Fosse et al. BMC Health Services Research (2021) 21:678 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06703-x RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Does rehabilitation setting influence risk of institutionalization? A register-based study of hip fracture patients in Oslo, Norway Rina Moe Fosse1*, Eliva Atieno Ambugo2, Tron Anders Moger1, Terje P. Hagen1 and Trond Tjerbo1 Abstract Background: Reducing the economic impact of hip fractures (HF) is a global issue. Some efforts aimed at curtailing costs associated with HF include rehabilitating patients within primary care. Little, however, is known about how different rehabilitation settings within primary care influence patients’ subsequent risk of institutionalization for long-term care (LTC). This study examines the association between rehabilitation setting (outside an institution versus short-term rehabilitation stay in an institution, both during 30 days post-discharge for HF) and risk of institutionalization in a nursing home (at 6–12 months from the index admission). Methods: Data were for 612 HF incidents across 611 patients aged 50 years and older, who were hospitalized between 2008 and 2013 in Oslo, Norway, and who lived at home prior to the incidence. We used logistic regression to examine the effect of rehabilitation setting on risk of institutionalization, and adjusted for patients’ age, gender, health characteristics, functional level, use of healthcare services, and socioeconomic characteristics. The models also included fixed-effects for Oslo’s boroughs to control for supply-side and unobserved effects. Results: The sample of HF patients had a mean age of 82.4 years, and 78.9 % were women. Within 30 days after hospital discharge, 49.0 % of patients received rehabilitation outside an institution, while the remaining 51.0 % received a short-term rehabilitation stay in an institution. Receiving rehabilitation outside an institution was associated with a 58 % lower odds (OR = 0.42, 95 % CI = 0.23–0.76) of living in a nursing home at 6–12 months after the index admission. The patients who were admitted to a nursing home for LTC were older, more dependent on help with their memory, and had a substantially greater increase in the use of municipal healthcare services after the HF. Conclusions: The setting in which HF patients receive rehabilitation is associated with their likelihood of institutionalization. In the current study, patients who received rehabilitation outside of an institution were less likely to be admitted to a nursing home for LTC, compared to those who received a short-term rehabilitation stay in an institution. These results suggest that providing rehabilitation at home may be favorable in terms of reducing risk of institutionalization for HF patients. Keywords: Hip fracture, Rehabilitation, Institutionalization, Nursing home placement, Healthcare use * Correspondence: [email protected] 1Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Blindern, PO box 1089, 0317 Oslo, Norway Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2021 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. Fosse et al. BMC Health Services Research (2021) 21:678 Page 2 of 14 Background patients’ well-being and the total cost of care [15], the Hip fracture (HF) is common among the elderly, and it need for cost-effective care that also safeguards patient is associated with increased morbidity and mortality [1], outcomes is an important priority for healthcare systems as well as substantial functional decline and long-term under pressure. In particular, it is desirable for both the institutionalization [2]. Recovery after HF can take up to individual and the healthcare system to develop rehabili- four months for upper extremity functioning in activities tative care that maximizes independence and allows the of daily living (ADLs), up to nine months for balance patient to live at home for as long as possible [16]. and gait, and up to one year for instrumental and lower Although current HF management guidelines [5] extremity ADL functioning [3]. Furthermore, a large emphasize the importance of multidisciplinary rehabili- proportion of HF patients do not fully recover [4], espe- tation to help patients recover faster and regain mobility, cially individuals with poor premorbid health [2]. Other the existing literature indicates that more research is still factors that undermine recovery include comorbidities, needed to identify the optimal setting and content of re- cognitive impairment, poor nutritional status, depres- habilitation within primary care systems [17]. Providing sion, and poor social support (for a review, see [2]). healthcare services in patients’ homes—especially re- Many patients therefore require assistance with ADLs if habilitation and similar interventions aimed at maintain- they are to continue living comfortably and safely at ing or improving functioning and independence—is home. Some important purposes of the rehabilitation of believed to provide better opportunities for tailoring care HF patients are therefore to identify individual goals in and training to the patients’ everyday needs [16, 18, 19]. order to restore mobility and independence, and to fa- This in turn can potentially reduce the future risk of falls cilitate return to the pre-fracture residence and long- and other adverse events—such as institutionalization term well-being [5]. Many seniors, including those in for long-term care (LTC) [18, 20]. need of long-term care (LTC), wish to remain in their In recent years, there has been an increasing interest own home for as long as possible [6]. Being capable of in ‘reablement’ (also called ‘restorative care’) in several living in one’s own home is often associated with higher Western countries. In Norway, reablement care is levels of perceived independence and autonomy, and in- known as ‘everyday rehabilitation’[21, 22]. Reablement is creased well-being [7]. Institutionalization, on the other a time-limited and intensive intervention, that takes hand, can have a negative influence on the quality of life place in the patient’s home, and it is usually seen as an of the elderly [8]. Institutionalization is considered an alternative to usual homecare. The service is aimed at important risk factor for depression [9], and for older individuals experiencing a functional decline, and the adults in LTC, loneliness and anxiety are also common purpose is to help them relearn skills and regain confi- problems [10]. dence in everyday activities, so that they can—even after In addition to resulting in a personal burden on the illness or injury—live independent and meaningful lives patient, HFs are also associated with considerable social [23]. This is achieved by training and supporting the pa- and economic costs [11]. Previously, the focus was pri- tients to perform tasks themselves, rather than receiving marily on the short-term costs, and measures were taken compensating help or having someone else perform the that were aimed at reducing or containing the costs as- tasks for them, as is the case in conventional home nurs- sociated with the acute care for HF [1]. The index hos- ing [19]. The evidence on the effectiveness of reablement pital admission is found to be the leading expenditure is currently ambiguous, but promising and increasing— during the first year after HF [4], and length of stay suggesting a favorable effect on patients’ physical func- (LOS) is the most important determinant [1]. Therefore, tioning [24, 25], better health-related quality of life and there has been a financial incentive to reduce the LOS reduced need for healthcare services [26], and increased and transition patients into lower levels of care—which probability of remaining at home [18]. Considering the has been the general trend. However, the economic con- potential advantages of home-based rehabilitation, this sequences of a HF extend far beyond the initial type of rehabilitation is presumably underutilized, given hospitalization [1, 4, 12, 13]. For many patients, a large that the proportion of patients discharged home is part of the costs is attributable to the rehabilitation highly variable [27], and it appears that patients are sel- phase [1] and centers around use of services in primary dom rehabilitated at home [28]. In Norway, for example, or community care settings. Furthermore, transferring many municipalities are still testing and developing the patients from hospital to lower levels of care does not service on a small scale–despite the fact that the coun- necessarily reduce the total costs of HF faced by society. try’s health authorities place great emphasis on the fu- On the contrary, it may represent a cost-shift from the ture importance of home-based rehabilitation. Further hospital to other healthcare service providers [1, 14]. investigation is also needed to determine whether Given that long-term disability and increased need for rehabilitation at home can be a viable alternative to healthcare services post-HF have major ramifications for institution-based rehabilitation (e.g., in a nursing home).