Complex Specialized Rehabilitation Following Severe Brain Injury

Local and global challenges in pediatric traumatic brain injury outcome and rehabilitation assessment

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major public health problem associated with high morbidity and mortality rates in children in both high- and low- and middle-income countries. Predicting outcome after pediatric TBI is challenging given the wide range of injury and non-injury-related factors which may have an impact. Some of these factors are relevant globally (like heterogeneity in patient and injury-related factors and research methodology) and others are more specific to local contexts (like sociodemographic and cultural factors). The assessment of rehabilitation outcomes post-TBI are similarly challenging given the various methodological limitations, disparities in access to rehabilitation, and limited awareness of deficits, which are encountered globally, as well as the lack of services in the local settings. In this article, we discuss these global and local challenges to outcome and rehabilitation assessment following pediatric TBI.

Organization of rehabilitation services

In the past 20 years there have been many changes in the way that neurological rehabilitation is delivered worldwide. This is in part a reflection of improved acute medical therapies and intensive care and also related to the development of a more holistic approach to recovery, embracing the principles of the WHO International Classification of Functioning as a model for rehabilitation. Traditionally, rehabilitation services have tended to develop piecemeal according to local resources and need. By definition such services should be driven by a patient-centered approach and thus there is wide variety in service provision nationally and internationally. This chapter describes the background to current service set-ups and provision, exploring models of rehabilitation delivery and common presentations in neurological rehabilitation. Relevant legislation and guidance documents are reviewed. The text provides an overview of different aspects of rehabilitation services including acute and inpatient provision, outpatient services, community-based rehabilitation, residential facilities, and vocational services.

Engaging the hearts and minds of clinicians in outcome measurement - the UK Rehabilitation Outcomes Collaborative approach

PURPOSE

This article explores the rationale for choosing the instruments included within the UK Rehabilitation Outcomes Collaborative (UKROC) data set. Using one specialist neuro-rehabilitation unit as an exemplar service, it describes an approach to engaging the hearts and minds of clinicians in recording the data.

KEY MESSAGES AND IMPLICATIONS

Measures included within a national data set for rehabilitation should be psychometrically robust and feasible to use in routine clinical practice; they should also support clinical decision-making so that clinicians actually want to use them. Learning from other international casemix models and benchmarking data sets, the UKROC team has developed a cluster of measures to inform the development of effective and cost-efficient rehabilitation services. These include measures of (1) "needs" for rehabilitation (complexity), (2) inputs provided to meet those needs (nursing and therapy intervention), and (3) outcome, including the attainment of personal goals as well as gains in functional independence.

CONCLUSIONS

By integrating the use of the data set measures in everyday clinical practice, we have achieved a very high rate of compliance with data collection. However, staff training and ongoing commitment from senior staff and managers are critical to the maintenance of effort required to provide assurance of data quality in the longer term.

International casemix and funding models: lessons for rehabilitation

This series of articles for rehabilitation in practice aims to cover a knowledge element of the rehabilitation medicine curriculum. Nevertheless they are intended to be of interest to a multidisciplinary audience. The competency addressed in this article is ‘An understanding of the different international models for funding of health care services and casemix systems, as exemplified by those in the US, Australia and the UK.’

Background: Payment for treatment in healthcare systems around the world is increasingly based on fixed tariff models to drive up efficiency and contain costs. Casemix classifications, however, must account adequately for the resource implications of varying case complexity. Rehabilitation poses some particular challenges for casemix development.

Objective: The objectives of this educational narrative review are (a) to provide an overview of the development of casemix in rehabilitation, (b) to describe key characteristics of some well-established casemix and payment models in operation around the world and (c) to explore opportunities for future development arising from the lessons learned.

Results: Diagnosis alone does not adequately describe cost variation in rehabilitation. Functional dependency is considered a better cost indicator, and casemix classifications for inpatient rehabilitation in the United States and Australia rely on the Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Fixed episode-based prospective payment systems are shown to contain costs, but at the expense of poorer functional outcomes. More sophisticated models incorporating a mixture of episode and weighted per diem rates may offer greater flexibility to optimize outcome, while still providing incentive for throughput.

Conclusion: The development of casemix in rehabilitation poses similar challenges for healthcare systems all around the world. Well-established casemix systems in the United States and Australia have afforded valuable lessons for other countries to learn from, but have not provided all the answers. A range of casemix and payment models is required to cater for different healthcare cultures, and casemix tools must capture all the key cost-determinants of treatment for patients with complex needs.

A comprehensive model of care for rehabilitation of children with acquired brain injuries

BACKGROUND

Acquired brain injury (ABI) is a leading cause of death and lifelong acquired disability in children and remains a significant public health issue. Deficits may only become fully apparent when developmental demands increase and once cognitive processes are expected to be fully developed. It is therefore necessary to provide organized long-term follow-up for children post ABI. Despite these recommendations, it has been shown that only a small proportion of children received specialized rehabilitation and adequate follow-up after ABI.

AIMS

The aims are: (i) to describe a comprehensive model of care devoted to children with acquired brain injuries; and (ii) to provide descriptive data analysing the characteristics of children followed up, the type/amount of services provided and general outcomes.

PROGRAMME DESCRIPTION

The programme features an in- and outpatient rehabilitation facility, where multidisciplinary rehabilitation and specialized schooling are provided. The ultimate goal of the programme is to promote each child's successful reintegration in school and in the community. Adequate preparation of discharge is essential, long-term follow-up is organized, and an outreach programme has been developed to deal with the complex delayed psychosocial issues.

RESULTS

Overall outcome, as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale, improved dramatically between admission (3.3; SD = 0.45) and discharge (2.15; SD = 0.74). Most of the children were discharged home with an adequate personalized plan for ongoing rehabilitation and school adaptations. Analysis of the outreach programme underlines the more challenging issues arising in late adolescence-early adulthood.

CONCLUSION

Given the specificities of childhood ABI, long-term specific care must be organized and co-ordinated, regardless of injury severity.

Beyond the evidence-based practice paradigm to achieve best practice in rehabilitation medicine: a clinical review

OBJECTIVE

Best practice is a practice that, on rigorous evaluation, demonstrates success, has had an impact, and can be replicated. It is differentiated from its constituent parts, evidence-based practice and knowledge translation, by its general meaning and global purview. The purpose of this clinical review is to provide transparency to the concept and achievement of best practice in the context of rehabilitation medicine. The authors will review and analyze the roles of evidence-based practice and knowledge translation in rehabilitation medicine as they work to support best practice. Challenge areas will be discussed, including an evidential hierarchy in need of update, a lack of "high-level" research evidence, and delays in translating evidence to practice. Last, the authors will argue that rehabilitation medicine is well-positioned to effect change by promoting inclusion of emerging research methodologies and analytic techniques that better capture context-specific rehabilitation evidence, into the evidential hierarchy. Achieving best practice is dependent on this, as well as alignment of all key stakeholders, ranging from the patient, researchers and clinicians, to policymakers, payers, and others.