Resource Utilization Groups in transitional home care: validating the RUG-III/HC case-mix system in hospital-to-home care programs.
Case-mix
Home care
Post-acute care
RUG-III/HC
Resource utilization
Transitional care
interRAI
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Nov 2023
30 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
14
03
2023
accepted:
16
10
2023
medline:
4
12
2023
pubmed:
1
12
2023
entrez:
1
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Transitional hospital-to-home care programs support safe and timely transition from acute care settings back into the community. Case-mix systems that classify transitional care clients into groups based on their resource utilization can assist with care planning, calculating reimbursement rates in bundled care funding models, and predicting health human resource needs. This study evaluated the fit and relevance of the Resource Utilization Groups version III for Home Care (RUG-III/HC) case-mix classification system in transitional care programs in Ontario, Canada. We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical assessment data and administrative billing records from a cohort of clients (n = 1,680 care episodes) in transitional home care programs in Ontario. We classified care episodes into established RUG-III/HC groups based on clients' clinical and functional characteristics and calculated four case-mix indices to describe care relative resource utilization in the study sample. Using these indices in linear regression models, we evaluated the degree to which the RUG-III/HC system can be used to predict care resource utilization. A majority of transitional home care clients are classified as being Clinically complex (41.6%) and having Reduced physical functions (37.8%). The RUG-III/HC groups that account for the largest share of clients are those with the lowest hierarchical ranking, indicating low Activities of Daily Living limitations but a range of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living limitations. There is notable heterogeneity in the distribution of clients in RUG-III/HC groups across transitional care programs. The case-mix indices reflect decreasing hierarchical resource use within but not across RUG-III/HC categories. The RUG-III/HC predicts 23.34% of the variance in resource utilization of combined paid and unpaid care time. The distribution of clients across RUG-III/HC groups in transitional home care programs is remarkably different from clients in long-stay home care settings. Transitional care programs have a higher proportion of Clinically complex clients and a lower proportion of clients with Reduced physical function. This study contributes to the development of a case-mix system for clients in transitional home care programs which can be used by care managers to inform planning, costing, and resource allocation in these programs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Transitional hospital-to-home care programs support safe and timely transition from acute care settings back into the community. Case-mix systems that classify transitional care clients into groups based on their resource utilization can assist with care planning, calculating reimbursement rates in bundled care funding models, and predicting health human resource needs. This study evaluated the fit and relevance of the Resource Utilization Groups version III for Home Care (RUG-III/HC) case-mix classification system in transitional care programs in Ontario, Canada.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical assessment data and administrative billing records from a cohort of clients (n = 1,680 care episodes) in transitional home care programs in Ontario. We classified care episodes into established RUG-III/HC groups based on clients' clinical and functional characteristics and calculated four case-mix indices to describe care relative resource utilization in the study sample. Using these indices in linear regression models, we evaluated the degree to which the RUG-III/HC system can be used to predict care resource utilization.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A majority of transitional home care clients are classified as being Clinically complex (41.6%) and having Reduced physical functions (37.8%). The RUG-III/HC groups that account for the largest share of clients are those with the lowest hierarchical ranking, indicating low Activities of Daily Living limitations but a range of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living limitations. There is notable heterogeneity in the distribution of clients in RUG-III/HC groups across transitional care programs. The case-mix indices reflect decreasing hierarchical resource use within but not across RUG-III/HC categories. The RUG-III/HC predicts 23.34% of the variance in resource utilization of combined paid and unpaid care time.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The distribution of clients across RUG-III/HC groups in transitional home care programs is remarkably different from clients in long-stay home care settings. Transitional care programs have a higher proportion of Clinically complex clients and a lower proportion of clients with Reduced physical function. This study contributes to the development of a case-mix system for clients in transitional home care programs which can be used by care managers to inform planning, costing, and resource allocation in these programs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38037101
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-10150-1
pii: 10.1186/s12913-023-10150-1
pmc: PMC10687885
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1324Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Health Soc Care Community. 2018 Mar;26(2):240-249
pubmed: 29119635
Healthc Manage Forum. 2021 May;34(3):163-168
pubmed: 33272058
J Health Econ. 2004 Nov;23(6):1159-80
pubmed: 15556241
J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2014 Mar-Apr;29(2):140-54
pubmed: 23348223
J Hosp Med. 2006 Nov;1(6):354-60
pubmed: 17219528
Healthc Q. 2009;12(2):42-9
pubmed: 19369810
Healthc Policy. 2017 Feb;12(3):80-93
pubmed: 28277206
Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Sep-Oct;28(5):1418-28
pubmed: 19738259
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Mar;81:102-9
pubmed: 23347496
Scand J Public Health. 2004;32(6):464-71
pubmed: 15762032
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998 Summer;14(3):505-13
pubmed: 9780537
Milbank Q. 2020 Mar;98(1):197-222
pubmed: 31909852
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004 May;52(5):675-84
pubmed: 15086645
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Oct 29;21(1):1177
pubmed: 34715850
Health Policy. 2020 Feb;124(2):121-132
pubmed: 31928858
Med Care. 2008 Apr;46(4):380-7
pubmed: 18362817
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Mar 14;15:100
pubmed: 25888830
Health Care Manag Sci. 2003 Feb;6(1):27-35
pubmed: 12638924
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003 Apr;51(4):556-7
pubmed: 12657079
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2015 Feb;15(2):220-8
pubmed: 25163513
J Adv Nurs. 2019 Nov;75(11):2495-2505
pubmed: 30883880
Healthc Manage Forum. 2015 Jan;28(1):12-15
pubmed: 25838565
Health Policy. 2012 Oct;107(2-3):209-17
pubmed: 22386890
Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Apr;30(4):746-54
pubmed: 21471497
Health Econ Rev. 2016 Dec;6(1):8
pubmed: 26914355
Can J Nurs Res. 2003 Dec;35(4):14-36
pubmed: 14746119
Health Policy. 2006 Dec;79(2-3):195-202
pubmed: 16439035
Health Soc Care Community. 2018 May;26(3):345-355
pubmed: 29292847
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Feb 03;16:40
pubmed: 26847062
Health Policy. 2016 Jul;120(7):732-8
pubmed: 27160481
Can J Aging. 2018 Dec;37(4):400-419
pubmed: 30176954