Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/23034
Title: Co-located or Freestanding in Multi-Trauma Orthopaedic Rehabilitation.
Austin Authors: Farr, Babak ;Olver, John;Fedele, Bianca;McKenzie, Dean
Affiliation: Pain Service, Western Health, Melbourne, Australia
Epworth Monash Rehabilitation Medicine Unit (EMReM), Melbourne, Australia
School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Pain Service, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Epworth HealthCare, Melbourne, Australia
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Issue Date: 18-Apr-2020
metadata.dc.date: 2020-04-18
Publication information: PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation 2020; online first: 18 April
Abstract: Multi-trauma rehabilitation is delivered in a variety of hospital settings. However, it is unclear whether the proximity of rehabilitation to acute services has an effect on rehabilitation outcomes. To evaluate whether the primary outcomes of an inpatient multi-trauma rehabilitation program (functional outcome and length of rehabilitation stay) are impacted when rehabilitation is delivered in a unit co-located in an acute hospital compared with in a unit located in a freestanding hospital. To also compare these outcomes at a national level using data provided by the Australasian Rehabilitation Outcomes Centre (AROC). Observational, retrospective audit study. An inpatient, orthopaedic, multi-trauma rehabilitation unit which re-located from an acute co-located facility to a freestanding facility. Patients following multi-trauma injury, admitted to the co-located rehabilitation unit (n = 216) or after its relocation, to the freestanding rehabilitation unit (n = 186). Data were audited from the patient's hospital medical record including: demographics, injury characteristics and rehabilitation outcome measures (Functional Independence Measure [FIM] and length of rehabilitation stay). The primary outcome variables were motor FIM change (change in function between admission and discharge), FIM efficiency (functional gain per inpatient day) and length of rehabilitation stay. There were no statistically significant differences between the two settings in terms of motor FIM change (adjusted for admission motor FIM score) and motor FIM efficiency. In general, length of rehabilitation stay was not statistically significantly different between settings (median: 26 vs 27 d). At a national level, the majority of facilities offering inpatient multi-trauma rehabilitation are co-located. Nationally, freestanding units resulted in slightly greater motor FIM change (difference between median changes adjusted for baseline = -1.5, 95% CI = -2.5, -0.6, P = .0012). In terms of rehabilitation outcomes, there appeared to be no major benefits for a multi-trauma rehabilitation program delivered in either setting. Optimising the individual components of a rehabilitation program and improving staff skill sets should be a focus going forward. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
URI: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/23034
DOI: 10.1002/pmrj.12383
ORCID: 0000-0003-4302-2480
PubMed URL: 32306518
Type: Journal Article
Subjects: Activities of Daily Living
Health Care Delivery
Inpatient Rehabilitation
Multidisciplinary/Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation
Outcomes Research
Trauma Rehabilitation
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

2
checked on Nov 30, 2020

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.