Discharge destination and patient‐reported outcomes after inpatient treatment for isolated lower limb fractures

To the Editor: In their observational study, Kimmel and colleagues1 examined the impact of inpatient rehabilitation (IPR) for isolated lower limb injuries on functional outcomes in working‐aged people using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) propensity score analysis. It concerns us that the study lacks real clinical perspectives in disability management.

Firstly, the authors assumed exchangeability in the baseline characteristics of patients discharged home and patients admitted to IPR. Exchangeability of the samples is a prerequisite for IPTW propensity score analysis.2,3 However, this is a flawed assumption in the Australasian context, where patients discharged home are medically stable, have minimal physical disability and have sufficient psychological coping skills. In contrast, patients admitted to IPR are deemed unsafe to be discharged home, with greater disability, home hazards, or inadequate support. IPR addresses complex therapy and care needs while alleviating pressure on acute beds.

Secondly, the study examined disability and returning to work without considering all relevant determinants of health and functioning as listed in the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Rather than IPR resulting in a poorer functional outcome through hospital‐related complications, it is our experience that persons who require IPR will have a higher physical, functional, psychological, personal and social complexity or vulnerability, which may result in the observed long term disability.

Thirdly, the study identified adverse 12‐month outcomes in patients discharged home. This control group were physically and functionally fit for discharge home, but 67% reported suboptimal recovery on the extended Glasgow Outcomes Scale (GOS‐E) and 16% failed to return to work at 12‐month follow‐up. Given that return to previous jobs plateaus by 6–12 months,4 gaps in care may aggravate problems by preventing timely access to multidisciplinary interventions to address the medical, psychological, physical, occupational and social impact of a traumatic injury.

Finally, we encourage the authors to present the 12‐month follow‐up data in the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry (VOTOR) for pain scores, anxiety and/or depression, and other domains of the EuroQol EQ‐5D‐3L Scale.4 Pain perception and depressive symptoms are known predictors for functioning and returning to work following an orthopaedic trauma and likely confounded the results.5