Robert D. Hendricks

Stroke: a family dilemma

Research studying the clinical effectiveness of stroke rehabilitation has focused on managing acute stages and on evaluating short-term treatment programmes. However, many studies suggest that stroke affects long-term quality of life and the well-being of the family. This article reviews the stroke literature relative to aging, disability, and rehabilitation. The social effects of stroke in terms of clinical problems which make rehabilitation a family dilemma are discussed. Issues identified include the need for family assessment, education, advocacy, and counselling to foster treatment compliance and social support.

Identifying factors associated with health care use: A hospital-based risk screening index

The purpose of the current study was to identify variables near hospital admission that could effectively discriminate patients at risk for nursing home placement, long hospital stay, or readmission. Risk factors reported in the literature were used to predict hospital outcome for 532 admissions. Factors that discriminated type of outcome included: two or more chronic medical conditions, living alone or being admitted from a nursing home, dependent ambulation, poor mental status, psychiatric comorbidity, prior admission, age over 75, and being unmarried. Using these criteria, an index was developed to determine risk for placement, readmission, or lengthy stay. Use of cumulative risk scores can result in accurate prediction of outcome and may be useful in targeting patients for intervention. Performance characteristics of the risk index are discussed.

Effects of prospective payment financing on rehabilitation outcome.

A suspected benefit of paying hospitals per diagnostic related groups (DRGs), i.e. the prospective payment system (PPS), is that lengths of stay (LOS) and costs may be reduced. A potential adverse effect is that providers may discharge patients to reduce costs regardless of clinical consequence. The Veterans Administration (VA) is one of the first agencies to adopt PPS for rehabilitation. This study analyzed the effects of PPS on LOS, readmission rate, nursing home placement (NHP), and referral for Home Health Care (HHC) on a 22 bed rehabilitation unit. One hundred and eighty-seven patients discharged in 1987, prior to the program, were compared (using t-tests) with 215 discharges in 1988, after PPS was established. There were no significant differences in demographics, self-care ability, or in readmissions. Referrals for HHC decreased significantly. LOS decreased from 29.3 days (SD = 16.4) in 1987 to 26.4 days (SD = 14.1) in 1988 (t = 5.3, p less than 0.01). However, 24 more patients were discharged to nursing homes in 1988 (N = 54, 25%) than in 1987 (N = 30, 16%), which represents an increase of 64% (p less than 0.05). Findings suggest that PPS may defer home care in favor of placement. Clinicians need to assess whether reducing inpatient LOS justifies increased use of nursing homes. Further research on the effects of PPS is needed to determine: (a) impact on clinical aspects of rehabilitation; and (b) if other funding mechanisms are more appropriate.

Comparison of subacute rehabilitative care with outpatient primary medical care

Purpose: Prior rehabilitation outcome studies have had many weaknesses, but they gradually observe a lack of long-term benefits from inpatient care alone. The goal of this study was to measure the additive effect of outpatient, subacute rehabilitation (compared with usual outpatient primary medical care) for adults diagnosed with a disabling disorder in four major diagnostic groups (nervous, circulatory, musculoskeletal and injury). Method: A randomized clinical trial was conducted to determine the effects of outpatient, subacute rehabilitative care on: (1) physical function; (2) health; (3) well being; (4) family function; and (5) social support. Patients hospitalized for the first time with a disabling condition (n 180) were provided inpatient rehabilitation and then were randomly assigned to either outpatient, subacute rehabilitation at home (n 90) or to usual outpatient follow-up (n 90) in which only primary care medical services were provided. To compare the two groups, univariate analyses of covariance were conducted for the outcome variables. Results: The major finding of this study was that of no significant effect of the intervention on any outcome variable. Conclusions: Based on current study results, we conclude that any long term additive benefit of outpatient, subacute rehabilitation may not be detectable across disability categories and may require closer evaluation in studies with a more homogeneous population than in the current study. Providing complex follow-up case management services to all clients is apparently not beneficial and might better be provided using selection criteria based on need. Future studies should determine if services are more effective when provided to those with the most unmet rehabilitative needs. Further outpatient, subacute care rehabilitation studies should address the specific needs of the patients and be adapted individually to those needs.PURPOSE Prior rehabilitation outcome studies have had many weaknesses. but they gradually observe a lack of long-term benefits from inpatient care alone. The goal of this study was to measure the additive effect of outpatient, subacute rehabilitation (compared with usual outpatient primary medical care) for adults diagnosed with a disabling disorder in four major diagnostic groups (nervous, circulatory, musculoskeletal and injury). METHOD A randomized clinical trial was conducted to determine the effects of outpatient, subacute rehabilitative care on: (1) physical function; (2) health; (3) well being; (4) family function; and (5) social support. Patients hospitalized for the first time with a disabling condition (n = 180) were provided inpatient rehabilitation and then were randomly assigned to either outpatient, subacute rehabilitation at home (n = 90) or to usual outpatient follow-up (n = 90) in which only primary care medical services were provided. To compare the two groups, univariate analyses of covariance were conducted for the outcome variables. RESULTS The major finding of this study was that of no significant effect of the intervention on any outcome variable. CONCLUSIONS Based on current study results, we conclude that any long term additive benefit of outpatient, subacute rehabilitation may not be detectable across disability categories and may require closer evaluation in studies with a more homogeneous population than in the current study. Providing complex follow-up case management services to all clients is apparently not beneficial and might better be provided using selection criteria based on need. Future studies should determine if services are more effective when provided to those with the most unmet rehabilitative needs. Further outpatient, subacute care rehabilitation studies should address the specific needs of the patients and be adapted individually to those needs.

Meta-Analysis with Longitudinal Studies: Controlling for Analytical Bias

A recent study published in an international medical Journal presented an opportunity to demonstrate the difficulties of interpreting meta-analysis results with longitudinal data. We conducted a new meta-analysis using identical data from the published study and showed contradictory results.

Effect of Mental Disorders on Hospital Readmission for Medical/Surgical Patients:

To estimate the relationship between mental health problems and use of medical resources, this study compared readmission rates of medical/surgical patients who had a comorbid psychiatric disorder with those who did not. Patients with mental disorders were no more likely to be readmitted for medical problems after their index hospitalization than patients without psychiatric comorbidity. Results may assist in determining whether to include psychiatric variables as risk factors that might predict poor outcome after medical care.