SEARCH · Search PubMed
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Rehabilitation after stroke has to face specific problems when treating patients with more or less severe disabilities in cognition and communication. Correspondingly, stroke rehabilitation takes a special position within the larger field of rehabilitation, and relatively little is known outside the neurological scientific community about the status of patients at admission, the case mix in the centres and the short- and medium-term effects of rehabilitation. The present study describes in some detail the initial status in unselected samples of consecutive patients (n = 768) from three neurological rehabilitation centres. The description shows a very inconsistent picture in all centres, ranging from patients with no neurological deficits to patients needing intensive care. Across the centres, we found remarkable differences in case mix. In order to measure the effects of rehabilitation after stroke, an instrument was developed that combines a physicians' questionnaire aiming at an assessment of the severely disabled cases with a patients' questionnaire for the less severe cases for which the physicians' questionnaire would show "ceiling effects" so that improvements could no longer be depicted. The application of the instrument showed that about 50 % of the sample were not capable of answering the patients' questionnaire. For the patients with neurological deficits, the functional parameters of the physicians' questionnaire showed significant improvements at discharge that can be interpreted as "strong" effects (effect sizes 1.0-1.3). For the patients with less severe deficits (and usually in later stages of the rehabilitation process), the patients' questionnaire showed "strong" improvements on the somatic and psychosocial scales both at discharge and 6 months later. On the functional scales, however, only small improvements were found. Finally, predictors could be identified that explain a large amount of the variance for length of stay (R(2) =.42) as well as for the effects of rehabilitation (R(2) =.74). When comparing effects across rehabilitation units with differences of case mix, these predictors should be statistically controlled in order to assure fair comparisons.
The "Quality Community Medical Rehabilitation" (QGmR) is a voluntary association of several rehabilitation clinics in Schleswig-Holstein. The QGmR is closely oriented along the quality assurance programme of the national pension insurance scheme. As local initiative its emphasis lies in patient outcomes. The patients of the QGmR were interviewed twice (pre-post: before and four months after rehabilitation), and all patients were included consecutively during a defined period of time. After a pilot phase the main study of the QGmR was accomplished between 2002 and 2004. Twenty Schleswig-Holstein rehabilitation clinics with six diagnostic groups and a total of 3094 patients participated (2026 at both points of measurement). The majority of the patients interviewed were orthopaedic patients, and the smallest number were patients with heart disease and neurologic conditions. Most patients showed clearly health-related impairments before rehabilitation compared with population-referred data, four months after rehabilitation patients showed significant improvements in all health-related parameters. In addition to health improvement the patients showed a high satisfaction with all areas of the rehabilitation treatment and processes they were asked to judge (administration, therapy, care) independent of diagnostic group or rehabilitation clinic. But, also independent of diagnostic group and clinic, there were clear deficits in the field of post-rehabilitative treatment. Some of the results varied according to diagnostic group and clinic. The results of a comparison between the clinics showed some differences to the effect that some clinics were better than others, but these differences were not very large although statistically significant in a few cases. Nevertheless the "best" can be determined, which could motivate the clinics to participate in regular quality assurance working groups.
PURPOSE: To determine whether interdisciplinary team care, using the Rehabilitation Activities Profile (RAP) as a team tool, results in a better rehabilitation outcome. METHOD: A multilevel prospective cohort study, with a controlled before and after design. Eighteen rehabilitation teams in eight rehabilitation centres in the Netherlands and Belgium participated. Based on the level of implementation of the RAP, we compared three study groups. Consecutive adult patients (n = 933) with stroke, amputation of the lower limb, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, or other neuromuscular disorders, were followed during inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation. Main outcome measures were Barthel Index, RAP-CPM (sum score of the domains communication, personal care and mobility), Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), length of rehabilitation (LOR) and discharge destination (home vs elsewhere). RESULTS: Overall results show that scores on the Barthel Index, the RAP-CPM and the NHP improved, on average, by 18.4%, 12.7%, and 6.7%, respectively. However, treatment from a rehabilitation team that uses the RAP was associated with a significantly lower Barthel score, and small, non-significant effects on the RAP-CPM and the NHP. Partial use of the RAP resulted in non-significant, lower scores on these measures. With respect to discharge destination and LOR, there were also no significant differences between the three study groups, with the exception of a shorter outpatient rehabilitation period for the group in which partial use was made of the RAP. CONCLUSION: The RAP, at the current level of implementation, does not improve rehabilitation outcome.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The goal of this work was to evaluate outpatient rehabilitation after anterior curciate ligament reconstruction using the bone-tendon technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective non-randomized study of 103 consecutive patients participating in the same rehabilitation program, excepting for the first month. During the first postoperative month, 55 patients (group A) attended a physical therapy outpatient clinic near their home and 48 patients (group B) followed the same rehabilitation protocol at an inpatient facility of their choice. We recorded preoperative data for age, sex, weight, height and function (sports, occupational activities). Surgery data concerned delay between severe sprain and surgery, and the exact surgical procedure used (meniscal tear, associated procedure). Clinical assessment (mobility, effusion, clinical and radiological laxity) and functional scores (Tegner, Lysholm, Arpege, IKDC) as well as delay to recovery of gait and to renewed physical activity were recorded at 3 and 6 weeks and 4, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Two isokinetic tests were done 4 and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference for the pre and peroperative data between the two groups, with the exception of meniscal tears that were more frequent in group A (p<0.05). Postoperative outcome and complications were not significantly different between the 2 groups except for greater flexion at 3 weeks in group B (related to difference in measurement date). Fifteen complications were observed in each group: 4 reflex dystrophies and 2 cyclope syndromes in each group, 5 patellar syndromes in group A and 1 in group B; 3 painful surgical wound sites in group A and 8 in group B (including one requiring revision). In group A there was one early failure due to a surgical error requiring revision. At 1 year, there were 2 cases of persistent femoropatellar syndromes, one of which occurred after reflex dystrophy. A high percentage of the patients were lost to follow-up (45% in group A and 50% in group B) and lack of randomization should also be considered when interpreting the results. DISCUSSION: This is the first report comparing inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation protocols after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The only reports in the literature have compared different ambulatory rehabilitation programs that appear to be internationally accepted as the routine procedure. The current trend towards short hospital stays for surgery is compatible with outpatient rehabilitation programs if dependent patients receive proper support from an ambulatory medical unit, a physical therapist or a home assistant. Our study demonstrated that the bone-tendon technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is compatible with an outpatient rehabilitation program if quality medical and surgical follow-up is ensured. This type of rehabilitation program gives results comparable with those obtained after inpatient programs conducted in a rehabilitation facility during the first postoperative month.
This article describes the experiences obtained in a study of ambulatory (mobile) rehabilitation with stroke patients. The patients had been treated in a rehabilitation clinic before. The ambulatory rehabilitation, which lasted 18 months, served to maintain and further develop the previous success of in-patient rehabilitation. On the one hand, the research project provided empirical evidence for the success of ambulatory rehabilitation. On the other hand, the experiences obtained through this research project indicate that the success of an ambulatory rehabilitation concept is dependent on optimal co-operation among members of the rehabilitation team (physicians, psychologists, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, and nursing staff). In relation, the institutional conditions for effective ambulatory rehabilitation are only met when physicians in private practice, who are responsible for the co-ordination of rehabilitation services, are supported by physicians in regard to time-consuming home visits, and when sufficient numbers of physical therapists, occupational therapists, and speech therapists in private practice are available. Unfortunately, these conditions are not fulfilled in many regions of Germany.
UNLABELLED: DeJong G, Horn SD, Smout RJ, Ryser DK. The early impact of the inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system on stroke rehabilitation case mix, practice patterns, and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the early effects of the inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) prospective payment system (PPS) on stroke rehabilitation case mix, practice patterns, and outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Three IRFs in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutively enrolled convenience sample of 539 stroke rehabilitation patients treated between 2001 and 2003 in 3 IRFs. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Length of stay (LOS), therapy utilization, FIM instrument gain, and discharge destination. RESULTS: The IRF-PPS had no material short-term effect on stroke rehabilitation case mix and LOS for the study facilities. Facilities shifted physical and occupational therapy resources from those in the most severe case-mix groups (CMGs) to those in the moderate CMGs. Those in the more severe CMGs also experienced a noticeable decline in FIM score gain over the course of the rehabilitation stay. Using multivariate analyses, the authors discerned no major role for the IRF-PPS in explaining pre- and post-PPS differences in utilization and outcome among study facilities. CONCLUSIONS: For the 3 study facilities, IRF-PPS did not materially reshape stroke rehabilitation case mix, utilization, and outcome in the early stages of PPS implementation, apart from the shift in therapy resources from more severely involved stroke patients to moderately involved patients. The study's findings are limited to 3 facilities, and a longer time horizon is needed to more fully determine the effects of the IRF-PPS.
Most rehabilitation centers only admit patients for rehabilitation who have a reasonable chance of being discharged to a noninstitutional setting. With certain classifications, such as stroke, 20 to 30% of patients are often discharged to a skilled nursing facility (SNF). Problems associated with rehabilitation admission procedures make careful psychosocial determinations difficult. We attempted to have experienced rehabilitation social workers predict discharge placement following a formal evaluation. Three experienced rehabilitation social workers met formally with patients and/or families for an initial interview following admission to the rehabilitation unit. They assessed the functional goals developed by the rehabilitation team and predicted which patients would go home and which would go to a SNF. Their predictions were compared to the actual discharge placement. A chi square test revealed that the social workers accurately predicted discharge home but were unable to accurately predict which patients would go to an SNF. Of those predicted to return home, 95% did so. Of those predicted to go to an SNF, only 57% did so. Of the total sample of 126 patients, 86% were discharged home and 14% were discharged to an SNF. This finding suggests that patients should not be denied a trial of rehabilitation solely on the basis of projected discharge placement.
This study classified consecutive admissions to a U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center. Patients on acute medical and surgical wards (n = 3170) were divided into clinical subgroups based on diagnostic, prognostic and functional criteria. The groups were: (1) independent; (2) terminal; (3) medical; (4) dementia; and (5) rehabilitation candidate. Medical record data from hospital admission, discharge and 9 month follow-up were collected. The groups had unique patterns of survival, residence and use of health care services during follow-up. Subsequently, rehabilitation participants were compared with a group similar in age, major diagnostic category and functional ability, who did not receive rehabilitation. Twenty-one percent of persons meeting study criteria for rehabilitation received rehabilitation services. At follow-up, participants in rehabilitation had lower mortality, spent less time in skilled care and were less frequently hospitalized. Although exploratory in nature, this study supports previously observed benefits of rehabilitation. In combination with clinical assessment, the process of identifying patient subgroups may be useful in planning interventions more uniformly and in developing measures to reduce selection bias in rehabilitation admission decisions.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess whether outcomes and reimbursement differ for Medicare beneficiaries with hip fracture when treated in an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) compared with a skilled nursing facility (SNF) subacute rehabilitation program. PARTICIPANTS: Clinical data were linked with Medicare claims for 29,793 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a recent hip fracture who completed treatment in 1996 or 1997 in rehabilitation facilities that subscribed to the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured discharge destination, change in motor FIM rating, and Medicare Part A reimbursement. RESULTS: For patients with moderate-to-severe and severe disabilities, case mix groups (CMGs) 704 and 705, the percentage of patients discharged to the community from IRFs was lower than for patients treated in subacute rehabilitation SNFs, after controlling for covariates. Adjusted odds ratios were 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.92) for CMG 704 and 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.63-0.83) for CMG 705. For patients in the 3 other CMGs, no significant differences were detected. Improvement in motor functional status was roughly equivalent for patients treated in IRFs and those treated in the subacute rehabilitation programs across all 5 CMGs, after controlling for covariates. Medicare Part A payments for IRFs were significantly higher than SNF payments across all CMGs. CONCLUSION: SNF-based subacute rehabilitation was less costly and outcomes were in most, but not all, instances similar or better than IRF-based rehabilitation for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who had a recent hip fracture.
Part I in last month's issue of NN&I provided results of a Council of Nephrology Social Workers (CNSW) survey of social workers in facilities that won the Life Options Rehabilitation Advisory Council (LORAC) Exemplary Practice in Renal Rehabilitation competition. The survey indicated that social workers are already implementing rehabilitation activities as part of core functions of their job, social work experience is less important in implementing rehabilitation than inspiration, and that rehabilitation teams can help promote buy-in and distribute the responsibilities among the members of the rehabilitation team. Part II provides information on the linkage between rehabilitation activities and outcomes and offers rehabilitation activities suggested by Exemplary Practice-winning facilities.
The Rehabilitation Research Network of Ulm on "Bausteine der Reha" consists of several departments of the University of Ulm, and various rehabilitation hospitals and cooperates with a pension insurance institute (LVA Wuerttemberg). The aim of this interdisciplinary approach is to evaluate process and outcome of rehabilitation measures considering specific clinical and rehabilitative questions with main emphasis on epidemiological and economic aspects. The Rehabilitation Research Nétwork of Ulm is subdivided into clinical projects and cross-sectional subjects. The clinical studies deal with cardiovascular and neurological rehabilitation and rehabilitation in disorders of the musculoskeletal system. The cross-sectional topics contain special fields such as biometry, health economics, epidemiology and occupational rehabilitation. All participating institutions have access to a central database with uniform structure of the data.
The development of new models of understanding the disabling process, the changing system of financing health care in the United States, and the increasing incidence of disability is challenging rehabilitation to define new models of care delivery. Current models of comprehensive medical rehabilitation include multidisciplinary therapy in inpatient, outpatient, home and community settings. Managed care and the development of capitated funding systems for health care financing will challenge rehabilitation to prevent disability in a population. This article proposes a model system for comprehensive rehabilitation in managed care: the Community Integration Rehabilitation Model. This system advocates the development of a continuum of services including a strong community-based rehabilitation system, that is, a shift in emphasis to expanding opportunities for independent and productive community living as well as management of disease and impairment for individuals with disabilities, and the forging of partnerships between institution-based rehabilitation and its community. Comprehensive rehabilitation is redefined as a continuum of disability prevention and treatment across the lifespan of a population.