Search

Background. Inpatient rehabilitation for spinal cord injury (SCI) includes the use of both individual and group physical therapy sessions. A greater understanding of group physical therapy use will help in the evaluation of the appropriateness of its use and contribute to the development of standards of practice. Objective. This report describes the extent to which group physical therapy is being used in inpatient rehabilitation for SCI, identifies group physical therapy interventions being delivered, and examines patterns in the types of activities being used for people with different levels and completeness of injury (ie, injury groups). Design. The SCIRehab Study is a 5-year, multicenter investigation that uses practice-based evidence research methodology. Methods. Data on characteristics of participants and treatments provided were collected through detailed chart review and customized research documentation completed by clinicians at the point of care. The analyses described here included data from 600 participants enrolled during the first year of the project. Results. Most of the participants (549/600) spent time in group physical therapy, and 23% of all documented physical therapy time was spent in group sessions. The most common group physical therapy activities were strengthening, manual wheelchair mobility, gait training, endurance activities, and range of motion/stretching. Time spent in group physical therapy and the nature of activities performed varied among the injury groups. Limitations. Physical therapy use patterns observed in the 6 participating centers may not represent all facilities providing inpatient rehabilitation for SCI. Research documentation did not include all factors that may affect group physical therapy use, and some sessions were not documented. Conclusions. The majority of physical therapy was provided in individual sessions, but group physical therapy contributed significantly to total physical therapy time. Group physical therapy time and activities differed among the injury groups in patterns consistent with clinical goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the association between inpatient and postdischarge rehabilitation services and function, life satisfaction, and community participation 1 year after spinal cord injury (SCI)., Design: Prospective, observational., Setting: Six rehabilitation facilities., Participants: Patients with SCI (N=1376)., Interventions: None., Main Outcome Measures: Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique (CHART), motor FIM (mFIM), and return to work/school at 1 year post-SCI., Results: Demographic and injury characteristics explained 49% of the variance in mFIM and 9% to 25% of the variance in SWLS and CHART social integration, mobility, and occupation scores. Inpatient rehabilitation services explained an additional 2% of the variance for mFIM and 1% to 3% of the variance for SWLS and CHART scores. More time in inpatient physical therapy (PT) was associated with higher mFIM scores; more time in inpatient therapeutic recreation (TR) and social work and more postdischarge nursing (NSG) were associated with lower mFIM scores. More inpatient PT and TR and more postdischarge PT were associated with higher mobility scores; more inpatient psychology (PSY) was associated with lower mobility scores. More postdischarge TR was associated with higher SWLS; more postdischarge PSY services was associated with lower SWLS. Inpatient TR was positively associated with social integration scores; postdischarge PSY was negatively associated with social integration scores. More postdischarge vocational counseling was associated with higher occupation scores. Differences between centers did not explain additional variability in the outcomes studied., Conclusions: Inpatient and postdischarge rehabilitation services are weakly associated with life satisfaction and societal participation 1 year after SCI. Further study of the type and intensity of postdischarge services, and the association with outcomes, is needed to ascertain the most effective use of therapy services after SCI., (Copyright © 2013 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To describe the application of practice-based evidence (PBE) methodology to spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation in the SCIRehab study, and to summarize associations of patient characteristics and treatment interventions to outcomes., Design: Prospective observational study., Setting: Six SCI rehabilitation centers., Participants: Patients with traumatic SCI (N=1376) admitted for first rehabilitation., Interventions: Not applicable., Main Outcome Measures: FIM and residence at discharge, and FIM, residence, Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique, work/school status, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Diener Satisfaction with Life Scale, rehospitalization, and presence of pressure ulcers at 1 year postinjury., Results: Patient demographic and injury characteristics explained significant variation in rehabilitation outcomes, particularly functional outcomes. Regression modeling also identified a large number of significant associations with outcomes when total time in each discipline was modeled and when models were developed for each discipline, examining time spent in the many specific interventions provided by each discipline., Conclusions: The application of PBE methodology in the SCIRehab study provided extensive information about the process of inpatient SCI rehabilitation. While patient demographic and injury characteristics explain substantial variation in rehabilitation outcomes, particularly functional outcomes, significant relations also were found between the type and quantity of treatment interventions delivered by each rehabilitation discipline and a broad range of outcomes., (Copyright © 2013 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine functional and health status outcomes of patients with joint replacement discharged from a skilled nursing facility (SNF) or an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF)., Design: Postdischarge follow-up interview study at 7.5 months after admission., Setting: Five freestanding SNFs, 1 hospital-based SNF, and 6 IRFs., Participants: Patients (N=856): 561 with knee replacement and 295 with hip replacement., Interventions: None., Main Outcome Measures: FIM and Short-Form 12-Item Health Survey (SF-12)., Results: Among patients with knee and hip replacement, IRF patients made larger motor FIM gains from admission and discharge to follow-up. IRF patients, however, were admitted with lower FIM scores and also had more to gain (especially given the ceiling effects within the FIM at follow-up). When adjusted for case mix, IRF patients made larger motor FIM gains and had higher SF-12-related scores among patients with hip replacement but not among patients with knee replacement. Multivariate regressions found modest setting effects that favored IRFs, and the setting effects explained only a modest portion of the variance in motor FIM outcomes., Conclusions: At follow-up, patients with joint replacement discharged from IRFs had better motor FIM outcomes than those discharged from freestanding SNFs and the hospital-based SNF. Settings did not differ materially in terms of SF-12 outcomes. Findings do not favor one setting decisively over another. A sole focus on initial postacute placement overlooks the larger trajectory of postacute care that needs to be managed to achieve superior outcomes.

Objective: To compare functional outcomes at discharge across postacute settings., Design: Prospective observational cohort study., Setting: Eleven inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), 8 freestanding skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), and 1 hospital-based SNF from across the United States., Participants: Consecutively enrolled patients (N=2152): patients with knee replacement (n=1401) and patients with hip replacement (n=751)., Interventions: None; examination of existing practice patterns., Main Outcome Measure: FIM discharge motor score., Results: Freestanding SNF patients entered with higher motor FIM scores and left with higher scores than did IRF patients. IRF patients, however, achieved larger motor FIM gains and achieved them in a shorter time. In multivariate models controlling for patient differences and onset days, IRFs were associated with better discharge motor outcomes, but the overall setting effect was not large. The largest motor FIM differences were between medium-volume IRFs and low-volume freestanding SNFs: 4.6 motor FIM points for patients with knee replacement and 7.3 motor FIM points for patients with hip replacement. Other differences between settings were much smaller. Multivariate models explained between a third and a half of the variance in outcome., Conclusions: As a group, IRFs had better motor FIM outcomes than did SNFs, but the size of the IRF advantage was not large. Other important facility and practice characteristics also were associated with discharge outcomes after joint replacement rehabilitation. Earlier and more intensive rehabilitation was associated with better outcomes. The volume of joint replacement patients seen by a facility also plays a part: medium-volume facilities among both SNFs and IRFs had better outcomes.

Objective: To characterize rehabilitation services for patients with knee and hip replacement in 3 types of postacute facilities in the U.S., Design: Multi-site prospective observational cohort study., Setting: Eight freestanding skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), 1 hospital-based SNF, and 11 inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs)., Participants: Patients (N=2158) with knee or hip replacement., Interventions: No new interventions., Main Outcome Measures: Length of stay (LOS), amount and intensity of physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT), types of therapy activities., Results: Average LOS was about 15 days for freestanding SNF patients, and 9 to 10 days for hospital-based SNF and IRF patients. Freestanding SNFs and IRFs provide about the same number of hours of PT and OT; the hospital-based SNF provided 27% fewer hours. Freestanding SNFs and the hospital-based SNF provided fewer hours a day than did IRFs. Joint replacement patients across all 3 types of facilities spent, on average, 70% to 75% of their PT time in just 2 activities--exercise and gait and spent 56% to 66% of their OT time in 3 activities--exercise, functional mobility, and dressing lower body., Conclusions: Both freestanding SNFs and IRFs provided similar amounts of PT with a similar emphasis on exercise and gait activities. IRFs, however, provided more OT than freestanding SNFs. IRFs had shorter LOSs and more intensive therapy services than freestanding SNFs. Study freestanding SNFs exhibited greater variation in LOS and intensity of therapy than IRFs.

Background: Translating research into practice and policy is a complex process that links the research enterprise and health care delivery system of the United States. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Partnerships for Quality (PFQ) initiative expanded the scope of research translation beyond clinical practice, highlighting the role of strategic partners. A work group of AHRQ grantees developed a framework for systematic evaluation of the impact of strategic partnerships on research translation., Methods: The evaluation framework posits a hierarchy of impacts that cumulatively lead to observable patient outcomes. The evaluation framework captures (1) health care outcomes improvement, (2) clinical practice changes, (3) policies, procedures, and protocols, and (4) research and knowledge. After the framework and tool were subjected to face-validity critique among PFQ investigators, the concept of synergy was added. PFQ investigators pilot-tested the evaluation framework, and the PFQ tool was refined further., Results: Early feedback from PFQ grantees suggested that the framework is generalizable and potentially useful to guide investigators in capturing impacts of their work that might otherwise go unrecognized or trivialized., Discussion: The PFQ Evaluation Tool, a pragmatic approach for evaluating the impact of partnership-driven translation projects, provides a comprehensive evaluation of impacts, including synergistic outcomes.

Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is a common and preventable complication after a stroke. Although the treatment of DVT is simple and straightforward, its prevention remains controversial. The Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Outcomes Project (PSROP) database was used to describe the incidence and temporal sequence of DVT and trends in the prevention and treatment of DVT. Of the 1,161 patients in the PSROP database, 383 (32.99%) patients without DVT and 8 (0.69%) with DVT had no documented orders for anticoagulant medications. Sixty-five (5.60%) patients had DVTs during the inpatient rehabilitation facility stay. Of 10 (0.86%) patients with DVTs in the common femoral vein, 4 (40%) were diagnosed within 24 hours of admission. Nine (90%) of these 10 patients were classified as moderate or severe strokes. All patients with common femoral DVT received appropriate therapy. Although much is known about the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of poststroke DVT, clinicians need to learn and apply treatment protocols to prevent DVTs and allow more quality time for rehabilitation.

Pain remains one of the most common, yet most challenging, medical problems in health care today, and it is one of the most common complications that occurs after a stroke. Pain can affect the course of stroke rehabilitation adversely, and it occasionally may be a cause for transfer back to an acute care hospital. The Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Outcomes Project (PSROP) database was used to describe the incidence of pain by body location and trends in the use of different classifications of medications to treat pain. Of the 1,122 participants in the PSROP database, the most common locations of pain in stroke survivors were the head, leg, back, and shoulder. The most frequently prescribed classifications of pain medications were other analgesics (acetaminophen and tramadol), followed by narcotic analgesics, non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), anticonvulsants, and tricyclic antidepressants. After acetaminophen, the most frequently prescribed medications in each classification, respectively, include hydrocodone APAP, cox-2 inhibitors, gabapentin, and amitriptyline. Other frequently prescribed pain medications included sumatriptan (migraine analgesic), cyclobenzaprine (muscle relaxant), and baclofen (antispasticity muscle relaxant). Medications should be chosen based upon the medical condition causing pain, the ability of the stroke survivor to comply with administration of the medication, and the cost of the medication. Appropriate and timely treatments of painful conditions result in maximum function and the ability to lead active lives and maintain an adequate quality of life.

Secondary prevention of strokes is an important issue during the admission to the inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF). There are many clinical practice guidelines with strong levels of evidence that address the secondary prophylaxis of strokes. The Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Outcomes Project (PSROP) database was used to describe the frequency that antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant medications are prescribed for the secondary prophylaxis of a stroke. Of the 1,161 participants in the PSROP, 890 (76.66%) had nonhemorrhagic strokes. Of the participants with nonhemorrhagic strokes, 169 (18.99%) did not receive any antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication. Of 717 participants who did not have an embolic event, 140 (19.5%) did not receive a salicylate, antiplatelet agent, or warfarin. Of 173 participants who had an embolic event, 29 (16.8%) did not receive a salicylate, antiplatelet agent, or warfarin. Unless patients have any medical contraindications to these medications, they should receive these evidence-based treatments for secondary stroke prophylaxis. As more stroke survivors receive antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant medications, it is more likely that the incidence of recurrent strokes will decrease.

Blood pressure management is an important issue for the primary prevention, acute management, and secondary prevention of a stroke. Rehabilitation professionals need to consider the timing in lowering blood pressures in stroke survivors, the types of medications that should be used in managing hypertension, and the target pressures to achieve. The Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Outcomes Project (PSROP) database was used to describe the types of antihypertensive medications prescribed to stroke survivors, compare prescription patterns with current practice guidelines of the management of hypertension after a stroke, and determine whether systolic and diastolic blood pressures decrease during admissions to inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). Of the 1,161 patients in the PSROP database, the most commonly prescribed antihypertensive medications were the angiotensin-converting enzyme antagonists and angiotensin II antagonists, followed by beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers and diuretics, adrenergics (alpha-blockers), and other (minoxidil, hydralazine) medications. Systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressures declined in participants during admissions to IRFs. However, blood pressures were significantly higher throughout IRF stays in participants receiving antihypertensive medications when compared to those not receiving antihypertensive medications. Rehabilitation professionals need to be cognizant of the relationship between stroke and hypertension, clinical practice guidelines that provide evidence-based management tools for hypertension, and patient issues that may hinder the effective treatment of hypertension.

Motor recovery after a stroke depends upon many upon different modalities. Intensive therapy using compensatory and facilitatory techniques is the primary method to improve movement and function in affected extremities. However, medications used to modulate neurotransmitters may be useful in augmenting therapy approaches. The Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Outcomes Project (PSROP) database was used to describe the frequency of prescribing neurostimulant medications; the types of neurostimulant medications used; and how the use of neurostimulant medications affected rehabilitation length of stay, motor recovery, cognitive recovery, and discharge destination. Of the 1,161 patients in the PSROP database, 929 (80.0%) patients did not receive any treatment with methylphenidate, modafinil, levodopa, amantadine, or bromocriptine. Patients who received neurostimulant medications did not have any more significant changes in length of stay, motor recovery, cognitive recovery, or discharge destination than patients who did not receive neurostimulant medications. Much research needs to be completed before clinicians know precisely whether and how rehabilitation therapies and medications interact to assist in functional recovery.

Hospice has become a major component of end-of-life care, but little scientific information is available to guide clinicians in knowing when the use of hospice is appropriate, in knowing how to measure the impact of its care, and in knowing which hospice interventions lead to the best outcomes. The National Hospice Outcomes Project (NHOP) arose from the need to identify patient factors and hospice interventions that are associated with better end-of-life outcomes. Clinical Practice Improvement (CPI) methodology allowed us to generate a large comprehensive database that could identify scientifically hospice interventions associated with better outcomes for specific patient populations. The complex interplay of patients, medical and complementary treatments, and families can be evaluated. This paper describes an overview of the research methods used for the NHOP, describes the project's 13 clinical sites and study population of 1,306 patients, and presents some basic findings from the study.

Objectives: To adapt the adult Comprehensive Severity Index (CSI) for hospitalized pediatric patients and evaluate the ability of the CSI to predict common outcomes., Study Design: Adult CSI was modified by a panel of pediatric subspecialists from 10 children's hospitals. Predictive power was evaluated by using retrospective data collected from 16,495 randomly selected children admitted to these hospitals from April 1995 through September 1996. Outcomes were mortality, length of stay (LOS), and cost., Results: Admission CSI score predicted mortality well (Hosmer-Lemeshow tests: P =.41-.98) and discriminated well (area under receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve range = 0.80-0.99) within 9 case-mix groups with > or =10 deaths (P <.0001). Maximum CSI score explained the variation in LOS (r2 = 0.13-0.67) and cost (r2 = 0.08-0.73) within 32 case-mix groups (P <.005). Significant differences existed in admission and maximum average CSI scores across sites in 26 and 29 of 32 case-mix groups, respectively (P <.05). CSI had better predictability than Pediatric Risk of Mortality., Conclusions: The age- and disease-specific pediatric CSI score correlates highly with LOS, cost, and mortality in hospitalized children and can help determine the best clinical practices for specific diseases and adjust for differences in severity of illness across providers.