Table 3.

Relationship between Overall Quality Score and Functional Decline (n = 898)

Model	Functional Decline‡		Catastrophic Functional Decline§
	Odds Ratio (95% CI)	P value	Odds Ratio (95% CI)	P value
Association between Quality Score* and Functional Decline during each Time Period†
(a) admit to discharge	1.00 (0.99-1.01)	0.73	0.99 (0.98-1.01)	0.38
(b) admit to one month after discharge	1.00 (0.99-1.01)	0.59	0.99 (0.98-1.00)	0.23
(c) one month before admit to discharge	1.00 (0.99-1.01)	0.60	1.00 (0.98-1.01)	0.57
(d) one month before admit to one month after discharge	0.99 (0.99-1.00)	0.18	1.00 (0.99-1.01)	0.86
Association between Disease Severity and Covariates
Average VES-13 score	1.49 (1.18-1.88)	<0.001	1. 41 (1.00-1.97)	0.05
Baseline ADL limitations	0.71 (0.66-0.77)	<0.001	0.63 (0.57-0.70)	<0.001
Charlson score	1.13 (1.04-1.24)	0.006	1.08 (0.96-1.22)	0.18
Number of QIs triggered	1.27 (1.16-1.38)	<0.001	1.32 (1.21-1.45)	0.001
QI adherence & VES-13 score interaction	1.00 (0.99- 1.00)	0.13	1.00 (0.99- 1.00)	0.25
Log Length of Stay	1.35 (1.04-1.75)	0.02	1.53 (1.16-2.00)	0.002
DNR/DNI Status	1.10 (0.61-1.99)	0.74	1.00 (0.99-1.01)	0.86

^*Quality score calculated as total number of quality indicators met divided by total number of quality indicators triggered multiplied by 100

^†Results derived from multivariate logistic regression that tests the effect of quality score on functional decline and adjusts for covariates listed [average VES-13 Score, Charlson Score, interaction between quality score and VES-13 score, number of baseline ADL limitations, DNR/DNI status, log length of stay, number of Quality Indicators triggered, demographic characteristics (age, race, gender), and clustered for attending subject]

^‡Functional Decline defined as the emergence of one or more new deficits in Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) in given time period

^§Catastrophic Functional Decline defined as the emergence of deficits in 3 or more ADLs in a given time period

^‖P < 0.05