Search

Social determinants are nonmedical factors frequently used to study disparities in health outcomes but have not been widely explored in regard to rehabilitation service utilization. In our National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development-funded study, Access to and Effectiveness of Community-Based Rehabilitation After Stroke, we reviewed several conceptual models and frameworks for the study of social determinants to inform our work. The overall objective of this special communication is to describe our approach to identifying, selecting, and using area-level measures of social determinants to explore the relationship between social determinants and rehabilitation use. We present our methods for developing a conceptual model and a methodologic framework for the selection of social determinant measures relevant to rehabilitation use, as well as an overview of publicly available data on social determinants. We then discuss the methodologic challenges encountered and future directions for this work.

Objective: To evaluate the relationships between baseline nutritional status, medical events (MEs), and rehabilitation outcomes in individuals undergoing inpatient rehabilitation (IR). Design: A retrospective single center cohort study. Setting: An IR ward. Participants: This study included 409 patients (mean age, 80 years; men, 170 [42%]) undergoing IR for hospital-associated deconditioning, neurologic disorders, or musculoskeletal diseases. Participants were grouped according to the Controlling Nutritional Status score at admission: normal nutrition (NN): 0 to 1, mild malnutrition (MM): 2 to 4, and moderate/severe malnutrition (M/SM): 5 to 12. Interventions: None. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes included MEs leading to death or acute illness requiring transfer to other hospitals for specialized treatments. The secondary outcomes were the rehabilitation efficiency scores (changes in Functional Independence Measure [FIM] score divided by length of stay) for motor function (FIM-M) and cognitive function (FIM-C). Results: Among the 409 participants, 300 (73%) were malnourished at admission. The adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for MEs in the MM and M/SM groups relative to the NN group were 1.48 (0.67-3.27) and 0.98 (0.34-2.81), respectively. No significant differences were observed among the 3 groups in FIM-M efficiency scores (mean ± SD, NN: 0.49±0.51 vs MM: 0.41±0.57 vs M/SM: 0.44±1.06, P=.7) or FIM-C efficiency scores (0.04±0.06 vs 0.04±0.06 vs 0.08±0.4, P=0.1). Analysis of covariance showed no significant association between MM or M/SM group and FIM-M efficiency score (beta coefficient = -0.038, P=.6; beta coefficient = 0.15, P=.1, respectively) or FIM-C efficiency score (beta coefficient = 0.004, P=.8; beta coefficient = 0.047, P=.08, respectively). Conclusion: No significant associations were observed between the baseline nutritional status and MEs, FIM-M efficiency score, or FIM-C efficiency score in individuals undergoing IR.

Objective: To determine the safety, feasibility, and physiologic impact of a preoperative respiratory strength training (RST) program in individuals undergoing elective cardiac surgery (CS). Methods: Twenty-five adults undergoing an elective CS at an academic hospital setting enrolled and completed RST 5 days/week (50 repetitions, 50% training load, ≥3 weeks) at home via telehealth in this open-label prospective cohort study. RST adherence, telehealth attendance, and adverse events were tracked. Pre- and post-RST outcomes of maximum expiratory pressure (MEP), maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP), voluntary cough spirometry, and patient-reported dyspnea were collected. Descriptive analyses and Wilcoxon signed rank-tests were performed. Results: Two participants (9%) did not complete the prescribed RST program. No significant RST-related adverse events occurred. Treatment adherence for all enrolled participants was 90%, and telehealth attendance was 99%. Of the CS patients who completed the prescribed program (n = 23; 91%), treatment adherence and telehealth attendance were excellent (98% and 100%, respectively). Significant increases in primary outcomes were observed: MEP mean change, +15.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], +3.4 to +27.3, P .05). Conclusions: These preliminary data demonstrate that a preoperative RST program is safe and feasible and can improve short-term respiratory physiologic capacity (MEP and MIP) in CS patients. Future research is warranted to validate the current findings in a larger cohort of CS patients and to determine whether RST improves postoperative extubation outcomes, airway clearance capacity, and aspiration following cardiac surgery.

Background:. The International Consortium of Health Outcome Measurements (ICHOM) standard set for cleft care appraisal recommends clinicians assess articulation with percentage consonants correct (PCC) and velopharyngeal function with velopharyngeal competency rating (VPC-R). This study explores the utility and limitations of these generic measures in detecting cleft speech sound disorders by comparing them with two cleft-specific speech-rating systems, cleft audit protocol of speech–augmented Americleft modification (CAPS-A-AM) and Pittsburgh weighted speech scale (PWSS). Methods:. Consecutive children with repaired, nonsyndromic cleft lip/palate, aged 5 years or older (n = 27) underwent prospective speech evaluations conducted at a single academic institution. These evaluations were conducted, recorded, and evaluated by blinded speech-language pathologists experienced with all tools. Results:. When comparing measures of articulation, PCC scores correlated better with scores for relevant subcomponents of CAPS-A-AM than PWSS. When comparing measures of velopharyngeal function, VPC-R scores correlated well with relevant components of both scales. Using a “screening test versus diagnostic test” analogy, VPC-R ratings were 87.5% sensitive and 73.7% specific for detecting velopharyngeal dysfunction according to subcomponents of CAPS-A-AM, and 70.6% sensitive and 100% specific according to subcomponents of PWSS. Conclusions:. This exploratory study demonstrates that PCC and VPC-R perform moderately well in detecting articulatory and velopharyngeal dysfunction in patients with cleft lip/palate; however, these tools cannot describe nuances of cleft speech sound disorder. Thus, although PCC and VPC-R adequately track basic minimum outcomes, we encourage teams to consider extending the standard set by adopting a cleft-specific measurement system for further evaluation of the tools.

ABSTRACT: Background: ''Food deserts'' are areas with limited access to affordable and healthy foods, disproportionately affecting low-income and ethnic-minority communities in the United States. Analogous disparities exist in other disciplines. Our interprofessional team observed ''therapy deserts” in orthopaedic and rehabilitation settings, wherein pediatric patients (particularly those with Medicaid-type insurance) appeared to lack equal access to physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy (OT), and speech-language pathology (SLP) services. Inadequate access to therapy services places patients at risk for worse outcomes. Methods: We conducted a quality improvement project to assess pediatric patients’ access to therapy care in our region. We surveyed all local PT, OT, and SLP clinics identified from a comprehensive listserv maintained by pediatric therapy teams in our institution. Using a scripted questionnaire, we contacted 113 PT, 38 OT, and 82 SLP clinics external to our institution, collecting data on accepted conditions, appointment waitlist periods, and accepted insurance types. Our primary objective was to determine the percentage of clinics that accepted patients with Medicaid-type insurance. We supplemented our survey with an examination of the Area Deprivation Index for each clinic location. Results: 59 PT clinics (52%), 15 OT clinics (39%), and 36 SLP clinics (44%) completed the survey. Clinics often had limited capacity to care for medically complex conditions. Waitlist times varied, with a median wait of 1 week for PT services, 1 month for OT services, and immediate availability for SLP services. Only 14% of responding PT clinics, 53% of OT clinics, and 22% of SLP clinics accepted patients with Medicaid-type insurance. Insufficient reimbursement rates were frequently cited as the reason for not accepting Medicaid-type insurance. Waitlist times were longer for PT and SLP clinics that accepted Medicaid-type insurance compared to those that did not. Moreover, clinics that accepted Medicaid-type insurance were, on average, in more disadvantaged locations. Conclusions: Our findings suggest the existence of “therapy deserts,” where limited access to therapy services is influenced by insurance type and patient complexity. These restrictions likely exacerbate existing health disparities and illustrate a systemic problem rooted in complex social drivers of health. Addressing ''therapy deserts'' requires collaborative efforts from multidisciplinary teams. Key Concepts: (1) ''Food deserts'' are areas with limited access to affordable and healthy foods that disproportionately affect low-income and ethnic-minority communities in the United States. (2) We propose that such “deserts” exist in other disciplines, including orthopaedics, wherein our interprofessional team of health care providers universally observed unequal access to therapy services—including physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy (OT), and speech-language pathology (SLP)—among pediatric patients. (3) Within our geographical region, we found only 1 in 10 PT clinics, 1 in 4 SLP clinics, and 1 in 2 OT clinics accepted pediatric patients with Medicaid-type insurance. Clinics that accepted Medicaid-type insurance were, on average, in more disadvantaged locations than those that did not. (4) The existence of “therapy deserts” likely further exacerbates existing health disparities, and requires immediate attention from orthopaedic surgeons, allied health care providers, policymakers, researchers, and the public. (5) Successfully addressing “therapy deserts” requires a multifaceted approach and may include: expanding insurance coverage for therapy services; offering financial incentives (eg, tax incentives/exemptions) to clinics providing these services; developing partnerships between non-profit and for-profit organizations; implementing innovative methods of delivering therapy services (eg, virtual appointments); upskilling local providers; and involving communities in the development of interventions. Level of Evidence: Level III

Objective:. The main aim of this study was to identify the multidimensional support needs of familiar caregivers and to identify the lessons they had learned throughout the caregiving process. Background:. Persons who are minimally responsive require continuous medical care—either at home or at a care facility. The home context is often preferred as it facilitates the care process in a familiar environment and reduces adverse health outcomes, such as mortality. Home care of the person who is minimally responsive is often managed by familiar caregivers who support these individuals in all aspects of daily living. This caregiving experience may be burdensome for the familiar caregiver as increased physical, psychological, emotional, social, and financial requirements, and responsibilities could cause multidimensional stressors. Methods:. A qualitative descriptive design using 7 semistructured in-depth interviews was used with 7 familiar caregivers of persons who were/are minimally responsive. These participants were obtained from a private care facility and thematic analysis was used to analyze the in-depth interviews. Results:. The ecological systems theory was used to identify and link 11 themes with subthemes to the support needs reported by the caregivers. In addition, the results included the lessons learned by these caregivers from their caregiving journey. Conclusions:. From the findings of this study, it is clear that caregivers mostly experience challenges within the microsystem and mesosystem with limited challenges in other systems. These systems are, however, integrated and can impact the individual caregiver substantially. Health care practitioners, in particular, should be aware of caregivers’ support needs and give them adequate support at home.