therapists also received 5 hours of training on various rehabilitation topics (eg, standardized assessments), and the therapists’ training was described neutrally to patients at the time of consent to avoid causing an expectancy bias.

    Measurement of Therapists’ Techniques in the Study

    Research assistants observed study therapists and measured the following for both the EMR and standard-of-care groups: (1) therapists’ fidelity (adherence) to EMR37 (ie, whether the therapist carried out a correct technique at the appropriate time in therapy); (2) rehabilitation engagement of the patient with the therapist, using the Pittsburgh Rehabilitation Participation Scale,39 which is a 1-item Likert-type scale that assesses how actively the patient participates and engages in the therapy session, ranging from 1 (refused entire therapy session) to 6 (participated 100% and was actively engaged throughout therapy session); and (3) patient active time,40 which measures the percentage of time during the therapy session in which the patient actively performs a therapeutic activity (eg, walking or practicing an activity of daily living) as opposed to sitting and resting.

    All of these techniques or processes were measured in a random sample of 5 therapy sessions per therapist before training to confirm that therapists’ skills were equivalent before training. A sample of 4 therapy sessions (2 OT and 2 PT) were then conducted for each randomized participant during their SNF stay to demonstrate that EMR active ingredients were delivered in a manner distinct from standard-of-care therapy (including demonstrating the absence of contamination of EMR into the standard-of-care arm).

    Outcome Measures

    All outcomes were measured by blinded assessors. The primary outcome was change in Barthel Index score from admission to discharge. The Barthel Index is an instrument that measures a person’s ability to perform 10 basic activities of daily living or mobility items, with a scale range between 0 and 100 (higher scores indicate better function).41 It has proven external validity in estimating care needs and independent living in patients who have experienced stroke or hip fracture.42,43 The admission and discharge Barthel Index items were measured by 2 of us (M.B. and P.B.) from nursing and therapy notes that were redacted to hide participant identity or treatment assignment.

    Secondary outcomes were self-reported function, performance-based gait measures, discharge to community settings, and rehospitalization. Self-reported function after discharge was assessed using a patient self-report version of the Barthel Index at days 30, 60, and 90 after randomization administered by telephone; we also ascertained whether rehospitalization occurred after completion of SNF rehabilitation up to day 90 after randomization. Performance-based measures obtained at admission and discharge from the facility were gait speed using 1 trial of the 10-m walk test44,45 and a 6-minute walk test (number of feet walked in 6 minutes).46 Gait assessments were videotaped and scored by a blinded assessor. Disposition from the SNF was dichotomized as return to the community setting (ie, to a private residence, group home, or assisted living) vs not returned (ie, to further skilled nursing rehabilitation, long-term care, or a hospital).

    We collected 3 baseline variables for prespecified moderator analyses: the Montgomery-Äsberg Depression Rating Scale for evaluating the severity of depressive symptoms (range, 0-60; higher scores indicate more depressive symptoms; no cutoff was used in this study)38; the Short Blessed Test, a brief assessment of orientation, registration, and attention36 (higher scores indicate worse impairment, with scores of 5-9 consistent with mild cognitive impairment and ≥10 consistent with dementia); and the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics score to quantify chronic illness burden from the medical records (higher scores indicate greater burden).47

    Statistical Analysis

    The statistical analysis plan is available in Supplement 1. Intention-to-treat analysis was used. Study data were managed using REDCap, version 7.48 Analyses were performed using R, version 3.5.0 (R Foundation) or SPSS, version 24 (SPSS Inc). The primary outcome was change in Barthel Index score; the secondary outcomes were the 6-minute walk test and gait speed values at SNF discharge, as well as discharge disposition, rehospitalizations, and self-reported function at days 30, 60, and 90. The discharge point was the sole focus for the 6-minute walk test and gait speed test, as most participants were unable to complete these tasks at baseline and, therefore, there was no variability in these data at baseline. To test the primary hypothesis that EMR participants showed greater change in the Barthel Index score than standard-of-care participants, we used a marginal model with time (baseline and discharge), condition (EMR vs standard of care) and time × condition as fixed effects and with an unstructured covariance structure specified based on bayesian information criterion.

    The secondary analyses for 6-minute walk test distance and gait speed used a Mann-Whitney test to examine differences in means between groups. For the secondary outcome of rehospitalization, χ2 analysis was used to determine whether rehospitalizations were dependent on condition. The outcome of self-reported function applied a marginal model using time (30, 60, and 90 days), condition, and time × condition as fixed effects, with the unstructured covariance structure specified based on the Bayesian information criterion. In addition, a marginal model tested for potential moderator effects: the model was constructed for each potential moderator and consisted of time and condition as factors, all 2-way interactions (eg, condition × time), and the 3-way interaction between time, condition, and the potential moderator, the latter of which is the term of interest. Exploratory analyses tested whether the effects of age, sex, race, and site altered the conclusions of the primary results as well as the conclusions of the moderator results. Both condition and site were constructed as 2-level fixed factors (EMR vs standard of care and facility 1 vs facility 2, respectively).

    The trial was stopped at the end of the grant funding period (July 13, 2018). The study was originally powered to detect a moderate effect size of 0.4 based on a sample size of 252 with 80% power for 2 coprimary outcomes: functional change in the entire sample and change in depressive symptoms among participants who were clinically depressed as defined by a current depression diagnosis (major or minor depression, according to the Structural Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Medical Disorders-IV Axis I Disorders49) at the time of SNF admission; however, of the 229 participants randomized, only 14 met a depression diagnosis, so this outcome analysis was not done and the level of significance, determined with 2-tailed testing, was set to 5% for functional change.

    Results

    Of 3265 patients screened for study eligibility, 2909 were ineligible (eg, age <65 years, severe cognitive impairment, or not scheduled to receive ≥2 weeks of therapy), 127 refused to participate, and 229 were randomized (Figure). Table 2 reports the sample’s baseline characteristics; mean (SD) age was 79.3 (8.0) years and 149 were women (65.1%). The participants were ethnically diverse (177 [77.3%] white, 51 [22.3%] black, 1 [0.4%] >1 race); had a range of primary impairments along with multiple medical comorbidities, as measured by the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (mean [SD] score, 16.9 [5.2]); were highly disabled, as measured by the Barthel Index on admission (mean [SD] score, 33.5 [13.0]); and had a range of cognitive impairment symptoms, as shown on the Short Blessed Test (mean [SD] score, 4.1 [3.4]), and depressive symptoms, as shown on the Montgomery-Äsberg Depression Rating Scale (mean [SD] score, 8.6 [7.8]).

    Process Data in Therapists Before and After Training

    Before any training was conducted, the EMR therapists were similar to the standard-of-care therapists in terms of fidelity to the EMR intervention (quantified as number of engagement/motivational techniques consistent with EMR per therapy session), mean patient active time per therapy session, and patient engagement as measured by the Pittsburgh Rehabilitation Participation Scale (Table 3). After training (ie, during the randomized clinical trial), EMR therapists used a median (interquartile range) of 24.4 (21.0-37.3) motivational messages per therapy session compared with 2.3 (1.1-2.9) for nontrained therapists (P < .001). EMR patients were active during a mean (SD) of 52.5% (6.6%) of the therapy session time vs 41.3% (6.8%) for nontrained therapists (P = .001).(Table 3). Thus, therapists trained and coached in EMR were conducting this intervention with good fidelity that was clearly differentiated from standard of care, and these differences were attributable to the EMR training and coaching and not preexisting therapist differences. Table 3 also presents the mean (SD) durations of therapy sessions, showing that EMR sessions were not longer than standard-of-care sessions.

    Outcomes

    Table 4 reports study outcomes in the EMR and standard-of-care groups. The main finding was that the EMR group had better functional recovery in terms of Barthel Index score change from admission to discharge—the study’s primary end point. A significant condition × time interaction was detected, with EMR participants exhibiting greater improvement during their SNF stay than standard-of-care participants. mean increase in Barthel Index score, 35 points (95% CI, 31.6-38.3 points) vs 28 points (95% CI, 25.2-31.7 points) (P = .007). There was no evidence of a difference in the length of stay (mean [SD], 23.5 [13.1] days). Adding age, sex, race, and site as main effects did not alter the conclusions. The eTable in Supplement 2 presents the individual item changes in the Barthel Index by group.

    There was no evidence of a difference between EMR and standard-of-care participants in any of the secondary outcomes. Groups were not significantly different at discharge for gait speed (meters per second) and 6-minute walk test (meters). Self-reported function at days 30, 60, and 90 was not different between EMR and standard of care (mean [SE] Barthel Index score at day 90: EMR, 83.65 [2.20]; standard of care, 84.67 [2.16]; P = .96). In addition, there was not a main effect of condition; however, there was a significant main effect of time, showing that both groups reported improvement over time. Adding age, sex, race, and site as main effects did not alter the conclusions. Discharge disposition data (discharge to home vs institution) were available on 220 participants. Whether a participant was discharged to home or was institutionalized was independent of condition. Rehospitalization data during the 90-day follow-up were available on 221 participants. Whether a participant was rehospitalized was independent of condition. In terms of adverse events, there were none that were related to the study procedures or interventions.

    Moderator Results

    We considered 3 variables measured on admission as potential moderators: depressive symptoms (Montgomery-Äsberg Depression Rating Scale score), level of cognitive impairment (Short Blessed Test score) and total amount of medical morbidity (Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics score). Results are presented in Table 4. Contrary to our hypothesis, none of these variables was a significant moderator of the effectiveness of EMR, as evident by a lack of a significant time × condition × moderator interaction. These results were not affected when including age, sex, race, and site as main effects in the models. For example, among those with low Montgomery-Äsberg Depression Rating Scale scores, participants randomized to EMR improved by a mean (SD) of 36.2 (17.4) points in the Barthel Index vs 28.3 (18.1) in the standard-of-care group; among those with high Montgomery-Äsberg Depression Rating Scale scores, the improvements were 32.7 (19.0) with EMR vs 28.7 (15.2) with standard-of-care. Similarly, improvements were 34.4 (18.4) with EMR vs 27.5 (17.1) vs standard-of-care with low (nonimpaired) Short Blessed Test scores, compared with 35.7 (17.4) with EMR vs 30.0 (17.5) with standard-of-care with high (impaired) Short Blessed Test scores.

    Discussion

    This randomized clinical trial evaluated the effects of EMR, an approach to engage and motivate patients in PT/OT. Our main finding is that patients treated by EMR therapists had an estimated 25% greater functional recovery on average during postacute SNF rehabilitation, compared with those who received standard-of-care therapy. With respect to secondary outcomes, however, there were no group differences in gait measures, discharge disposition, or longer-term self-reported function. These findings are important because they indicate that older patients can achieve better short-term functional outcomes when treated by therapists who are trained and coached to systematically motivate patients and strive for higher-intensity therapy. Additional strategies are needed to maintain these functional gains after discharge from the rehabilitation facility and affect outcomes such as rehospitalization.

    To our knowledge, this is the first full-scale test demonstrating benefits of a standardized method to improve rehabilitation outcomes by increasing engagement and intensity of therapy sessions. Functional recovery of older adults is an important outcome50 and one that is not always achieved despite postacute rehabilitation services.51 This finding fits well with the 2008 Institute of Medicine report Retooling for an Aging America, which recommended models of treatment that make older persons more active partners in their own care.52 This finding is also supported by smaller studies demonstrating the benefits of systematic interventions to increase engagement and intensity in rehabilitation settings.53,54

    The EMR model does not ask therapists to do anything technically different in their practice, such as specific exercises or therapy protocols. Instead, it integrates communication techniques into therapy, increasing the focus on treatment engagement and intensity, thus providing more potent therapy without more treatment time. As such, EMR could be applied to any rehabilitation setting. This finding is important, because we found no differences in key secondary discharge outcomes, including disposition (frequency of returning home) or gait measures (gait speed and 6-minute walk test). Therefore, to fully optimize outcomes, it may be necessary to combine EMR with additional components, such as techniques to increase muscle strength and stamina to improve gait performance,55 and a postdischarge care component to reduce rehospitalization.6,56

    In addition, there were no differences in longer-term self-reported function. Self-reported function may be a different construct than therapist-measured function; furthermore, self-reported function appeared to show a ceiling effect by 60 to 90 days after SNF admission, suggesting that self-report scores were inflated or that participants who were able to be assessed after discharge were also those who regained most or all of their function. Studies should measure both self-reported and observed function to better understand the long-term functional trajectory after rehabilitation.

    The effectiveness of EMR was not moderated by baseline levels of depression, cognitive impairment, or medical complexity, which we had estimated would be potential barriers to motivation and recovery. This finding argues against providing EMR only to certain patient groups, such as individuals with depression, in favor of a more universal application of this approach in rehabilitation.

    Strengths and Limitations

    Strengths of this study included demonstrating that EMR and standard-of-care therapists were equated at baseline prior to training and blinding of outcomes. The study has several limitations. The trial was conducted in 2 facilities in 1 geographic area. Because of logistical challenges, we were unable to control therapy done on weekends and we were only able to assign and randomize participants after 1 to 2 days in the SNF. However, this limitation would not invalidate positive study findings; possibly, EMR would have greater effects if implemented for all therapy sessions. Further studies of EMR are needed to replicate and extend these findings. Another limitation is that, for feasibility reasons, we were unable to directly observe all therapy sessions and we did not have a method of assessing treatment fidelity by therapists other than by direct observation; this lack of continuous assessment could have influenced EMR-trained therapists to carry out more motivational messaging when observed. Other limitations include low statistical power for examining binary secondary outcomes, such as rehospitalization, and a high rate of SNF admissions excluded for reasons such as patients being severely cognitively impaired or not requiring intensive rehabilitation.

    Conclusions

    This trial’s findings suggest that EMR is effective in improving functional recovery for older adults in postacute rehabilitation. Improving outcomes is paramount for the estimated 6.4 million older adults receiving rehabilitation services yearly,51 and the medical rehabilitation field has urged a greater focus on patient engagement and intensity in medical rehabilitation.57-59

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: June 11, 2019.

    Published: July 31, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8199

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Lenze EJ et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Eric J. Lenze, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, 660 S Euclid Ave, PO Box 8134, St Louis, MO 63110 (lenzee@wustl.edu).

    Author Contributions: Dr Lenze and Mr Yingling had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Lenze, Bland, Barco, Morrow-Howell, Baum, Binder, Rodebaugh.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Lenze, Lenard, Bland, Barco, Miller, Yingling, Lang, Morrow-Howell, Binder, Rodebaugh.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Lenze, Bland, Barco, Yingling.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Lenze, Lenard, Bland, Barco, Miller, Lang, Morrow-Howell, Baum, Binder, Rodebaugh.

    Statistical analysis: Lenze, Miller, Yingling, Rodebaugh.

    Obtained funding: Lenze.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Lenze, Lenard, Bland, Lang, Baum.

    Supervision: Lenze, Lenard, Bland, Lang.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lenze reported grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) during the conduct of the study; grants from the National Institute on Aging, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, the NIMH, Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, McKnight Brain Research Foundation, Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research, Barnes Jewish Foundation, Takeda, Alkermes, Aptinyx, Johnson & Johnson, and Lundbeck outside the submitted work; grants and personal fees from Janssen; and personal fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr Bland reported grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during the conduct of the study. Dr Barco reported grants from the NIMH during the conduct of the study; grants from the Missouri Department of Transportation, NIH, and Craig H. Neilson Foundation outside the submitted work; and personal fees from the University of Missouri and The Rehabilitation Institute of St. Louis outside the submitted work. Mr Miller reported grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr Lang reported grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study, grants from the NIH outside the submitted work, and royalties from AOTA Press outside the submitted work. Dr Binder reported grants from the NIMH/NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr Rodebaugh reported grants from the NIMH during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant R01 MH099011 from the NIMH. Additional funding came from the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research and the Center for Brain Research in Mood Disorders at Washington University.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.

    Additional Contributions: We thank the staff of the Barnes-Jewish Extended Care and Alexian Brothers Sherbrooke Village skilled nursing facilities in the St Louis, Missouri, area, for their help in this study; and Rebecca Birkenmeier, OTD, OTR/L (Washington University in St Louis), for her work on the study; she received no financial compensation.

    Additional Information: To disseminate enhanced medical rehabilitation, we have made its tools and training available (https://healthymind.wustl.edu/enhanced-medical-rehabilitation).

    References
    1.
    Gustavson  AM, Falvey  JR, Forster  JE, Stevens-Lapsley  JE.  Predictors of functional change in a skilled nursing facility population  [published online June 21, 2017].  J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2017. doi:10.1519/JPT.0000000000000137PubMedGoogle Scholar
    2.
    Alcusky  M, Ulbricht  CM, Lapane  KL.  Postacute care setting, facility characteristics, and poststroke outcomes: a systematic review.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(6):1124-1140.e9. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2017.09.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Ouslander  JG, Sehgal  M.  The conundrum of choosing post-acute care: a challenge for patients, families, and clinicians.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(4):638-640. doi:10.1111/jgs.15765PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Wald  HL, Ramaswamy  R, Perskin  MH,  et al; Quality and Performance Measurement Committee of the American Geriatrics Society.  The case for mobility assessment in hospitalized older adults: American Geriatrics Society White Paper Executive Summary.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(1):11-16. doi:10.1111/jgs.15595PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Chandra  A, Dalton  MA, Holmes  J.  Large increases in spending on postacute care in Medicare point to the potential for cost savings in these settings.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(5):864-872. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1262PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Mor  V, Intrator  O, Feng  Z, Grabowski  DC.  The revolving door of rehospitalization from skilled nursing facilities.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(1):57-64. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0629PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Pedersen  MK, Meyer  G, Uhrenfeldt  L.  Risk factors for acute care hospital readmission in older persons in Western countries: a systematic review.  JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2017;15(2):454-485.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    8.
    Middleton  A, Downer  B, Haas  A, Lin  YL, Graham  JE, Ottenbacher  KJ.  Functional status is associated with 30-day potentially preventable readmissions following skilled nursing facility discharge among Medicare beneficiaries.  J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19(4):348-354.e4. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2017.12.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Falvey  JR, Burke  RE, Stevens-Lapsley  JE.  Physical function and hospital readmissions.  JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(10):1722. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3922PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Holstege  MS, Caljouw  MAA, Zekveld  IG,  et al.  Successful geriatric rehabilitation: effects on patients’ outcome of a national program to improve quality of care, the SINGER Study.  J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(5):383-387. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2016.10.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Jette  DU, Warren  RL, Wirtalla  C.  The relation between therapy intensity and outcomes of rehabilitation in skilled nursing facilities.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(3):373-379. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2004.10.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Chen  CC, Heinemann  AW, Granger  CV, Linn  RT.  Functional gains and therapy intensity during subacute rehabilitation: a study of 20 facilities.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(11):1514-1523. doi:10.1053/apmr.2002.35107PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Bowblis  JR, Brunt  CS.  Medicare skilled nursing facility reimbursement and upcoding.  Health Econ. 2014;23(7):821-840. doi:10.1002/hec.2959PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    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. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002592PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    O’Brien  SR, Zhang  N.  Association between therapy intensity and discharge outcomes in aged Medicare skilled nursing facilities admissions.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(1):107-115. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2017.07.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Latham  NK, Harris  BA, Bean  JF,  et al.  Effect of a home-based exercise program on functional recovery following rehabilitation after hip fracture: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2014;311(7):700-708. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.469PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Buhagiar  MA, Naylor  JM, Harris  IA,  et al.  Effect of inpatient rehabilitation vs a monitored home-based program on mobility in patients with total knee arthroplasty: the HIHO randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2017;317(10):1037-1046. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.1224PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Talkowski  JB, Lenze  EJ, Munin  MC, Harrison  C, Brach  JS.  Patient participation and physical activity during rehabilitation and future functional outcomes in patients after hip fracture.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(4):618-622. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2008.10.024PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    MacKay-Lyons  MJ, Makrides  L.  Cardiovascular stress during a contemporary stroke rehabilitation program: is the intensity adequate to induce a training effect?  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(10):1378-1383. doi:10.1053/apmr.2002.35089PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Lang  CE, Macdonald  JR, Reisman  DS,  et al.  Observation of amounts of movement practice provided during stroke rehabilitation.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(10):1692-1698. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.04.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Bohannon  RW.  Time use by inpatients receiving neurorehabilitation.  Percept Mot Skills. 2003;97(1):68-70. doi:10.2466/pms.2003.97.1.68PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Bernhardt  J, Dewey  H, Thrift  A, Donnan  G.  Inactive and alone: physical activity within the first 14 days of acute stroke unit care.  Stroke. 2004;35(4):1005-1009. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000120727.40792.40PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Moore  JL, Roth  EJ, Killian  C, Hornby  TG.  Locomotor training improves daily stepping activity and gait efficiency in individuals poststroke who have reached a “plateau” in recovery.  Stroke. 2010;41(1):129-135. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.563247PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Hildebrand  MW, Host  HH, Binder  EF,  et al.  Measuring treatment fidelity in a rehabilitation intervention study.  Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(8):715-724. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e31824ad462PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Skidmore  ER, Whyte  EM, Holm  MB,  et al.  Cognitive and affective predictors of rehabilitation participation after stroke.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(2):203-207. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.10.026PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Lenze  EJ, Skidmore  ER, Dew  MA,  et al.  Does depression, apathy or cognitive impairment reduce the benefit of inpatient rehabilitation facilities for elderly hip fracture patients?  Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2007;29(2):141-146. doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2007.01.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Seematter-Bagnoud  L, Frascarolo  S, Büla  CJ.  How much do combined affective and cognitive impairments worsen rehabilitation outcomes after hip fracture?  BMC Geriatr. 2018;18(1):71. doi:10.1186/s12877-018-0763-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Kringle  EA, Terhorst  L, Butters  MA, Skidmore  ER.  Clinical predictors of engagement in inpatient rehabilitation among stroke survivors with cognitive deficits: an exploratory study.  J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2018;24(6):572-583. doi:10.1017/S1355617718000085PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Lenze  EJ, Host  HH, Hildebrand  M,  et al.  Enhanced medical rehabilitation is feasible in a skilled nursing facility: preliminary data on a novel treatment for older adults with depression.  Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013;21(3):307. doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Lenze  EJ, Host  HH, Hildebrand  MW,  et al.  Enhanced medical rehabilitation increases therapy intensity and engagement and improves functional outcomes in postacute rehabilitation of older adults: a randomized-controlled trial.  J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012;13(8):708-712. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2012.06.014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Bandura  A.  Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.  Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Rasmussen  HN, Wrosch  C, Scheier  MF, Carver  CS.  Self-regulation processes and health: the importance of optimism and goal adjustment.  J Pers. 2006;74(6):1721-1747. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00426.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Ajzen  I.  The theory of planned behavior.  Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-TGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Prochaska  JO, Velicer  WF.  The transtheoretical model of health behavior change.  Am J Health Promot. 1997;12(1):38-48. doi:10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Rehabilitation  EM. Healthy Mind Lab, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis. https://healthymind.wustl.edu/items/enhanced-medical-rehabilitation/. Accessed July 10, 2019.
    36.
    Davis  PB, Morris  JC, Grant  E.  Brief screening tests versus clinical staging in senile dementia of the Alzheimer type.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 1990;38(2):129-135. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1990.tb03473.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Bland  MD, Birkenmeier  RL, Barco  P, Lenard  E, Lang  CE, Lenze  EJ.  Enhanced medical rehabilitation: effectiveness of a clinical training model.  NeuroRehabilitation. 2016;39(4):481-498. doi:10.3233/NRE-161380PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Montgomery  SA, Äsberg  M.  A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change.  Br J Psychiatry. 1979;134:382-389. doi:10.1192/bjp.134.4.382PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Lenze  EJ, Munin  MC, Quear  T,  et al.  The Pittsburgh Rehabilitation Participation Scale: reliability and validity of a clinician-rated measure of participation in acute rehabilitation.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(3):380-384. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2003.06.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    40.
    Host  HH, Lang  CE, Hildebrand  MW,  et al.  Patient active time during therapy sessions in postacute rehabilitation: development and validation of a new measure.  Phys Occup Ther Geriatr. 2014;32(2):169-178. doi:10.3109/02703181.2014.915282PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Granger  CV, Dewis  LS, Peters  NC, Sherwood  CC, Barrett  JE.  Stroke rehabilitation: analysis of repeated Barthel index measures.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1979;60(1):14-17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    42.
    al-Khawaja  I, Wade  DT, Turner  F.  The Barthel Index and its relationship to nursing dependency in rehabilitation.  Clin Rehabil. 1997;11(4):335-337. doi:10.1177/026921559701100411PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Bond  J, Gregson  B, Smith  M, Lecouturier  J, Rousseau  N, Rodgers  H.  Predicting place of discharge from hospital for patients with a stroke or hip fracture on admission.  J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000;5(3):133-139. doi:10.1177/135581960000500303PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Finch  E. Physical Rehabilitation Outcome Measures. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.
    45.
    Schmid  A, Duncan  PW, Studenski  S,  et al.  Improvements in speed-based gait classifications are meaningful.  Stroke. 2007;38(7):2096-2100. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.475921PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    46.
    Duncan  P, Richards  L, Wallace  D,  et al.  A randomized, controlled pilot study of a home-based exercise program for individuals with mild and moderate stroke.  Stroke. 1998;29(10):2055-2060. doi:10.1161/01.STR.29.10.2055PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    47.
    Miller  MD, Paradis  CF, Houck  PR,  et al.  Rating chronic medical illness burden in geropsychiatric practice and research: application of the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale.  Psychiatry Res. 1992;41(3):237-248. doi:10.1016/0165-1781(92)90005-NPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    48.
    Harris  PA, Taylor  R, Thielke  R, Payne  J, Gonzalez  N, Conde  JG.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.  J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-381. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    49.
    First  M, Spitzer  R, Gibbon  M, Williams  J.  Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1997.
    50.
    Applegate  WB, Ip  E.  The evolving taxonomy of health in older persons.  JAMA. 2016;316(23):2487-2488. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.16432PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    51.
    Simning  A, Caprio  TV, Seplaki  CL, Temkin-Greener  H, Szanton  SL, Conwell  Y.  Patient-reported outcomes in functioning following nursing home or inpatient rehabilitation.  J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19(10):864-870. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2018.06.014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    52.
    Liggins  C, Pryor  L, Bernard  MA.  Challenges and opportunities in advancing models of care for older adults: an assessment of the National Institute on Aging research portfolio.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(12):2345-2349. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03157.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    53.
    Vong  SK, Cheing  GL, Chan  F, So  EM, Chan  CC.  Motivational enhancement therapy in addition to physical therapy improves motivational factors and treatment outcomes in people with low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(2):176-183. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2010.10.016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    54.
    Abrahamson  K, Myers  J, Nazir  A.  Implementation of a person-centered medical care model in a skilled nursing facility: a pilot evaluation.  J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(6):539-543. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2017.03.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    55.
    Stevens-Lapsley  JE, Loyd  BJ, Falvey  JR,  et al.  Progressive multi-component home-based physical therapy for deconditioned older adults following acute hospitalization: a pilot randomized controlled trial.  Clin Rehabil. 2016;30(8):776-785. doi:10.1177/0269215515603219PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    56.
    Kim  H, Thyer  BA.  Does transitional care prevent older adults from rehospitalization? a review.  J Evid Inf Soc Work. 2015;12(3):261-271. doi:10.1080/15433714.2013.827140PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    57.
    Barry  LC, Murphy  TE, Gill  TM.  Depression and functional recovery after a disabling hospitalization in older persons.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(7):1320-1325. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03453.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    58.
    Kortte  KB, Falk  LD, Castillo  RC, Johnson-Greene  D, Wegener  ST.  The Hopkins Rehabilitation Engagement Rating Scale: development and psychometric properties.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(7):877-884. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.03.030PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    59.
    Lequerica  AH, Kortte  K.  Therapeutic engagement: a proposed model of engagement in medical rehabilitation.  Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89(5):415-422. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181d8ceb2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×