Functional Outcomes for Patients With Pain Syndromes Contextualized Against National Benchmarks in Inpatient Rehabilitation

IntroductionPain syndrome (Rehabilitation Impairment Category (RIC) 16) is a recognized indication for admission to an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF), yet national functional-outcome benchmarks specific to this population have not been published.This study aimed to describe 2025 national Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation (UDSMR) functional outcomes among patients discharged from participating IRFs with RIC 16 pain syndrome and to compare these descriptively with overall UDSMR aggregate benchmark values. MethodsThis was a retrospective, descriptive benchmarking analysis of national aggregate UDSMR data for discharges occurring January 1-December 31, 2025.The pain syndrome cohort comprised 965 discharges (RIC 16).National aggregate values across all impairment categories (661,244 discharges) were used as a descriptive reference population.The pain syndrome cohort was included within the national aggregate; therefore, comparisons are non-independent and descriptive rather than comparisons between independent groups.The primary outcome was discharge functional status (Section GG discharge function score) and the proportion of patients meeting or exceeding risk-adjusted expected discharge function.Additional descriptive outcomes were functional change, functional efficiency, functional attainment, length of stay (LOS), and falls with major injury.Admission motor score, case-mix index, and Case Mix Group comorbidity tiers were examined as case-mix descriptors.Continuous variables were compared descriptively.Because the pain cohort is nested within the national aggregate, chi-square statistics, relative risks, confidence intervals, and p-values are reported as non-inferential descriptive summaries only and should not be interpreted as valid tests of a between-group hypothesis. ResultsPatients with pain syndrome had discharge functional values that were close to the national aggregate (discharge function score 54.5 vs 52.9).Despite higher admission motor scores (51.3 vs 44.4), functional change was similar (self-care 14.9 vs 15.1; mobility 38.0 vs 37.6).Functional efficiency was higher (5.39 vs 4.78 points/day), and LOS was shorter (11.2 vs 13.6 days).The proportion meeting or exceeding expected discharge function was close between groups (72.0%vs 73.3%).Case-mix index was lower (1.21 vs 1.43).Falls with major injury were infrequent in both groups (0.31% (n=3/965) vs 0.15% (n=992/661,244)); the small number of events (three) and wide uncertainty preclude any conclusion about relative safety. ConclusionsIn this first national description of the RIC 16 population, patients admitted to IRFs for pain syndrome had discharge functional values that could be descriptively contextualized against national aggregate benchmarks, despite higher baseline function and lower case-mix index, with shorter LOS.Because the pain syndrome cohort is nested within the national aggregate and the two differ systematically in case mix, these values should be interpreted as descriptive national context rather than as a controlled comparison or evidence of the effectiveness, efficiency, or appropriateness of IRF care.Patient-level studies using nonoverlapping, clinically comparable reference groups and adjusted analyses are needed.