Minimum data and core outcomes for subacute rehabilitation: A scoping review

Reporting of Rehabilitation Outcomes in the Traumatic Lower Limb Amputation Literature: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the outcomes reported in the rehabilitation and community literature for adults with traumatic lower limb amputation (LLA).

DATA SOURCES

The search strategy was conducted in 3 databases (Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL) from inception to April 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

To be eligible, articles could be of any design but were required to have at least 50% adult individuals with traumatic LLA and had to report on interventions and outcomes in either a rehabilitation or community setting.

DATA EXTRACTION

The extracted outcomes were classified using Dodd's framework, which is designed for organizing research outcomes. Heterogeneity was observed in the outcome measures (OMs) used for evaluation. Two reviewers independently conducted the data extraction, which was verified by a third reviewer.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of the 7,834 articles screened, 47 articles reporting data on 692 individuals with traumatic LLA, met our inclusion criteria. Four core areas encompassing 355 OMs/indicators were identified: life effect (63.4%), physiological/clinical (30.1%), resource use (5.1%), and adverse events (1.4%). Physical functioning (eg, gait, mobility) was the most frequently reported outcome domain across studies, followed by nervous system outcomes (eg, pain) and psychiatric outcomes (eg, depression, anxiety). Domains such as global quality of life and role/emotional functioning were seldomly reported.

CONCLUSION

The study provides a list of outcome indicators explicitly published for adults with traumatic LLA, highlighting inconsistent reporting of outcome indicators. The lack of a standardized set of OMs is a barrier to performing meta-analyses on interventions, preventing the identification of effective care models and clinical pathways. Developing a core outcome set that includes OMs relevant to the needs of the traumatic LLA population may address these issues.

Assessment of activities and participation of people by rehabilitation-focused clinical registries: a systematic scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Rehabilitation is considered a key intervention in health care. Clinical registries, defined as an organized system that uses observational methods to collect information to assess specific outcomes in a defined population, can contribute to assessing the impact of the rehabilitation intervention. This review aims to identify and describe rehabilitation-specific registry systems with an emphasis on identifying outcomes that enable the assessment of vital areas and activities of daily living.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic scoping review was conducted. A systematic search was conducted up to August 2022 in MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and other search resources. Studies related to rehabilitation registries presented data on people with health problems that could limit their functioning were selected. The inclusion of studies/clinical registries was not limited by methodological design, year of publication, country, or language. The unit of analysis was rehabilitation registries. The measurement instruments used to assess the outcomes were explored to estimate the domain assessed from the vital areas related to functioning and disability as described by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The vital areas were classified according to activities of daily living (ADLs).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventy-one registries in rehabilitation were identified. The registries included a median of 3 (IQR 2-5) assessment instruments designed to assess the impact of different rehabilitation programs. In total, 137 different assessment scales or instruments were identified. Each rehabilitation registry assessed 6 (IQR 2-8) domains of the ICF, and 15.4% of registries assessed all domains. The most assessed domain was "Mobility" (89.7%), and the least assessed was "General Tasks and Demands" (25.6%). In addition, 92.3% of rehabilitation registries assessed basic ADLs, 76.9% advanced ADLs, and 71.8% instrumental ADLs.

CONCLUSIONS

Although clinical registries do not claim to directly assess the impact of rehabilitation programs on people's functioning according to the ICF framework, it was identified that a low percentage of them assessed the nine vital areas through different outcome assessment instruments. However, most rehabilitation registries directly or indirectly assess some basic, instrumental, and advanced ADLs. The findings of this review highlight the need to improve the design of clinical registries focused on assessing the impact of rehabilitation programs to assess people in all areas of their lives.

The Measure of an Outcome: Comparing Norming and Stacking to Benchmark the Effectiveness of Brain Injury Rehabilitation Services

Practitioners have a clinical, ethical, academic, and economic responsibility to dispassionately consider how effective their services are. Approaches to measure how "good" or "bad" healthcare is include clinical audit, satisfaction surveys, and routine outcome measurement. However, the process of comparing the clinical outcomes of a specific service against the 'best' services in the same specialism, also known as benchmarking, remains challenging, and it is unclear how it affects quality improvement. This paper piloted and compared two different approaches to benchmarking to assess clinical outcomes in neurorehabilitation. Norming involved comparing routine measures of clinical outcome with external validators. Stacking involved pooling and comparing internal data across several years. The analyses of routine clinical outcome data from 167 patients revealed significant differences in the patient characteristics of those admitted to the same service provider over time, but no differences in outcomes achieved when comparing with historical data or with external reference data. These findings illustrate the potential advantages and limitations of using stacking and norming to benchmark clinical outcomes, and how the results from each approach might be used to evaluate service effectiveness and inform quality improvement within the field of brain injury rehabilitation.

What is 'successful rehabilitation'? A multi-stakeholder nominal group technique study to inform rehabilitation outcome measurement

OBJECTIVE

To explore how stakeholders in rehabilitation conceptualise 'successful rehabilitation', to inform the development of a minimum dataset and core outcomes for sub-acute rehabilitation.

DESIGN

Qualitative consensus study using the nominal group technique.

SETTING

Online focus groups.

PARTICIPANTS

Consumer representatives (n = 7), clinicians (n = 15), and health service managers (n = 9) from Australia.

INTERVENTION

Participants responded to the question, 'What does successful rehabilitation look like?'. Following item generation, they prioritised their top five responses, allocating 100 points across items to denote relative importance.

MAIN MEASURES

Prioritised responses were analysed across stakeholder groups using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Ten themes were identified. 'Successful rehabilitation' is: (1) person and family centred; (2) effective; (3) inter-professional; (4) accessible; (5) goal oriented with meaningful outcomes; (6) connected to the continuum of care; (7) evidence-based and supportive of innovation and research; (8) appropriately funded and skilled; (9) satisfying and engaging; and (10) safe.

CONCLUSIONS

Stakeholder-defined 'successful rehabilitation' aligned with principles of value-based care and evidence-based rehabilitation. Provision and receipt of person and family centred care was the most important indicator of successful rehabilitation. Measures of success should include indicators of structure, process, outcome, and experience, and be conducted at multiple time-points.

Development of a minimum dataset for subacute rehabilitation: a three-round e-Delphi consensus study

OBJECTIVES

To develop a minimum dataset to be routinely collected across a heterogenous population within a subacute rehabilitation service to guide best care and outcomes for patients, and value for the health service.

DESIGN

Three-round e-Delphi exercise, followed by consensus meetings.

SETTING

Multicentre study in Brisbane, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Rehabilitation decision-makers, researchers and clinicians were invited to participate in the e-Delphi exercise. A multidisciplinary project steering committee (rehabilitation decision makers, researchers, clinicians and consumers) participated in consensus meetings.

METHODS

In round 1 of the e-Delphi, participants responded to an open-ended question, generating data and outcomes that should be routinely collected in rehabilitation. In rounds 2 and 3, participants rated the importance of collecting each item on a nine-point scale. Consensus was defined a priori, as items rated as 'essential' by at least 70%, and of 'limited importance' by less than 15%, of respondents. Consensus meetings were held to further refine and define the dataset for implementation.

RESULTS

In total, 38 participants completed round 1 of the e-Delphi. Qualitative content analysis of their responses generated 1072 codes, which were condensed into 39 categories and 209 subcategories. Following two rounds of rating (round 2: n=32 participants; round 3: n=28 participants), consensus was reached for 124 items. Four consensus meetings (n=14 participants) resulted in the final dataset which included 42 items across six domains: (1) patient demographics, (2) premorbid health and psychosocial information, (3) admission information, (4) service delivery and interventions, (5) outcomes and (6) caregiver information and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 42 items that reflect the values and experiences of rehabilitation stakeholders. Items unique to this dataset include caregiver information and outcomes, and detailed service delivery and intervention data. Future research will establish the feasibility of collection in practice.