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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate UK need for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation, current provision and identification of patient groups not receiving services. To conduct a systematic review of literature on methods to improve uptake and adherence to cardiac rehabilitation. To estimate cost implications of increasing uptake of cardiac rehabilitation. DATA SOURCES: Hospital Episode Statistics (England). Hospital Inpatient Systems (Northern Ireland). Patients Episode Database for Wales. British Association for Cardiac Rehabilitation/British Heart Foundation surveys. Cardiac rehabilitation centres. Patients from general hospitals. Electronic databases. REVIEW METHODS: The study analysed hospital discharge statistics to ascertain the population need for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation in the UK. Surveys of cardiac rehabilitation programmes were conducted to determine UK provision, uptake and audit activity, and to identify local interventions to improve uptake. Data were also examined from a trial estimating eligibility for cardiac rehabilitation and non-attendance. A systematic review of interventions to improve patient uptake, adherence and professional compliance in cardiac rehabilitation was conducted. Estimated costs of improving uptake were identified from national survey, systematic review and sampled cardiac rehabilitation programmes. RESULTS: In England, Wales and Northern Ireland nearly 146,000 patients discharged from hospital with primary diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina or following revascularisation were potentially eligible for cardiac rehabilitation. In England in 2000, 45-67% of these patients were referred, with 27-41% attending outpatient cardiac rehabilitation. If all discharge diagnoses of ischaemic heart disease were considered, nearly 299,000 patients would be potentially eligible and in England rates of attendance and referral would be 22-33% and 13-20% respectively. Rates of referral and attendance were similar in Wales, but somewhat lower in Northern Ireland. It was found that referral and attendance of older people and women at cardiac rehabilitation tended to be low. It was also suggested that patients from ethnic minorities and those with angina or heart failure were less likely to be referred to or join programmes. A wide range of local interventions suggested awareness of the problem of uptake. In an NHS-funded randomised controlled trial, possibly representing more optimal protocol-led care, medical and nursing staff identified 73-81% of patients with acute myocardial infarction as eligible for cardiac rehabilitation. Excluded patients tended to be older with more severe presentation of cardiac disease. Experiences of patients suggested that uptake may be improved by addressing issues of motivation and relevance of rehabilitation to future well-being, co-morbidities, site and time of programme, transport and care for dependents. Systematic review of studies supported the use of letters, pamphlets or home visits to motivate patients and the use of trained lay visitors. Self-management techniques showed some value in promoting adherence to lifestyle changes. Studies examining professional compliance found that professional support for practice nurses may have value in the coordination of postdischarge care. Average costs in 2001 of cardiac rehabilitation to the health service per patient completing a cardiac rehabilitation programme were about GBP350 (staff only) and GBP490 (total). If services were modelled on an intermediate multidisciplinary configuration with three to five key staff, approximately 13% more patients could be treated with the same budget. Depending on staffing configuration an approximate 200-790% budget increase would be required to provide cardiac rehabilitation to all potentially eligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of outpatient cardiac rehabilitation in the UK is low and little is known about the capacity of cardiac rehabilitation centres to increase this provision. There is an uncoordinated approach to audit data collection and few interventions aimed at improving the situation have been formally evaluated. Motivational communications and trained lay volunteers may improve uptake of cardiac rehabilitation, as may self-management techniques. Experience of low-cost interventions and good practice exists within rehabilitation centres, although cost information frequently is not reported. Increased provision of outpatient cardiac rehabilitation will require extra resources. Further trials are required to compare the cost-effectiveness of comprehensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation with simpler outpatient programmes, also research is needed into economic and patient preference studies of the effects of different methods of using increased funding for cardiac rehabilitation. An evaluation of a range of interventions to promote attendance in all patients and under-represented groups would also be useful. The development of standards is suggested for audit methods and for eligibility criteria, as well as regular and comprehensive data collection to estimate the need for and provision of cardiac rehabilitation. Further areas for intervention could be identified through qualitative studies, and the extension of low-cost interventions and good practice within rehabilitation centres. Regularly updated systematic reviews of relevant literature would also be useful.
Researchers in physical medicine and rehabilitation require access to information regarding possible interventions and programs, available services and technology, research (published, unpublished and in progress), statistics on incidence, prevalence and expected recovery, and funding sources. This paper provides an overview to the most readily available sources of information, including 16 abstracts and indexes, 6 sources of review articles, 9 population statistical databases and 84 journals specifically devoted to rehabilitation. Of these journals, 29 may be accessed through Medline and 32 through other sources. An additional 58 journals indexed in Medline publish more than 16 rehabilitation articles per year. The journals within Medline that publish the most rehabilitation articles are listed by topic area: geriatric rehabilitation, cardiac rehabilitation, pediatric rehabilitation, rehabilitation research, self-help devices, sports medicine and rheumatologic rehabilitation. Specific search strategies that may be used for any computer assisted search of Medline are given to locate articles in these topic areas and also the following areas: amputee rehabilitation, spinal cord injury rehabilitation, traumatic brain injury rehabilitation, cerebral palsy rehabilitation, stroke rehabilitation, decubitus care, electrodiagnosis, rehabilitation engineering, pain rehabilitation, pulmonary rehabilitation, sexual rehabilitation and urologic rehabilitation. The user friendly Grateful Med software is introduced for simplified online Medline searching. Exercises are provided for starting a journal club with the retrieved articles.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: According to European Stroke Initiative (EUSI) recommendations every stroke patient should undergo rehabilitation. We aimed to evaluate the needs of comprehensive stroke in-patient rehabilitation in Poland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed and distributed a questionnaire evaluating rehabilitation departments in Poland, where stroke patients undergo early rehabilitation. Comprehensive rehabilitation was defined as: kinesitherapy (minimum 60 minutes/day), speech therapy (minimum 30 minutes 5 days a week), rehabilitation of other cognitive impairments and group kinesitherapy. We separated rehabilitation departments where comprehensive post-stroke rehabilitation is conducted, and calculated the number of beds in these departments only for stroke patients. We estimated the number of acute stroke patients in Poland. We evaluated the number of patients requiring in-patient rehabilitation based on results from the 2nd Department of Neurology, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, where all stroke patients who need in-patient rehabilitation have such a possibility. We estimated the number of beds required in rehabilitation departments for stroke patients in Poland. RESULTS: We obtained responses from 115 out of 172 (66.9%) rehabilitation departments. Comprehensive post-stroke rehabilitation is conducted in 11 departments. 159 beds in these departments are for stroke patients. From 64,896 acute stroke patients 9,927 will need in-patient rehabilitation. We need 604 more beds in rehabilitation departments for stroke patients in Poland. CONCLUSION: Only 10% of rehabilitation departments could provide comprehensive stroke rehabilitation in Poland. At present, the number of beds in rehabilitation departments for stroke patients covers about 20.8% of actual needs. An increased number of rehabilitation beds for stroke patients could result in a decreased number of disabled post-stroke patients.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). DATA SOURCES: medline, cinhal, and Cochrane Library searches for trials of rehabilitation for COPD patients. Abstracts presented at national meetings and the reference lists of pertinent articles were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if: trials were randomized; patients were symptomatic with forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) <70% or FEV1 divided by forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) <70% predicted; rehabilitation group received at least 4 weeks of rehabilitation; control group received no rehabilitation; and outcome measures included exercise capacity or shortness of breath. We identified 69 trials, of which 20 trials were included in the final analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Effect of rehabilitation was calculated as the standardized effect size (ES) using random effects estimation techniques. RESULTS: The rehabilitation groups of 20 trials (979 patients) did significantly better than control groups on walking test (ES = 0.71; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.43 to 0.99). The rehabilitation groups of 12 trials (723 patients) that used the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire had less shortness of breath than did the control groups (ES = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.89). Trials that used respiratory muscle training only showed no significant difference between rehabilitation and control groups, whereas trials that used at least lower-extremity training showed that rehabilitation groups did significantly better than control groups on walking test and shortness of breath. Trials that included severe COPD patients showed that rehabilitation groups did significantly better than control groups only when the rehabilitation programs were 6 months or longer. Trials that included mild/moderate COPD patients showed that rehabilitation groups did significantly better than control groups with both short- and long-term rehabilitation programs. CONCLUSION: COPD patients who receive rehabilitation have a better exercise capacity and they experience less shortness of breath than patients who do not receive rehabilitation. COPD patients may benefit from rehabilitation programs that include at least lower-extremity training. Patients with mild/moderate COPD benefit from short- and long-term rehabilitation, whereas patients with severe COPD may benefit from rehabilitation programs of at least 6 months.
Cardiac rehabilitation has gained widespread acceptance as an integral component in the management of patients with several forms of cardiac disease. Nevertheless, the benefits deriving from cardiac rehabilitation, and the most appropriate modalities of delivering this treatment, are still uncertain in patients older than 75 years who, beyond a high morbidity and mortality from ischemic heart disease, are characterized by frequent comorbidities, disability, psychological and emotional abnormalities, and cognitive impairment. All these conditions may concur to limit physical exercise capacity, are frequent causes of physical disability and deteriorated quality of life, and are a barrier to enrolling older patients into standardized rehabilitation programs. On the other hand, available evidence on cardiac rehabilitation in older patients derive from non homogeneous patient series, which are not fully representative of the average patient older than 75 years, whose peculiar clinical characteristics are largely different from those of subjects in 65-75 years age range. Therefore, the scientific community should design new strategies to promote recruitment of older individuals into cardiac rehabilitation programs. This can be attained by both spreading the results of beneficial effects of cardiac rehabilitation in advanced age and by precisely identifying the goals, as well as by defining assessment, rehabilitation and follow-up protocols targeting the peculiar characteristics of old and very old patients. This article offers a concise review of available evidence on cardiac rehabilitation in older patients, and a series of recommendations that may be useful in the clinical practice. In the first, introductory section, we describe the main components of comprehensive, cardiac rehabilitation programs of older patients (namely: physical exercise based on both endurance and muscle strength training; the role of multidisciplinary approach integrated into a secondary prevention strategy; interventions in the emotional and cognitive domain), as they result from an extensive analysis of the literature. On this regard, attention will be put to define the specific characteristics by which reported interventions may, or may not, have conformed to the many peculiarities of older individuals. In the further section, results of cardiac rehabilitation of older patients are described organizing them according to the different outcomes attained, with illustration of the effects on cardiocirculatory response to physical exercise, quality of life, body composition, lipid profile, arterial blood pressure control, myocardial ischemia, progression of cardiac failure, neuropsychological and cognitive profile, mortality and morbidity, and cost/benefit analysis. Also in this section, particular attention will be devoted to select and illustrate those results that are most valuable in the management and care of the oldest old. General principles that, based on available evidence, should guide the design of cardiac rehabilitation programs and the prescription of exercise to older cardiac patients, will be detailed next. In particular, we will underline the key role of a comprehensive, preliminary multidimensional and multidisciplinary assessment--whose basic components will also be given in detail-, and will describe the guidelines to design the rehabilitation program, the several methods of training to be used in the different phases of the rehabilitation program, and the most valuable and correct methods to assess both short- and long-term results. The general principles of specific rehabilitation protocols that can be used in older patients will be also described. In this context, we will detail the specific goals and instruments used in the preliminary assessment of cardiocirculatory response to physical exercise, as well as of nutritional habits and nutritional status, physical status and motion capacity, neuropsychological and cognitive profile, quality of life and possible functional limitations. In the last section, educational interventions, and physical endurance and muscle strength training programs, will be described. In this description, particular attention will be devoted to the concept of tailoring the rehabilitative program to the results of preliminary assessment. Indeed, the presence of comorbidity or of significant functional limitations should imply the design of alternative rehabilitation programs, which should be based on strongly individualized modalities as well as intensity and duration of physical exercise training. In summary, this article is intended to encourage and help the cardiological community to recruit even the oldest old into cardiac rehabilitation programs, through an adjustment and individualization process of the rehabilitative pathway that should be based on the enclosed recommendations and guidelines. This could reduce the otherwise high exclusion rate of older patients, who are frequently deprived of the potential benefits from cardiac rehabilitation consisting, at least, in improved functional capacity, neuropsychological and emotional profile, and quality of life.
BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation for older people has acquired an increasingly important profile for both policy-makers and service providers within health and social care agencies. This growing demand for rehabilitation services has generated an increased interest in the use of alternative care environments, for example care home environments, for older persons' rehabilitation. At a time when there is pressure for policy decision-makers and service providers to explore the use of such care settings for the provision of rehabilitation for older people, there appears limited evidence on which to base decisions. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to compare the effects of care home environments (e.g. nursing home, residential care home and nursing facilities) versus hospital environments and own home environments in the rehabilitation of older people. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following databases were searched. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Specialised Register, the Cochrane Rehabilitation Specialist Register; Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR); MEDLINE (1966-2000); EMBASE (1980-2000), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982-2000): Science Citation Index (1982-2000); Social Science Citation Index (1982-2000); Best Evidence (1991-2000); HMIC (1979-2000); PsycINFO(1967-2000); ASSIA (1987-2000); Ageline (1978-2000); AgeInfo (1971-2000); Sociological Abstracts (1963-2000); System for Information on Grey Literature (SIGLE) (1980-2000); UK National Research Registers Project Database( Issue 1 2001); Architecture Publication Index (1977-2000). The following Journals were hand searched: Disability and Rehabilitation (1992-2000); Disability and Society (1986-2000); Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (1985-2000); Journal of the American Geriatric Society (1980-2000); International Journal of Rehabilitation Research (1980-2000); American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (1980-2000) and: Clinical Rehabilitation (1992-2000). The reviewers also consulted subject area experts and obtained full text review articles and forward tracked any references from these sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) that compared rehabilitation outcomes for persons 60 years or older who received rehabilitation whilst residing in a care home with those for persons 60 years or older who received rehabilitation in hospital or own home environments. Primary outcomes included functional outcomes using activities of daily living measurement (both personal and instrumental). Secondary outcomes included subjective health status; quality of life measures; return to place of usual residency; all cause mortality; adverse effects; readmission to an acute care facility; patient and carer satisfaction; number of days in facility and number of days receiving rehabilitation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer (DW) completed the initial search and identified potential papers for inclusion. Abstracts for these papers were independently scrutinised by two reviewers (DW/MS) to assess their eligibility. Full text versions of potentially eligible papers were independently assessed by two reviewers (DW/MS). Papers that fulfilled the comparison inclusion criteria were then independently scrutinised by all reviewers to assess whether they met EPOC methodological criteria for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: The total yield from the initial search strategy was 19,457. A total of 1,247 abstracts were independently scrutinised by two reviewers (DW/MS) to assess their eligibility. Full text papers for 99 studies were obtained to assess if they fulfilled the review's comparison inclusion criteria. This process resulted in 12 papers being assessed further for methodological validity. However, none of these studies met the inclusion criteria. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to compare the effects of care home environments, hospital environments and own home environments on older persons rehabilitation outcomes. Although the authors acknowledge that absence of effect is not no effect. There are three main reasons; the first is that the description and specification of the environment is often not clear; secondly, the components of the rehabilitation system within the given environments are not adequately specified and; thirdly, when the components are clearly specified they demonstrate that the control and intervention sites are not comparable with respect to the methodological criteria specified by Cochrane EPOC group (Cochrane 1998). The combined effect of these factors resulted in the comparability between intervention and control groups being very weak. For example, there were differences in the services provided in the intervention and control arms, due possibly to differences in dominant remuneration systems, nature of the rehabilitation transformation, patient characteristics, skill mix and academic status of the care environment.
Family doctors play an important role in promoting the access of patients to rehabilitation. On the one hand they are very often the first professionals to be contacted if patients want to take part in rehabilitation procedures whereas on the other hand there are also many patients whose need for rehabilitation remains undisclosed. No detailed estimates are available on how many of such patients exist in German GP-practices although it should be an important task of family doctors to discuss the pros and cons of rehabilitation particularly with their patients who are in need of it. We performed a non-representative pilot study in three GP offices during ten working days. patients older than 29 years were screened for their "rehabilitation status" with an instrument frequently used in German rehabilitation clinics. The patients were also asked whether or not they would like to participate in a rehabilitation procedure and what was the reason for their decision. Not knowing the patients' answers their doctors rated whether or not it would be appropriate for their patients to take part in rehabilitation. Additionally the doctors stated what kind of rehabilitation should be performed and what could be ist aims. In a sample of 181 patients about one-third was found to be in a severe "rehabilitation status", about one third in a state with higher than normal values--although not severe--and also approx. another third had a normal status. Family doctors stated that for one-third of their patients rehabilitation would be undoubtedly suitable at the time of the screening. In about two thirds of the cases the results of the questionnaire and the doctors' ratings corresponded. Some patients felt completely healthy although the results of the questionnaire and the doctors' statements rated them as being in need of rehabilitation. Other patients in need of rehabilitation rejected it for other than health-related reasons. The results of our study give evidence to the family doctors' key role for patients' access to rehabilitation. A representative study with a larger sample should be performed in the future because it could yield more detailed figures on the rehabilitation needs of family doctors' patients. Possibilities of standardised screening for rehabilitation needs in primary medical are should also be studied. The results of our pilot study also indicate the need for studies concerning non-medical causes of underutilised rehabilitation facilities. Family doctors should discuss these problems with their patients.
The aim of this analysis is to survey the general demand and current supply of cardiac rehabilitation in Austria on the basis of best evidence practice and to produce recommendations for a cost-effective structure of the entire cardiac rehabilitation system. Following the standards of indication of the Austrian Society of Cardiology an analysis of demand of cardiac rehabilitation has been carried out and juxtaposed with the current supply of facilities for cardiac rehabilitation. According to hospitalizations in the year 2000, 11,630 patients per annum would require inpatient phase II rehabilitation, 6,270 patients institutional based outpatient phase II rehabilitation and 14,319 patients institutional based phase III rehabilitation. In the year 2000, 14,746 patients received treatment in the 9 Austrian inpatient cardiac rehabilitation centres. This number is compared with an annual demand of 11,630 admissions for phase-II treatment. It follows that an equilibrium can be argued for the supply of and demand for inpatient cardiac rehabilitation in Austria. At present, 10 approved institutions in Austria offer outpatient cardiac rehabilitation services. The maximum number of positions for treatment per institution is currently 200-250. Consequently, maximally 2,000-2,500 patients per annum can be treated. In comparison, there exists a calculated demand for 6,270 patients in institutional based outpatient phase II rehabilitation and 14,319 patients in institutional based phase III rehabilitation. Altogether this amounts to a demand for 20,588 positions for treatment per annum. In Austria, the expenditures for inpatient phase II rehabilitation of a patient given an average duration of stay of 28 days, are [symbol: see text] 4,774.-. Presuming 100% compliance, the institutional based outpatient phase II rehabilitation program costs [symbol: see text] 2,760.- per patient. The costs for institutional based phase III rehabilitation services are [symbol: see text] 2,990.- per patient. This number is accompanied by a potential effective reduction of risks for the patients and a potential effective reduction of costs for the carrier as the number of rehospitalizations and recurrent procedures would decrease significantly. At present, the supply of cardiac rehabilitation in Austria is sufficient for inpatient phase II, but insufficient for the institutional based outpatient phase II and mainly phase III. Thus, a striking asymmetry exists between supply and demand. In view of the enduring effects of institutional based phase III rehabilitation, the individual and social use and finally the expected efficiency in terms of costs, this program should at least be offered without limits to all eligible patients.
Although the medical doctor holds a central steering function in making rehabilitation referrals, hardly any empirically founded information is available on physicians' attitudes towards rehabilitation, their indication considerations and actual referral practice. Prompted essentially by this information deficit, an anonymous questionnaire study was undertaken with 49 rheumatologists concerning their knowledge and experience in rehabilitation, their views of various forms of rehabilitation (inpatient, partial-hospitalization, out-patient) as well as medical further education in rehabilitation subjects. Reflecting a positive basic view of rehabilitation, nearly half of the responding rheumatologists subjectively felt well-informed about rehabilitative issues, with 49% stating that they frequently recommended patients for rehabilitation. As far as preferences are concerned in terms of community vs. non-community rehabilitation concepts, priority is given by 39% to partial-hospitalization rehabilitation ("most favourable"); more than 75% of the interviewees however advocated case-by-case decision-making. Accordingly, only 18% consider ambulatory or day centre programmes true alternatives for inpatient rehabilitation, and 78% rather consider them complementary to each other. The advantage of partial-hospitalization rehabilitation close to the rehabilitee's place of living is seen above all in potential involvement of relatives and family doctor. Aspects stated in favour of non-community inpatient rehabilitation primarily are getting away from stressful family surroundings and the comprehensive medical programme available. A strong need for rehabilitation-related further education is expressed, with forms of rehabilitation, psychosocial rehabilitation, and access modes among the primary contents to be addressed.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between early variables (initial Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] scores, computed tomography [CT] findings, presence of skeletal trauma, age, length of acute hospitalization) and outcome variables (Functional Independence Measure [FIM] scores, rehabilitation length of stay [LOS], rehabilitation charges) in traumatic brain injury (TBI). DESIGN: Inception cohort. SETTING: University tertiary care rehabilitation center. PATIENTS: 91 patients with TBI. INTERVENTIONS: Inpatient rehabilitation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: FIM, rehabilitation LOS, and rehabilitation charges. RESULTS: Patients in the severely impaired (GCS = 3 to 7) group showed significantly lower (p = .01) mean admission and discharge motor scores (21.26, 39.83) than patients in the mildly impaired (GCS = 13 to 15) group (38.86, 55.29). Cognitive scores were also significantly lower (p < .01) in the severely impaired group on admission (26.73 vs 54.14) and discharge (42.28 vs 66.48). These findings continued to be statistically significant (p < .01) after regression analysis accounted for the other early variables previously listed. Regression analysis also illustrated that longer acute hospitalization LOS was independently associated with significantly lower admission motor (p < .01) and cognitive (p = .05) scores, and significantly higher (p = .01) rehabilitation charges. Patients with CT findings of intracranial bleed with skull fracture had longer total LOS (70.88 vs 43.08 days; p < .05), rehabilitation LOS (30.01 vs 19.68 days; p < .10), and higher rehabilitation charges ($43,346 vs $25,780; p < .05). Paradoxically, those patients in a motor vehicle crash with an extremity bone fracture had significantly higher (p = .002; p = .04 after regression analysis) FIM cognitive scores on admission (48.30 vs 27.28) and discharge (64.74 vs 45.78) than those without a fracture. Finally, data available on rehabilitation admission were used to predict discharge outcomes. The percentage of explained variance for each outcome variable is as follows: discharge FIM motor score, 69.5%; discharge FIM cognitive score, 71.2%; rehabilitation LOS, 54.1%; rehabilitation charges, 61.1%. The most powerful predictor of LOS and charges was the admission FIM motor score (p < .001), followed by CT findings (p = .02) and age (p = .04). CONCLUSION: Information readily available on rehabilitation admission, particularly the FIM motor score, may be useful in predicting discharge FIM scores as well as utilization of medical rehabilitation resources. Earlier transfer to rehabilitation may result in higher functional status and lower rehabilitation charges, as well as lower acute hospitalization charges. The presence of extremity fractures encountered during a motor vehicle crash is associated with a more favorable outcome in TBI as evidenced by higher discharge FIM cognitive scores.
AIM: This paper reports an investigation into rehabilitation nursing provided in long-term care settings in Finland, focusing on the amount of time spent with residents, types of rehabilitation nursing provided and resident characteristics associated with rehabilitation nursing. BACKGROUND: In long-term care, nurses have important roles as members of multidisciplinary care teams in the provision of rehabilitation care. Evidence suggests that rehabilitation nursing has a positive impact on maintaining residents' functional performance. However, there is little information on the patterns and scope of rehabilitation nursing in long-term care facilities. METHODS: A quantitative, retrospective and cross-sectional study was designed with the data collected between July and December 2002. Rehabilitation nursing was analysed using the Resident Assessment Instrument used in Finland (n = 5312). The frequency and focus of rehabilitation nursing were presented by mean scores and 95% confidence intervals. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were built to describe the factors associated with rehabilitation nursing. Odds ratios and confidence intervals were derived from these models. RESULTS: About 64% of residents received some rehabilitation nursing. Residents assessed as having rehabilitation potential received statistically significantly more rehabilitation nursing than others, such as skills practice in transfer, walking and dressing. Resident factors associated with rehabilitation nursing were cognition, activities of daily living, urinary incontinence, instability of health condition, falls, depression and greater social engagement. CONCLUSION: Specific resident characteristics and nurses' views of rehabilitation potential determine the provision of rehabilitation nursing. This information could be useful in both targeting and planning rehabilitation nursing in long-term care.